I’m a compromiser
By Joanne Byfield

That’s right. I’m out of the closet. When it comes to politics and making laws on abortion, I come down heavily on the side of compromise.

That’s not to say I’d start there or even that it would be my preference. My preference, and I assume this holds true for all pro-lifers, would be a total ban on all abortions. Period.

However, I’m not a politician. I don’t have to get re-elected. I don’t have to answer to a party leader or a caucus. I don’t have to face the constituents who I am elected to represent. It’s easy for me to be principled, uncompromising and demand that others be true to my beliefs.

I’ve been engaged lately in discussions on this topic of compromise. Many of us see the uncertainty of this minority Parliament as a great opportunity for debate and possible successes on the pro-life front. The Conservative Party (not necessarily individual Conservative MPs) want to avoid any discussions of so-called “radical, fringe” issues. That’s always code for abortion.

On the other hand, there are pro-life MPs in the opposition Liberal Party. They are without a leader and have no qualms about speaking up and maybe even introducing pro-life legislation that would embarrass the Conservatives. If that happens, I think the pro-life people in this country need to be ready and know where we stand on this issue of incremental steps and compromise.

I’ve heard and read a number of views from both sides of this fence. I believe they are all passionately and honestly held. I just don’t agree with all of them. As a pro-life activist, I believe that my job is to work to change the culture, to convince Canadians, probably one at a time, that the right to life is the basic human right. Without it, all other rights are meaningless. How meaningful, for example, is an equality right or a right to free speech, if a government or court can deny anyone the right to live? If you can kill them, you have stolen all other rights as well. We have to work to convince our fellow Canadians that all lives have inherent dignity and must be protected at every stage.

Politicians in a democratic society, on the other hand, have a different role. They are supposed to pass laws that reflect the views of the people. That doesn’t exclude strong and principled politicians from leading their nation in certain directions. These types are the exception, I believe, and it is unrealistic and unfair of us to expect politicians to push for policies that aren’t supported by most Canadians.

Some of my friends on the other side of this question say they cannot support a law that only protects some babies. The gestational approach is arbitrary, they say, and would affect a small number of abortions.  If, for example, a bill were introduced to outlaw late-term abortions, they say they couldn’t accept it because it would only stop a few of the over 100,000 abortions that happen each year in Canada.

In fact, there are more than 3,000 abortions performed after 16 weeks annually in Canada. If a law were introduced that would protect those babies, I would support it, whole-heartedly and without guilt. I’d support it if it saved 300 babies. I would see this as a first step and a very significant signal to all Canadians that abortion is not just another medical procedure like all others. It reflects a serious reservation on the part of Canadians about the destruction of human life, especially those so close to birth. And, I would redouble my efforts to get that limit rolled back, either gradually or entirely.

My friends have argued, as some did in the debate on C-43 in the early nineties, that if we accept a flawed law, we’ll be stuck with it forever. The experiences in Britain and the U.S. have gone the other way. Britain legalized abortions up to 28 weeks in 1967. In 1990, that limit was rolled back to 24 weeks. For the past year, there has been public debate and discussion about restricting it to 20 weeks. Even a spokesman for Marie Stopes International, a major abortion provider in Britain, has advocated a 20 week restriction on legal abortion.

In the U.S., the legislature in South Dakota recriminalized abortion earlier this year. The law will be challenged through the courts and will eventually get to the Supreme Court. Some Canadians suggest that if South Dakota can do it, so can we. They seem to forget that in the past 30 years, there have been laws in many states to deinsure abortion, impose parental consent guidelines, waiting periods, and informed consent regulations. The South Dakota law was not the first action to restrict abortion. The experience across the U.S. has been characterized by incremental legislation and a gradual public acceptance of a more restrictive abortion policy.

I think we need to be clear that our role is not the same as a politician’s. We are not introducing legislation. By saying we support a bill that would restrict some abortions, we are not signaling that this achieves our goals. We are supporting a political effort to reduce the harm that is now being done and we will continue our work to eliminate abortion entirely.

I’m open to hearing from someone who can explain to me how we’re better off with our current lack of law and an open season on babies in the womb.