Three anti-abortion Bills before the House

Conferring human rights on the foetus is an issue for public debate.

[ Letters to the Editor page ] [ Send a Letter to the Editor ]

Dateline: Tuesday, June 17, 2008

From: Rachel Gouin

Between 2003 and 2005, seven anti-choice private member bills were introduced by Conservative MPs. On June 2, 2008, the Bureau du Collège des Médecins du Québec released an open letter to federal party leaders and media, expressing concern with respect to three independent member Bills being studied in parliament that would modify the criminal code and change the legal definition of a human being.

Bill C-338 — Act to amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after twenty weeks of gestation), would criminalize abortion after 20 weeks. It defines abortion as "the death of a child before it has completely proceeded from the body of its mother."

On June 2, 2008, the Bureau du Collège des Médecins du Québec released an open letter to federal party leaders and media, expressing concern about three independent member Bills before the House.

Bill C-537 — Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession), defines human life as "the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation."

Bill C-484 — Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence), has garnered much attention because it would also create legal precedence by conferring full human rights to foetuses. While Bill C-484 excludes the "lawful termination of pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented," once a separate legal status is assigned to the foetus, the foundation for criminalising abortion, and any behaviour deemed harmful to the foetus, will be established.

But those promoting the Bill are missing this point, or avoiding it at all cost. Rona Ambrose, a supposedly 'progressive' Conservative MP has stated that the Bill is about crime, not abortion, and that her government is not interested in reopening the abortion debate. Let us at least be honest about what these Bills are attempting to do, or what the consequences of their adoption would be. Conservative MP Ken Epp did admit that his Bill C-484 would make it more difficult for women to defend their right to an abortion. Bill C-484 is about crime — it is about making it a crime to 'harm' a foetus. Bill C-537 is about conscience, the right to deny women their full human rights because of a personal belief that human life begins at the moment of conception (despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled otherwise). Bill C-338 is patently about an all-out attempt to re-inscribe abortion into the criminal code.

No matter what Conservative or Liberal MP s say, a quick investigation into the people putting forward and promoting these 'independent' Bills reveals anti-choice advocates and activists (Ken Epp, Conservative; Leon Benoit, Conservative; Paul Steckle, Liberal; Maurice Vellacott, Conservative; LifeCanada, Campaign Life Coalition, Western Standard Magazine). While the movement for re-criminalizing abortion crosses party lines, the fact that 70 percent of conservatives are anti-choice, means that independent bills are more likely to pass under a Conservative majority.

When women are seen as appendages to others, including the foetus they are carrying, their full humanity is denied. The Canadian Criminal Code clearly defines a human being as someone who has fully emerged, alive from a woman's body — a definition that has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. In ascribing legal status to the foetus, Bills C-484, C-537, and C-338, are in conflict with this definition and as such will undermine women's established rights — including the right to terminate their pregnancies.

This insidious movement towards re-criminalization is happening without debate. The Conservatives are standing by an election promise not to reopen the issue, and the Liberals vow that they will not reopen the issue of a woman's right to decide. Considering that the three Bills will provide legal rights to foetuses, a national debate and discussion are exactly what is needed but is being swept under the carpet. If this issue is to be legislated, and if women's rights are to be undermined by creating a legal separation between them and their foetus, this is indeed an urgent issue for public debate.

These are not matters of 'conscience' but of women's equality and human rights. The rights of a woman, someone with dreams and aspirations for her future, must supersede the rights of the foetus she is carrying. Any other reality is a travesty to a woman's right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and in contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians made this choice in 1988 and it has since been affirmed by the highest court in the land. We will defend it ferociously.