Contrary to what many Canadians think, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its landmark 1988 Morgentaler decision striking down Canada’s abortion law, did not recognize a constitutional right to abortion.
Contrary to what many Canadians think, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its landmark 1988 Morgentaler decision striking down Canada’s abortion law, did not recognize a constitutional right to abortion.
Contrary to what many Canadians think, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its landmark 1988 Morgentaler decision striking down Canada’s abortion law, did NOT recognize a constitutional right to abortion. Nor did the Court “settle” the abortion issue as is often claimed. Rather, the Court left it to Parliament to come up with a new abortion law that would balance the rights of women with the state’s interest in the protection of the fetus, without offending the Charter.
Although 26 years have passed since this landmark decision, there is still much confusion and misunderstanding amongst Canadians (including politicians, media, and even the legal and medical professions) as to what Canada’s highest court actually said about abortion, women’s rights, and fetal interests when it struck down Canada’s abortion law. This is understandable, as it was a very complex decision. Three different sets of reasons for judgment formed the majority opinion. There was also a dissenting opinion.
The purpose of this website is to shed light on what Canada’s Supreme Court did decide and what it did not decide when it declared the abortion provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code unconstitutional in R v Morgentaler [1988].
Canada is the only country in the western world without abortion legislation.
Only China and North Korea are in our company.
OTTAWA, June 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) -
November 11, 2010 *updated May 16, 2012*
At least 44 private member bills or motions have been introduced in Canada's Parliament since 1987, and are listed below. They all failed to pass. The list does not include government bills of which there has been just one: Bill C-43, introduced in November 1989 by the Mulroney Conservative government to re-criminalize abortion except where the doctor deems an abortion necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. That bill was defeated in the Senate by a tie vote on January 31, 1991.
Information, letters, etc.
A Pro-Life Wish for 2013 21 December 2012 to Honourable Mr. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada ,from Jennifer Snell
A Right to an Abortion? Office of David Anderson, MP (July 2018)
Liberal Government Votes down Bill to address violence against pregnant women
Maurice Vellacott Letter to RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson RCMP National HeadquartersJanuary 23, 2013 ( Recent public reports have revealed the possibility of numerous breaches of the Criminal Code - to be specific, homicides - in Canada which need to be investigated. )
Liberal Government Votes down Bill to address violence against pregnant women
Press Release from Priests for Life "As more and more Canadians come to know that legal recognition of the unborn child is non-existent in Canada and that the unborn child can be legally aborted at any time throughout the nine months of pregnancy, it is unthinkable that we would not be open to discussing the issue of abortion", says Fr. Thomas Lynch, National Director of Priests for Life Canada.
Priests for Life on Fetal Pain HELP US PROTECT CHILDREN FROM PAINFUL DISMEMBERMENT!
Saving Some Is Not A Compromise The case for advancing abortion legislation in Canada one step at a time by Mark Penninga
What a dialogue on abortion really sounds like Stephanie Gray
Canada is failing its pregnant women. Canada needs a pre-born victims of crime law so that criminals who attack a pregnant woman can be sentenced appropriately.
Tabitha Ewert, Legal Counsel for We Need a Law
We Need A Law 5:49 PM (28 minutes ago Bill C-311 introduced in House of Commons A new Pre-Born Victims of Crime bill to support!
We are excited to share that MP Cathay Wagantall has just introduced on February 1, 2023
Bill C-338 On June 21, Liberal MP Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Ont.) introduced Bill C-338, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation), in the House of Commons. In doing so, Steckle noted that Canada is one of the few countries that have absolutely no legal protection for the unborn.OTTAWA, June 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) -
Liberal MP Paul Steckle stood today in the House of Commons to introduce the first piece of pro-life legislation in the current parliament under the Conservative Government. In introducing Bill C-338, ‘An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation),’ Steckle called on the House to debate the issue noting that Canada was one of the only countries in the world with absolutely no protection for the unborn in law whatsoever. The bill would restrict abortion after twenty weeks gestation; currently in Canada abortions are performed at tax-payer expense up to birth.
