CLC Blog

CLC Blog

Gestational limits do not restrict abortions

The Ipsos Reid/Postmedia poll finds that most respondents favour maintaining some form of abortion license but dig a little further and it’s clear that there is a lack of understanding about the legal reality in Canada.

While almost half say women seeking an abortion should not face any restriction whatsoever, 45 per cent say it should be permitted in only “certain circumstances” and another six per cent favour an outright ban. When asked if they would like to see gestational limits, six in ten respondents would support a ban on third-trimester abortions.

It needs to be understood that Canada is the only country in the world without any law on abortion. For some to suggest that they would only like to see babies in the womb protected in the third-trimester is to suggest that we should establish a pro-abortion law in the absence of any law which would allow the killing of unborn babies from the time of conception until 26 weeks.

Pro-life groups in countries that take a time limit approach note from experience that it is very difficult to uphold the law because unscrupulous doctors and abortion-minded women can fudge the conception date and how far the pregnancy has proceeded.

Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker said, “Canadians are generally supportive of a woman’s right to choose, but they don’t want the choice to be taken frivolously.”  We are talking about a life and death decision for the second person in the equation, the child in the womb. We have killed 4 million babies in their mothers’ wombs since 1969. Frivolous?  Definitely.

There are many victims in every abortion; the baby, the mother, the father and the medical professionals who compromise their profession to kill a healthy baby. Many women have approached the Silent No More Awareness Campaign to tell them if they had more information about the abortion procedure, the possible ramifications, and  the facts about their developing babies (modern sonograms demonstrate that the child in the womb is not merely a blob of cells), they would not have gone through with their abortion.

Informed consent regulations that require women be presented with information about fetal development and the possible side-effects of abortion will guarantee that women know what they are getting into. Combined with a 24-hour or 48-hour waiting period to consider the information, informed consent will reduce abortions and protect women from decisions they might later regret.

Polls sponsored by LifeCanada have repeatedly shown widespread support for informed consent laws. They also demonstrate broad backing for parental notification laws so that minor children cannot have an abortion without their parents’ knowledge (this is different from parental consent laws that require parents to sign off on the abortion).

Another aspect to consider is that the taxpayer must foot the bill for a non-medically necessary procedure which kills a human being at the request of another. According to a 2011 Abacus Data poll Campaign Life Coalition co-sponsored, most Ontarians do not want abortions to be funded by taxpayer dollars. As a matter of fact, 61 per cent oppose government funding, including many of those who support access to abortion. Because abortion is so often a personal decision not based on medical considerations, it need not be covered by the public health care system. Indeed, in these times of austerity, taxpayers resent paying for the lifestyle choices of individuals.

In 2001, Marilyn Wilson, then head of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, told the parliamentary Finance Committee that women who have abortions “do so for socio-economic reasons” such as completing “their education” or becoming “financially independent” and in other cases “couples with children wish to restrict their family size.” American research, including by the Planned Parenthood-connected Guttmacher Institute, verifies that most abortions are done to avoid other inconveniences and maintain previous lifestyles.  There is simply no medical reason to fund these abortions.

The pro-life movement wants to protect all human life from the time of conception to natural death. A gestational limit would give the illusion of providing some protection to a tiny number of children in the womb and send the wrong signal to the general public that abortion is restricted in any meaningful sense.

