On Friday, Jan. 25, the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law hosted a day-long symposium marking the 20th anniversary of R v. Morgentaler, the landmark Supreme Court decision that deemed Canadian abortion law as it stood in 1988 as unconstitutional. On Friday, Dr. Henry Morgentaler himself expressed the collective viewpoint of the speakers panel, calling the decision “an important milestone in the emancipation of Canadian women.”
For all the discourse concerning the rights of women within these lectures, one thing became abundantly clear: the speakers at this symposium did not authentically represent or take the side of women.
The speakers presented themselves as champions of “choice,” which in actuality means, “the choice to abort.” They brought up heart-wrenching stories of teenage women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Dr. Gary Romalis, a Vancouver abortionist, said that, “usually an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy is the worst trouble a girl has been in.”
The speakers assumed that abortion is the best solution for women. Dr. Romalis claimed that he “can take an anxious woman who’s in the biggest trouble of her life, and in a five-minute procedure, give her back her life.”
This utopian presentation of the abortion issue is in fact anti-woman. Nowhere in the lecture was there any mention of the mental anguish and suffering thousands of women undergo after having abortions. Pro-choice supporters dismiss the very idea of suffering as a result of the choice to abort, contradicting the testimony of countless women.
Canadian culture favours and promotes abortion, to the exclusion of a healthy discussion about other options. If we were truly serious about offering women “choice,” we would provide women with the full range of options, including support for maintaining a pregnancy.
Our society does not provide this support. Women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are left stranded, abandoned, even stigmatized. What else can they do but abort, when other options are less encouraged and much harder to access?
This situation is made worse when women are denied full information about their decision.
Don’t “pro-choicers” think that the humanity of the fetus might be an important consideration for a woman in the decision-making process? Are they afraid that women might not want to permit the killing of something that is, to many, undeniably human?
Scientific and medical facts can affect a pregnant woman’s decision, and thereby affect her life. Feminists for Life, a pro-life women’s advocacy group, publishes testimonials of women who have suffered from their abortion experiences. A refrain runs through: women were not given vital information that could have changed their decision.
One testimonial reads, “No one told me that I would hurt so badly. No one told me that I would feel so empty. No one told me that I would never be able to forgive myself for what I had done. Would I have listened if they had? Maybe, maybe not. However, I wasn’t given that option.” Many women are not told the truth about fetal
development, realizing years later that the “products of conception” actually had functioning organs, fingerprints, and a face. They were not informed about the potential emotional and physical side effects of abortion (side effects that the symposium speakers dismiss as lies spun by “anti-choicers”). Canada Silent No More, a support group run by women who have experienced the pain of abortion, highlights the disastrous lack of information given to women.
There is, in fact, only one “choice” being offered. So how exactly is this scenario “pro-woman?” A recent Hamilton Spectator opinion article points out that “Women have the right to full information, and are dis-served when they are denied it. Full information includes all sides of this debate.” What exactly are pro-choicers afraid of? A more informed choice is a better choice. Surely a decision made between a greater number of options is better than being forced into the only option presented as viable.
In the words of Emmy-award winning actress and pro-life activist, Patricia Heaton, “Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” As a society, we dismiss the possibility of such joy when we speak in euphemisms, name-calling, and half-truths. Women with unplanned pregnancies deserve society’s support and assistance, not the violence of abortion.
The Morgentaler Symposium speakers want to proclaim January 28, 1988 as the day that women gained an essential, constitutionally-guaranteed freedom. The sad truth is that January 28, 1988 is the day that Canada failed women. We can—we must—do better.