Bill C-338, ‘An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation
Bill C-484 Ken Epp unborn victims of Crime
Bill C-510, Roxanne's Law STEPHEN HARPER VOTES “NO” TO PROTECTING WOMEN FROM FORCED ABORTION
Prime minister Stephen Harper joined 177 other Members of Parliament today and voted against a bill that would protect pregnant women from being coerced into an abortion they did not want. “This is a scandal of the highest proportion,” said John Hof, president of Campaign Life Coalition BC. “This was common sense legislation that would have protected a vulnerable, pregnant woman's CHOICE to give her baby life." To see the leader of our nation stoop so low as to deny this protection simply to avoid talking about the abortion issue, is atrocious” Hof added. Bill C-510 placed women first in the decision-making process. Their wishes would have been paramount and the free vote in the House has now denied them that legal protection. “this places women at risk of being forced into abortions and not even the most radical of feminist groups came to their defense” said Hof.
This vote, of 178 to 97, will show clearly where dedicated pro-lifers and feminists should direct their support in the next election. This was not about abortion at all. It was about ensuring women were making the decision without pressure. Canada is the only nation with absolutely no laws regarding the termination of pregnancy before birth. The absence of any law is what prompted this proposed Bill.
Examples of pregnant women being brutalized and killed, like Roxanne Fernando for whom the Bill was named, abound in our nation. “This vote today leaves the survivors of this brutality with no recourse under our law. Stephen Harper has abandoned them and their children yet again, all in the interests of not wanting to raise an uncomfortable issue” concluded Hof.
John Hof
Cassie and Molly's Law Ottawa, ON – Last night, the Liberal government voted down Bill C-225, Cassie and Molly’s Law, a Private Member’s Bill introduced last February by Yorkton-Melville MP Cathay Wagantall that sought to protect pregnant women and their future families from violent crime. Named in reference to the 2014 murder of Cassandra Kaake in Windsor, Ontario, when Cassie was weeks away from giving birth to her daughter, Molly, Cassie and Molly’s Law would have filled a gap in the Criminal Code, where there are currently no specific provisions to protect pregnant women from criminal offenses.
As Liberal MPs rose in the House of Commons to vote down Bill C-225, Jeff Durham, Cassie’s former partner and Molly’s father, and Nancy Kaake, Cassie’s mother, sat and watched as their hopes for common-sense legislation to prevent another family from suffering a similar tragedy was denied by the government.
Jeff and Nancy have worked so incredibly hard to advocate for this bill because they never want to see another family struck by the unimaginable tragedy they suffered when Cassie and Molly were taken from them. Violence against women is a pressing issue, and it is disappointing that the government wouldn’t put partisanship aside to support a Private Member’s Bill that took one step towards preventing tragedies, denouncing violence and supporting victims.”
– Cathay Wagantall MP
“Nancy, Cassie’s mother, and I put together what money we could to come to Ottawa to meet with Liberal MPs in an effort to build a dialogue and show them why this bill was needed. It was profoundly difficult. There are families who had to do this before us, and it is disturbing to imagine that now there will be others who will have to do it again. The outcome has disappointed us beyond words.”
– Jeff Durham, founder of Molly Matters, father of Molly
Liberal Government Votes down Bill to address violence against pregnant women
https://sites.google.com/site/faithfulcatholics/Home/canada-needs-an-abortion-law/motion-312
Motion 312 MPs vote 203-91 against the motion brought forward by Conservative Stephen Woodworth. The private member's motion sought to set up a committee to study how the Criminal Code defines when life begins. The provision, in the homicide section of the code, says a child becomes a human being when it has fully left its mother's body. Although Prime Minister Stephen Harper had opposed the motion and voted against it, some members of his cabinet voted in favor. Those included Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, Public Works, and Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose, government House leader Peter Van Loan, International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino, Trade Minister Ed Fast, Intergovernmental Affairs Peter Penashue, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, National Revenue Minister Gail Shea. Liberal MPs John McKay, Lawrence MacAulay, Kevin Lamoureux, and Jim Karygiannis also supported the motion
Motion 408 As you may be aware, a Parliamentary sub-committee that was reviewing a private members motion (Motion 408) on discrimination against women (pregnancy termination if it's a girl) deemed the matter as ''unvotable'' by a small sub-committee of Members of Parliament. Refer to the attached article for further info: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/shocking-and-unprecedented-canadas-life-and-family-leaders-slam-government?
