When the front door is locked, try the back door. That’s what a Conservative backbencher is trying to do in an effort to criminalize abortion, but unfortunately for Stephen Woodworth, he will be thwarted by women’s human rights.
In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down anti-abortion laws, arguing that they areunconstitutional and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by barring women from their right to life, liberty and security.
But now, Woodworth has proposed a private member’s motion to create a parliamentary committee to debate whether or not a fetus is a legal person. The motion is expected to come up for debate in late March.
Declaring a fetus a legal person grants it the fundamental rights protected by the charter. This includes the right to life and therefore abortion would constitute murder.
The committee would be composed of 12 members of Parliament. Woodworth says medical experts would come and “testify with evidence to inform them of the details and the reality” of life before birth.
Currently in Canada, an individual becomes a legal person when he or she exits the birth canal and can breathe independently.
Woodworth says the proposed committee would present its findings to Parliament, at which time it could affirm, amend or replace the definition of when life begins.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will not reopen the abortion debate, but that does not stop Conservative MPs from doing it for him.
The anti-choice movement argues that fetuses must have legal rights because their life begins before birth. However, Canadians must refuse to accept this for important reasons.
To deny women access to abortion violates their right to security of the person, including the rights to privacy of the body and its health.
Anti-choice legislation would directly police women’s bodies and limit women’s freedom.
So what are women supposed to do if they’re forced to have children? Among other things, that would increase pressure on existing childcare services. Canada would have to put more money into child protective and children’s aid services to deal with the influx of about 100,000 children per year that would enter the system as a result of unwanted pregnancies.
This creates a dilemma: on the one hand, granting legal rights to fetuses suggests they are subject to rights that the government must uphold. On the other hand, the government is forcing people to give birth even if they can't provide for the children.
Furthermore, if this motion is passed and the committee grants fetuses legal rights, pregnant women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths could be held criminally responsible.
What about women with drug addictions? Or women who have no education or come from low-income families and cannot provide the healthiest possible pregnancy?
“Medicine is not governed by criminal law,” says Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. “Pregnancy is a health condition and taking a legal approach to it is the wrong approach.”
Woodworth says that “medical science” would prove a fetus is a complete person. He refers to fetuses as unborn children or human beings.
The language Woodworth uses neglects the fact that the fetus is not an individual, but an entity completely dependent on a woman’s body, says Arthur.
Until it is born, “a fetus is part of a woman’s body and cannot be granted separate rights,” says Agathe Gramet-Kedzior, acting executive director of Canadians for Choice, a non-profit organization that provides education and research about reproductive services.
There are many misconceptions about abortion, including the notion that they are routinely performed up until the ninth month.
Abortions are legal in Canada up until 20 weeks. After that point, it is up to the discretion of a medical professional and the woman to make a decision in an emergency situation. These circumstances include when the mother’s life is at risk, or if the fetus is determined to be in such a state that it would not survive after birth.
The number of abortions that occur after 20 weeks is tiny because of these extreme circumstances, says Arthur.
Perhaps Woodworth is right, in one sense. We do need to reopen this debate. But not for the reasons he is suggesting.
The proposed committee would have the power to acknowledge and rectify the inadequate access to abortion and reproductive services in Canada.
For women living in major cities, there is generally a good level of access to clinics or hospitals. For women in rural areas, Conservative provinces, or Northern Canada, the number of abortion providers is limited or nonexistent, violating women’s right to reproductive health care.
Women in New Brunswick need two doctor’s references to have an abortion, which are only available at two hospitals and one clinic. Prince Edward Island does not have any abortion clinics. They will fund the procedure, but patients must pay for the travel costs to another location. This is a major issue, as young or poor women may not be able to afford to travel elsewhere.
Accessibility issues lead women to take drastic measures, such as throwing themselves down the stairs or undergoing “back alley” procedures, putting them at great risk for physical harm, or even death.
If this motion is passed, it is hoped the committee would continue to protect women’s fundamental freedoms by reaffirming pro-choice legislation across the board instead of taking back women’s bodily rights.