An article about this in the Globe and Mail. It opens with this:
A second abortion-related motion proposed by a backbench Conservative MP could trigger a new debate about the parameters of a woman’s right to choose in Canada.
I know it’s just a lede into the story, and you have to start somewhere. But there is no longer any sense in saying anything is “triggering” a “new” debate about the parameters of abortion. (I refuse to use the euphemism “a woman’s right to choose.” Everyone should be aware of just how useless that language is. For example, I am in favour of a woman’s right to choose. Choose your education, choose your school, choose your spouse, choose your political party. If you choose to kill your unborn child, you ought to know that is exactly what you are doing, without hiding behind vague notions of “rights” and “choice.” Let me return to my point now.)
The debate is here. It has not been triggered anew, it is simply here. For many of us, it’s been here for a long while. So we all ought to get used to this, especially my opponents on the issue who are so fond of the sounds of silence.
by 
In the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, the secondary definition of “choice” goes something like “In Canada, a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.” It makes me sick to read it and even more nauseous to see the English language being bastardized for partisan purposes.
Are you being serious, Brigid? It actually says that? Then again, if aliens landed on earth, they’d be confused about the phrase… it takes some good indoctrination to both say it and mean it.
Be aware of the word options. They realize that “choice” is starting to be questioned, so now they are starting to introduce options. Ie. Options Sexual Health
Hi Andrea — the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (Second Edition), edited by Katherine Barber states Choice: “The right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.”