Saving Some Is Not A Compromise The case for advancing abortion legislation in Canada one step at a time by Mark Penninga
Stop Bill C-384 On May 13, 2009 Francine Lalonde MP (BQ - La Pointe-de-l’Île) introduced private members bill Bill C-384: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity). Bill C-384 would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada for people who experience physical or mental pain or people who are terminally ill.
What a dialogue on abortion really sounds like Stephanie Gray
More on Bill C-338 Bill C-338 Bill C-338, ‘An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation
On June 21, Liberal MP Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Ont.) introduced Bill C-338, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation), in the House of Commons. In doing so, Steckle noted that Canada is one of the few countries that have absolutely no legal protection for the unborn.OTTAWA, June 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) -
Endorsements from clergy, physicians for Life, Priests for Life, CCBR, ARPA, EFC Silent No More, Will Johnson, Paul Ranalli Mark Penninga, Jennifer Snell Archbishop Miller Cardinal Marc Ouellet and Archbishop Terrence Prendergast.........
The mission of http://weneedalaw.ca/ isis to build a groundswell of support
from across Canada for abortion legislation.
Harper is paying the price for shutting down the abortion debate
Mike Schouten: National Post May 25 2012
Endorsements
Archbishop J. Michael Miller endorses WeNeedaLAW.ca
Statement from Archbishop Miller to his parishioners Pro Life Sunday June 15, 2012
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform endorses WeNeedaLAW.ca
John Hof endorsement
ARPA Canada endorsement
Ottawa university students endorsement
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Endorsement
For letters endorsing the campaign from Dr. Will Johnston, Vancouver and Jennifer Snell, Ottawa
see attachment at bottom of page
We need to do all we can to protect children in the womb with federal abortion legislation Thursday, June 7, 2012 By Don Hutchinson
Abortion law unlikely without change in tactics All-or-nothing approach by some pro-lifers to force policy against ‘choice’ hasn’t worked
By Paul Ranalli Special to The B.C. Catholic Friday June 8, 2012
There is a very interesting debate going on at LifeSite News:
See comments posted in response to the following three articles:
"Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable"
http://lifesite.net/news/evangelical-college-prof-biblically-speaking-gestational-approach-unsupport
and "To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey"
and "Survey of pro-life groups on gestational limits and incrementalism"
Abortion Incrementalism: the series
Run With Life BLOG
Here are all posts on this topic:
Why, as a Catholic, I support Bill C-510 Thursday, September 23, 2010
Abortion incrementalism Friday, May 27, 2011
More on abortion incrementalism Thursday, June 2, 2011
More on abortion incrementalism (continued)Sunday, June 5, 2011
Why does Canada have no laws protecting unborn children? Monday, August 29, 2011
How to get there from here Sunday, May 27, 2012
Abortion law unlikely without change in tactics Sunday, June 3, 2012
(By Dr. Paul Ranalli)
(With comments from Jeff Gunnarson and Patricia Maloney
Why ‘weneedaLAW’ in Canada’s abortion debate By John Hof
May 23, 2011 by Gerard M. Nadal
Clarke Forsythe, Americans United for Life:
The case for advancing abortion legislation in Canada one step at a time
by Mark Penninga
Saving Some Is Not A Compromise
Anti-Choice Private Member Bills and Motions Introduced in Canada Since 1987
Published: Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 8:35 am | Author:
Print This Article
Tagged with: abortion law
Editor’s Note: We asked more than 15 pro-life groups, organizations, and leaders to answer two questions:
Do you support gestational limits* on abortion. Would you like to state why? (* for the purpose of this survey, gestational limits means restricting abortion after a certain point, whether by trimester or some other time period.)
What kinds of incremental measures do you support. If yes, can you give an example? If no, why?
We originally also asked whether they supported We Need a Law but later dropped the question because it unfairly singled out one organization. We regret doing so. The responses are listed below; a number of groups did not respond.
Georges Buscemi, Campaigne Quebec Vie
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: No
It’s a foundational policy of Campaign Life Coalition, of which Campagne Quebec Vie is the Quebec representative, that the gestational approach is a compromise form of legislation, and therefore unacceptable.
Campagne Québec-Vie, will, all things being equal, promote any legislation that is not deemed compromise legislation. As long as the wording of legislation does not express the view that some humans are less human than others, any type of incremental legislation could be acceptable.
