Over at Maisonneuve is an article entitled “No Choice.” The authors, Andrea Bennett and Kim Fu, review the state of the pro-life movement. They have a lot to say and some of the information appears to be correct, but I thought I’d poke at two points they make.
It’s a long article. Feel free to read it yourself and note anything else of interest in our comments section.
1. Abortions capped at 24 weeks
According to the authors, “Strict physicians’ guidelines cap abortions at twenty-four weeks.” I know someone who looked for these guidelines last year. The poor guy spent weeks trying to find provincial and territorial physicians’ colleges’ guidelines on abortion and then more time trying to piece together what they generally “encourage.” A number of colleges admitted that they had no abortion policy at all. The CMA doesn’t have “strict” guidelines either.
The authors are wrong on this point.
And is the authors’ imaginary cut-off point of 24 weeks something to celebrate? This is what a child looks like at 24 weeks, or six months. Even if you dismiss the argument that all humans, regardless of their age or stage of development, have inherent worth and dignity for simply being human beings, this ain’t no clump of cells. This is a child.
2. Crisis Pregnancy Centres are notoriously litigious
The authors claim “CPCs are also notoriously litigious.” As one of the very few lawyers in Canada who specializes in what I’ve come to loosely call “sanctity of human life issues,” I can assure the authors that CPCs are not litigious. To confirm what I already knew, I just ran a Google search. Little if anything pops up. On what are they basing this statement?
And excuse me as I howl with laughter at the thought of the centres being “notoriously litigious.” Yes, those crazy pro-lifers and their buckets of money – money collected from ye olde money tree in the parking lot. Money that they then throw at their team of lawyers. Lawyers they keep on retainer and on-call, to address any perceived slight. Yes, that sure sounds like the reality of non-profit and charitable organizations everywhere.
And to support their claim, they provide a single example.
Did the authors research and determine the number of Pregnancy Care Centres across the country? And then determine how long they’ve generally had their doors open? And then determine how many lawsuits have been launched by said centres in that period of time?
Who fact-checked this article? Or approved the use of the word “notorious”?
Check out the article for yourself and let me know what you think.
by 
Humph. Notoriously litigous. That is rich, coming from a movement that used lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit to chip away at our abortion laws, finally voliding them altogether, because they didn’t have the public support to influence legislation the civil way, by electing members to Parliament who vote in legal abortion.
“Strict physicians’ guidelines cap abortions at twenty-four weeks, and Canada has a relatively low abortion rate in comparison with the US and the UK.”
Incidentally, you can download a pdf of the Canadian Medical Association’s guidelines on induced abortion here. The CMA defines abortion as “the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability”, which the CMA defines as 20 weeks. So, according to the CMA, abortions after 20 weeks don’t meet the definition of induced abortions, but, as far as I can tell, the CMA has no guidelines or regulations on them. Nor have I ever heard of sanctions being made against a doctor for performing a late term abortion.
And, also, how on Earth would they know how our abortion rate measures up against the US and UK? Abortion statistics in this country are third-world shoddy. We simply don’t know how many abortions take place in this country every year.
On the other hand, I learned from this report that Joyce Arthur’s Pro Choice Action Network is now defunct. Did you know that? I wonder if it went belly up in response to the defamation lawsuit advanced by the Surrey CPC? It’s pretty hard to continue a lawsuit against an organization that doesn’t exist anymore.
Things that make you go hmmm.
One last comment, and then I’ll stop. I promise. Sorry to monopolize the conversation.
Right now the No Choice article has 22 likes and 128 shares on Facebook, and no comments. That suggests to me that far more pro life people are paying attention to this article than are pro choice people.
The pro choice movement in Canada is really not very strong at all.
“NCLN also promotes clubs’ events, and encourages members to collectively blog their outrage when conflicts arise.” Um…what does that even mean?
On the plus side, it’s nice to know we apparently have a future in broadcasting after we end abortion…. 😉 (Since Canada’s young pro-life leaders are apparently “camera-ready spokespeople – twentysomethings who seem more like news anchors than activists”.)
Fired up, are we Melissa? 🙂
Yeah, I don’t know how they can be comparing rates. Maybe I’ll have someone look into that.
And I didn’t know that about Joyce’s network. What did that network do anyway?
And Rebecca -I too think of rage when I think of NCLN. 😉 And I loved that they were super complimentary of you. You go, girl.
In a lot of ways, the article was very complimentary of our movement.
Faye you blew my cover! It wasn’t a very good cover though…
Yes, overall I was pleasantly surprised, especially when the precursor to the article was this: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/12/04/canada-is-no-safe-harbor-for-reproductive-rights/
I think this article is a good lesson to us as pro-lifers: we should bear in mind that people are watching and listening. We shouldn’t be different people just because of that, but it’s a good reminder that who we are as people and how we act and interact with others is going to reflect upon the cause that we fight for.
Rebecca, if you’re trying to be anonymous, don’t use your real name next time! 😉
And great insights, Faye! They had me howling with laughter, too!
Ha, Faye. Actually, I, too, found the tone of this article to be quite respectful. It’s just the facts that were put forth that I had a problem with. I found one nit to pick, and then another, and then another…
It’s a shame, really, that Ms. Benett and Ms. Fu would take such care with the tone of the article, (and they DID take care too be respectful, and they did manage to infiltrate the prolife conference, and they didn’t seem to take quotes out of context, and they did portray prolifers as actual people, not caricatures. That’s welcome.) and yet they aren’t engaged enough to actually know the facts that we have to back up our arguments.
And Joyce Arthur’s ProChoice Action Network was similar to the so-called Catholics Cor Choice. It was Joyce Arthur, a computer, and some funding from abortionists. She wrote press releases and fed the media tidbits of information to support her cause. Can’t say I’m sorry to see that go the way of the dodo.