National Post Editorial Board. May 10, 2014.
On the subject of regulating abortion, Canada embraces an extreme position — which is to say that we have no regulations whatsoever.
Every other advanced nation on Earth sets gestational limits on when women may freely procure abortions for reasons unconnected with rape, incest and medical necessity. In some Europeans countries, it’s 14 weeks. In others, it’s 16. In the United States, it’s at least 20 weeks. Only Canada sets no limit at all — with the result that abortion policy in this country, such as it is, is decided according to the ethical guidelines established by individual doctors and hospitals. It’s an odd way for a G7 country to deal with one of the most important bioethical issues facing humankind.
And yet, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau seems just fine with it. “It’s not for any government to legislate what happens — what a woman chooses to do with her body,” he said Wednesday. “I have made it clear that future
That’s an odd thing to say: As the Post‘s Kelly McParland noted earlier this week, three out of five Canadians think there should be at least some restrictions on abortion in this country. Yet as of now, there are none. That doesn’t seem like a debate that’s been “settled” — even if many politicians (including Prime Minister Stephen Harper) are reluctant to tackle the status quo on such a sensitive issue. As a purely factual matter, what Mr. Trudeau said seems to be wrong.
But what is more disturbing is that Mr. Trudeau is using the fiction of a “settled” abortion debate as a pretext to muzzle any sort of discussion about the issue within his party: In the same Wednesday scrum, Mr. Trudeau declared that scrutiny of a potential Liberal candidate’s views on abortion would be “part of the green-light process” — and that new Liberal candidates will be blocked by their own party if they have any moral commitment to regulating “what a woman chooses to do with her body.”
Are Liberal and NDP MPs now supposed to robotically vote for the path of greater abortion availability in all cases?
Thomas Mulcair responded with a policy that is even more dogmatic: Unlike Mr. Trudeau, he will not even permit existing caucus members to exhibit respect for unborn life. “In the NDP, no MP is ever going to vote against the woman’s right to choose,” the NDP leader said. “No one will be allowed to run for the NDP if they don’t believe that it is a right in our society for women to make their own choices on their reproductive health. Period.”
The idea “that it is a right in our society for women to make their own choices on their reproductive health” is no doubt intended to play well with women voters. But what kind of party leader honestly believes that there is no role for an individual MP’s conscience and values when it comes to, say, morally nuanced questions regarding whether the government should restrict the practice of sex-selective abortion; whether we will join all other Western countries in setting gestational limits; whether we will require practitioners to educate abortion recipients on the health effects of abortion; and whether the costs of all abortions will be covered by our public health-care system? All of these issues have become tied up with the broad labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” Are Liberal and NDP MPs now supposed to robotically vote for the path of greater abortion availability in all cases?
The irony here is that one of the biggest reasons why many Canadians might be inclined to vote Liberal and NDP in the 2015 election is that they are tired of Mr. Harper’s controlling, my-way-or-the-highway governing style. If Mr. Trudeau (who once told Canada that he was committed to open riding nominations) wants to present voters with a politically attractive alternative, the worst thing he can do is enforce rigid, top-down ideological control on an important issue that divides Canadian society.
Source: National Post