This column–I loved it in many ways but especially this line:
There’s a reason that the activists of the abortion movement are in a museum: Because abortion activists are a thing of the past.
Bam. We have to protest these non-rights that are being portrayed as such.
In Canada, we can’t even have a Parliamentary motion on this topic, but thankfully the UK is making progress where we’re unable to:
The vote of 181 to 1 for the Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill tabled by pro-life Conservative MP Fiona Bruce will now go to second reading in January.
Bruce tabled the bill in an effort to end confusion over the legal status of sex-selective abortion in the UK.
“It is a shame that this clarification is needed. Successive health ministers and even the Prime Minister have been very clear … that abortion for reasons of gender alone is illegal. The Prime Minister has described the practice as appalling but they are being ignored,” Bruce told the Commons.
It remains appallingly controversial in Canada to state in Parliament that killing female pre-born children simply because they are female is wrong.
Canada, we can learn something from the UK about human rights. Wake up and get with the times.
For those of you who pray, please pray for everyone impacted.
So more news and confusion about abortion and the law in Canada:
Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau thinks Prince Edward Islanders should be asking questions to make sure the Canada Health Act is being respected in regards to a recent decision to cut short planning for an abortion clinic on the Island. […]
“I think people are going to be rightly asking questions to make sure the Canada Health Act is being respected, and that Canadians have the opportunity to make choices about their own reproductive health,” said Trudeau.
For the record, the Canada Health Act does NOT require provinces to provide or fund abortions. For details, you can read this short paper on this very topic.
photo credit: RobertCiavarro via photopin cc
Mark Penninga writes about the ongoing legalization of assisted suicide debate in the National Post.
One need not be healthy or strong to be protected equally under the law. As long as you have human DNA, you qualify for protection. Euthanasia and assisted suicide violates this principle of no intentional killing. I was shocked by how little the lawyers and judges in the Supreme Court hearing discussed this. The inviolability of life, which is a foundation for all law, was brushed aside as if it was a pesky house fly that distracted the lawyers and judges for a brief moment.
If we cross the line where the right to life moves from objective to subjective, we undermine the entire foundation of human rights.
In my mind, anyway, we already crossed that line round about the time we legalized abortion. So nowadays, (for many other reasons as well) life is not objective. It is not an objective good to defend, encourage and support. It is purely subjective–because individual people, particularly suffering people, have good reasons very often, to end their own lives. We used to stand up consistently against that, but today we don’t anymore. Could it be that abortion normalized the idea of killing others–precisely because it has been so routinely framed as difficult, but necessary and even compassionate, alongside being paid for by the government?
Over three decades ago in Ottawa, there was a municipal government push toward accessibility for the disabled. Sidewalks were lowered at intersections to accommodate wheelchairs, elevators were mandated in all public buildings as were ramps. This approach to life came with onerous expenses in some cases, but no matter: Compassion is costly. These were all thought to be progressive and humane approaches to living in a community that cared. They were also approaches to community living that came from the left of the political spectrum.
The Ontario Human Rights Code states that every person in Ontario has the right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of a disability. Every province has a similar statement and of course, this protection exists federally.
Oddly enough, this equality may be the very thing that disabled people end up using to ensure they have access to death on their terms.
The left and the right have taken odd turns in recent years. Those advocating for the disabled and the elderly are now seemingly on the right, standing firm against assisted death even when it’s deceptively cloaked in palliative care. Especially when it’s deceptively cloaked in palliative care.
It is worth asking whether progressives are on the right now.
Compassion is still being meted out, but as always, compassion is costly. There is a personal cost to accompanying and accommodating someone who needs assistance. But true compassion affirms the dignity of every person, regardless of cost.
Of course debates about left and right and compassion are fraught with difficulty–everyone is playing the compassion card. But it used to be that the left said “to heck with the cost,” in order to achieve compassion. Maybe some still do.
As Canada considers legalizing assisted suicide, we ought to be ever reminded that killing is not a compassionate measure, no matter what side of the political spectrum presents the option.
The frightening prospect of legalized euthanasia seems to be coming at Canadians like a tidal wave.
It has already happened in Quebec this summer when euthanasia was legalized thanks to the efforts of Ms. Hivon.
“The approach we took was one of health care. We should not leave anybody suffering at any stage, so why would it be okay at the end of life” she is quoted as saying in a Globe and Mail article on October 9th. “Our bill is about people who are ill and who are suffering and who need to have their pain alleviated.”
Unfortunately “alleviating suffering” for Ms. Hivon is synonymous with murder.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard testimonies on why assisted suicide should or should not be a human right.
Government lawyers defending the Criminal Code prohibition of euthanasia were grilled by the Supreme Court Justices. According to one source, Joe Arvay for the Carter side (read pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia) had the court’s ear a bit too much.
In a recent Globe article, Prof. Jocelyn Downie a known, avid pro-euthanasia advocate: “The issue of provincial jurisdiction is squarely in front of the court.”
If the Supreme Court does rule that the Criminal Code prohibition against assisted suicide is unconstitutional, Prof. Downie says that the federal government will then “know what it can and cannot do in drafting the new legislation that will be necessary.” Simply put, the Federal Government won’t have a leg to stand on and euthanasia/assisted suicide will be the order of the day.
My friend Daniel Gilman speaks about all the flags on Parliament Hill of last week.
[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLw9059QT8w]
Canadian law regarding pre-born life is such a mess. I hope to dig into this at some point, and go beyond the regular discussions on the Criminal Code.
The “Costco case” demonstrates again how our laws pertaining to unborn children are convoluted and unclear:
A tragic accident that claimed the lives of two children in London, Ont., this past summer has now been thrust into the national spotlight. On July 25, a vehicle driven by Ruth Burger crashed into a Costco, striking a young family. Addison Hall, six, died as a result of her injuries. Danah McKinnon-Bozek, who was eight months pregnant at the time, and her three-year-old daughter Miah Bozek, were also injured. Danah was rushed to hospital for an emergency C-section, but her infant daughter died about a week following the accident.
Ms. Burger was initially charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, but only one count of criminal negligence causing death. Late last week, London police laid an additional charge of criminal negligence causing death, relating to the death of Ms. McKinnon-Bozek’s infant Rhiannon.
The law is clear: Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code states that “a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” This applies to the death of any child who could live outside the mother, even for a brief time.
I hope the family finds some very small measure in comfort in this new charge being laid. In law, their daughter and their loss is being recognized.
Read the rest of Andre Schutten and Mike Schouten’s article here.