Rosemary Connell, Show the Truth
I appreciate being asked to answer the survey but don’t feel I have the expertise to respond.
Mary Ellen Douglas, Campaign Life Coalition
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: No
Campaign Life Coalition does not support gestation limits on abortion. Life begins at the time of conception and all human life must be protected from this time until natural death.
In 1969, Canada’s law was changed to allow abortion if three members of a ‘therapeutic abortion committee’ in a hospital approve the killing. The pro-life movement fought against that unjust law for 19 years. In 1988, the Supreme Court struck down the entire abortion law and since then Canada has had no abortion law.
To implement a law which would purport to save babies after 12 weeks, 16 weeks, 20 weeks, etc., would establish an abortion law which would approve the killing of babies up to the chosen time. Pro-lifers who advocate such legislation would be complicit in the creation of a pro-abortion law. CLC will never accept that.
European pro-life leaders which have gestational limits have told us repeatedly that gestational laws do nothing to prevent abortion but only assuage the public conscience.
Campaign Life Coalition will only support a law to protect all human life from the time of conception onward. However, we do support incremental legislation while we actively work for complete protection.
Since 1969, 42 pieces of pro-life federal legislation has been proposed in Parliament. Many called for amendments to the criminal code for full protection of the unborn child or the definition of human being; others were incremental measures such as defunding, women’s right to know, medically necessary abortions, conscience legislation and the unborn victims of violence.
Campaign Life Coalition has been involved in drafting legislation for the MPs, promoting and supporting these incremental pieces of legislation.
Alissa Golob, Campaign Life Coalition Youth
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: No
We don’t support gestational limits on abortion. It is not strategic to attempt to institute just any law, just for the sake of saying we have one. Anything is not always better than nothing, especially if it achieves nothing. In the United Kingdom, for example, even after a gestational law was put in place restricting abortions after 24 weeks, abortion rates still continued to increase. As Dr. Janet Smith says, “gestational law turns its back on the inalienable and inviolable right to life of every human being. It substitutes pragmatism for principle.”
I support incremental approaches such as parental notification, complete informed consent, defunding and ultrasound laws; basically any law that would make it extremely difficult for women to obtain abortions. These measures have been proven to actually decrease the number and frequency of abortions, without resorting to gestational limits. The claim that those who oppose a gestational approach are “all or nothing” is therefore false.
Stephanie Gray, Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: Yes
We support any incremental measures that are effective in saving lives and which act to limit, not introduce, the evil of abortion. Evangelium Vitae provides a helpful guideline by stating, “when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
Because Canada has an absence of any law on abortion, and because in such a situation that means any abortion is permitted, and because our criminal code does not consider the pre-born human beings until they have “completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of [their] mother[s],” we support gestational limits on abortion. Our ultimate goal is that all abortions be banned, but we recognize that achieving that larger goal means meeting smaller goals in the meantime. Every year in Canada, 100,000 children are killed. We believe all 100,000 need to be saved, but if we cannot save 100,000 right away, we believe that saving 10,000 (or whatever number we can in the meantime) is better than 0. Because no abortions are currently banned, introducing a gestational ban on abortion acts to limit, rather than introduce, the evil.
Jim Hnatiuk, Christian Heritage Party
Incremental: Did not answer
Gestational: No
We support the protection of innocent human life from conception. A gestational approach is one born of desperation and exhibits compromise on the most important issue of life. We already have a law based on the stage of development. It’s called full-term pregnancy. So a gestational law just moves the time-frame back towards conception. No, we do not support gestational limit legislation.
Don Hutchinson, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: Yes
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has consistently affirmed the inestimable worth of human life from conception, as a special act of God’s creation. Recognizing that in Canada human life in the womb has been legally being terminated without limits after the point of conception until the moment of birth since 1988, the EFC has supported legislative and other legal initiatives that oppose the destruction of human life in the womb. The EFC remains prepared to engage the debate about appropriate initiatives that will protect lives in the womb, even though such initiatives might not protect all lives that we believe are deserving of protection.
Jakki Jeffs, Alliance for Life Ontario and Guelph and Area Right to Life
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: No
I do not support gestational limits on abortion. I believe in three simple truths: God is the author of all human life, all children in the womb are human beings/persons and every human being/person has the right to life.
The ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is to change hearts and minds on abortion. If we can restore respect for the value of human life then laws protecting all human beings will naturally follow.
I will never support legislation based on subjective situations such as “viability” or “gestational age.” We would be telling the public and our politicians that we believe, human life is inviolable only if you have attained a certain age or are able to affect a certain function.
What we ask for legislatively must be consistent to our verbal message – we cannot allow the politicians to believe that we no longer require them to legislate protection for every human life.
I support all legislative efforts which do not violate our pro-life principle. As president of Guelph and Area Right to Life I can categorically state that our board has discussed gestational legislation and unanimously rejected it as a supportable measure.
I absolutely believe that it is the job of government to protect each and every human life, inside or outside the womb.
I will only support incremental legislation which does not violate our pro-life principle, that every human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation from his/her creation
We do not have to forego our pro-life principle to gain some political victory (defunding, informed consent, conscience protection for health care workers) but our mission is to change hearts and minds on abortion. While both pro-life groups I volunteer and work with are non-denominational I personally believe that I am my brothers’ keeper, not keeper of some of my brothers and I also believe that we are commanded that “Thou shalt not kill.” Recently we have witnessed our opponents willingness to sacrifice the women of tomorrow to safeguard abortion for the women of today. They will not move from their support of abortion choice at all costs.
We can do no less than they but without the blood of the innocents on our hands. It is imperative that we stand our ground.
Sarah Johnson, 4MY Canada
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: Yes
Laws such as informed consent, mandatory ultrasounds, anti-coercion laws, freedom of conscience laws, legislated “cool down” periods or any law that applies to all trimesters would be our first choice, however, we support any restriction to abortion that saves lives.
Fr. John Lemire, Priests for Life Canada
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: Yes
Priests for Life Canada supports progressively, restrictive, and realistically attainable political goals as laid out by Blessed John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (paragraph 73) to save preborn children in a hostile parliamentary environment. As Blessed John Paul II clearly states: “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Therefore, Priests for Life Canada believes it is necessary to recognize that such activity and goals are morally sound, theologically approved and pragmatically achievable.
Priests for Life Canada supports efforts to restrict funding for abortion and destructive embryonic stem cell research, extension of abortion to clinics, forced abortion procedure and assistance, training for interns and nurses, efforts for informed consent, professionals conscience rights, mandatory cooling off periods before abortions, recognition of the legal personhood of the preborn, restrictive efforts, and many other prolife initiatives. These are all to be lauded and at least tacitly encouraged. Priests for Life Canada believes we should never engage in falsely destructive splitting of our ranks in seeking to achieve our goals to build and support a culture of life.
Mark Penninga, Association for Reformed Political Action
Incremental: Yes
Gestational: Yes
ARPA Canada would support a wide variety of laws that aim to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. These laws must explicitly or implicitly affirm that all human life has inherent dignity. Examples include laws requiring informed consent, counseling, a time-delay, and parental notification, laws against coercion, legally recognizing unborn victims of crime, bans on specific abortion procedures, a law against sex-selective abortion, and late-term abortion bans. Of course we would be most excited to see this country desire complete protection for the unborn.
ARPA Canada is convicted that gestational restrictions on abortion can be a prudent and principled means to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. Doing politics means working with what is possible. The Bible consistently affirms that while the civil government must protect life, it also has a limited role in society because it is not the ultimate answer. This applies to abortion as it does to all examples of human brokenness and evil. Canada is a secular nation that does not respect God’s standards about the value of human life. But that does not mean that it supports the status quo of having absolutely no legal protection for the unborn. As it stands, Canadian law is out of sync with where Canadians stand on abortion (with a majority in favour of abortion restrictions). Our civil government has the duty to do what it can to restrict abortion. The pro-life movement can support and assist our government officials as they take steps to do this. Doing what is possible, while continually affirming the dignity of all human life, is not compromise. The Lord willing, Canada’s pro-life movement can see some of the legislative successes that the rest of the world has taken to protect preborn human life. And if we are blessed with restrictions, we must press on and keep working for more. ARPA Canada looks forward to working alongside the rest of the pro-life movement as we each do what we can to protect the unborn.