By: Bruce Burgess
July 18, 2012 @ 10:08am
I fully agree that we in the pro-life movement should accept nothing less than the total abolition of abortion. Unfortunately, those who make the laws do not see it that way.
Until, there is a consensus in favor of abolition, would it not make sense to support legislation that could at least reduce the number of abortions? I do agree that some will lie about the conception date. However, if a ban on late term abortions could save only one baby from the horrible death by partial birth abortion or saline inject, I believe it would be worthwhile.
I cannot agree that this type of legislation would legitimize early abortions, since our governments have already done this by treating all abortions as a medical procedure. If anything, I believe it would give us a foot in the door, that could put us much closer to our goal.
History has shown that many successful abolition movements, such as slavery and capital punishment, were not accomplished all at once, but in stages. This is why the pro-abortionists fight tooth and nail against even the most modest pro-life measure. They see a slippery slope that could lead to the ultimate loss of their precious right to choose.
I have noticed a lot of heated debate on questions of strategy, some of it quite nasty. I would urge all pro-lifers to make their arguments, but do so respectively. After all, we all share the common goal of eradicating abortion.
By: WON (Women Opposing N.O.W.) Laura Tellier
July 19, 2012 @ 1:32pm
Top leaders; such as, the late Fr. Norman Weslin, Joan Andrews Bell and many others who have been imprisoned for long lengths of time, have all agreed that one cannot in good conscience compromise tactics regarding abortion regulations. Simply put, God will not bless the killing of any child, under any circumstance; consequently, we must do His Will. Heb.10:39 -- "We are not among those who draw back and perish, but are among those who have faith, and live."
By: Kathleen Toth
July 19, 2012 @ 6:24pm
So glad to know CLC is stating (once again) that all babies, not just those covered by a gestational law, must be included in any legislation. To settle for just "some babies" is to lose the battle we have all been involved in for so many years.
Thank you!
By: Mary Ellen Douglas
July 20, 2012 @ 11:44am
Dear Bruce,
Thank you for your comments. Prior to 1969 the child in the womb was protected. Then Pierre Trudeau, the Prime Minister at that time passed his "Omnibus Bill". This "law" we fought for 19 year until the Supreme Court struck down the entire law and left Canada in a state of lawlessness.
Since we have no law, to put one on the books now which would only protect the child from the third trimester or 20 weeks onward, in effect, establishes a pro-abortion law for all babies from the time of conception until 20 weeks. The majority of abortions take place in the early stages of pregnancy and in countries where the 20-25 week limit is in place, the pro-lifers there assure us that babies are not saved and they have not been able to roll back the law.
Slavery and abortion cannot be directly compared because there is no gestational age involved in slavery. William Wilberforce (1759-1833), the hero who stopped slavery in England fought against the evil practice for most of his life. But Wilberforce attempted almost yearly, to bring private member's Bills before Parliament which aimed to entirely abolish Britain's involvement in the slave trade. However, after 26 years of defeats, he finally achieved his goal on 25th March, 1807. But it wasn't until 1833 when Wilberforce lay dying that the Slavery Abolition Bill was finally passed and slavery ended in England. It would take a civil war and more than another 30 years before it ended in the United States. Justice happens in God's time not in ours.
Since 1978 when Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) was established, over 40 pieces of incremental legislation have been presented in Parliament many of them were drafted by CLC and most of them supported by CLC. Since the beginning of our existence we have been attempting to encourage pro-lifers to join political parties of their choice, nominate candidates and elect pro-life members to Parliament so that whenever proposed pro-life legislation is brought forward we will have a majority of MPs to achieve success. This is hard work and there are no shortcuts. We have done everything possible to present our position respectfully to other pro-lifers and to the world. What we cannot do is abandon the unborn children from the time of their conception until birth.
Like I said, there is no law on abortion in Canada. If a law is proposed it must protect all human life from the time of conception.
By: Bruce Burgess
July 20, 2012 @ 1:03pm
Dear Mary Ellen. Thank you for your response. I strongly agree that we cannot abandon the unborn at any stage. I would never argue for a gestational approach as a final solution. However, I think it is important that we as pro-lifers offer input and raise questions we have on how we can best achieve our common goal.
By: Carol
July 30, 2012 @ 1:29am
were they to suffer the same state ... but that's what happens when people rage against something they have never experienced firsthand.Some people rail against so many issues for the mere sake of their own morality says so - until it happens to them. Now, logic would say that it would be then that they would understand. But, as we all know, people are idiots, and I'm sure that days after the abortion (or whatever else it was they did against their so-called hardline morality) they were right back out there railing against it again.It is indeed interesting just how malleable someone's moral standards can be when it's that person's neck on the line. And it need not be social issues - it happens in business all the time.
By: Lisa
August 12, 2012 @ 6:31pm
I'm currently 26 weeks pregnant(LMP) and am enjoying ever minute of my pregnancy!! However, i feel it is my right to choose whether or not I have this baby.... Even this late in the game... !
No amount of pro-life whining, guilt tripping or bible crap will ever change the fact that the choice remains with me!
It seems to mem that if f pro lifers were serious, they'd be swamping their representatives to provide more support to families! But what you mostly see are those types, opposing tax based social programs !!!
So, what does that leave pregnant women with, If they can't keep their child, for whatever reason, and they can't have an abortion?.. Well, that leaves adoption agencies!! I get that moms can't gain financially from giving up their baby, but why are " not for profit"adoption service businesses allowed, legally to do so?? Go check out the price of babies for "adoption'(read sale) they range from 17k+ legal fees to 35k+ legal fees!!! THESE PEOPLE RUNNING baby selling/adoption businesses are the people pro lifers should be criminalizing!!
By: Campaign Life Coalition
August 13, 2012 @ 8:46am
Dear Lisa, you said that "pro-life whining, guilt-tripping or bible crap" should not get in the way of you being permitted to have an abortionist kill the child in your womb. Agreed! Whining, guilt-tripping and 'crap' are not, in and of themselves, a good reason to prevent you from exercising a "choice". What you should consider a good reason however, is the irrefutable scientific fact that the child in your womb is a human being, and as such has an inalienable right to life. No person has a right to kill another innocent person. The humanity of that 26-week old baby in your womb is the reason you ought to adopt the pro-life position, not any amount of whining or guilt-tripping. When we encounter truth, we must embrace it, no matter how uncomfortable that is.