“It’s wrong to pressure women into an abortion, but this does not occur on the grand scale often claimed by anti-choice propagandists. It mostly stems from situations of domestic abuse,” said Joyce Arthur, Coordinator of ARCC. Arthur pointed to a recent U.S. study[1] that examined reproductive control of women by abusive male partners. “Some were pressured to have an abortion, but women also reported that their partners prevented them from obtaining or using birth control, threatened them with pregnancy, or forced unprotected sex on them. If they became pregnant and wanted an abortion, some partners threatened or pressured them to carry to term.”
In 1989, Chantal Daigle of Quebec had to travel to the U.S. for an abortion after her boyfriend got an injunction preventing her from having an abortion. Canada’s Supreme Court subsequently ruled that male partners cannot force a woman to have a baby.
“It’s not just partners or family members who try to compel women and girls to have babies against their will,” said Arthur. “The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!”
A more realistic target would be to prohibit certain types of anti-choice activism. “Over 150 so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centres’ exist in Canada, and their main job is to prevent women from having abortions,” said Judy Burwell, another ARCC spokesperson. “Tactics used may include deception, misinformation, shaming and guilting, scare-mongering, shock tactics, invasion of privacy, and proselytizing.[2] Also, anti-choice protesters engage in so-called ‘sidewalk counselling’, which involves accosting women as they enter abortion clinics. Too often, protesters use aggressive and hateful language, such as telling women they are murderers and threatening them with hellfire if they get an abortion.”
“A law against coerced childbirth would be a great opportunity to put a stop to some of the most egregious violations of women’s integrity perpetrated by the anti-choice movement,” said Burwell.
______________________________
[1] Ann Moore et al. Male Reproductive Control of Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Pending publication in Social Science & Medicine. Available at:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/socscimed201002009.pdf
[2] To combat the deception of CPCs, two U.S. cities have recently passed laws requiring CPCs to post signs informing clients they don’t offer or refer for abortion or contraception: http://xrl.us/bhhgzq.
For evidence of CPC tactics, see: Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC: http://xrl.us/bhhgzu.
*******************
Background: Bill C510 would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercing a woman into an abortion via physical or financial threats, illegal acts, or through “argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity”. It was introduced on April 15 by anti-choice Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), who chairs the secretive Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.
Other reasons why Bill C510 is not needed or is suspect:
· The bill is mostly redundant because threats and illegal acts are already illegal under the Criminal Code.
· Counselors already screen for possible coercion in women seeking abortion. Abortion clinics do not perform abortions on women who are conflicted or being coerced.
· The bill patronizes women by implying they are frequently coerced into abortion, but the vast majority of women make their own decision to have an abortion and take responsibility for it.
· If the intent is really to protect women from abusive partners, we need better solutions than this bill. Women’s safety and security is best assured by helping them win equality and autonomy (e.g., with pay equity, affordable childcare, legal aid, and other programs).
· The law would have a chilling and intimidating effect on abortion providers because it would likely be used mostly against them. The anti-choice movement falsely believes that clinics coerce women into abortions, which may encourage frivolous charges under this bill, and harassment and violence against providers.
· Who decides when a line is crossed into illegal threats? How would proof of coercion be obtained in such circumstances?
· The bill is motivated by anti-choice sentiment, not by concern for women. Not only was it introduced by an anti-choice MP, it is strongly supported by anti-choice activists, and refers to a fetus as a “child.” This bill is an attempt to reintroduce the notion of fetal rights through
indirect means, by presenting abortion as a social harm to be criminalized.
· The bill’s rationale – the 2007 murder of a pregnant woman from Winnipeg – has been misrepresented. Bruinooge claims that Roxanne Fernando was murdered because she refused to have an abortion, but the murderer himself, his lawyer, and the Crown prosecutor all agree that this was not the motive.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC-CDAC)
POB 2663, Station Main
Vancouver, BC, V6B 3W3
info@arcc-cdac.ca
http://www.guttmacher.org/
[2] To combat the deception of CPCs, two U.S. cities have recently passed laws requiring CPCs to post signs informing clients they don’t offer or refer for abortion or contraception: http://xrl.us/bhhgzq.
For evidence of CPC tactics, see: Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC: http://xrl.us/bhhgzu.
*******************
Background: Bill C510 would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercing a woman into an abortion via physical or financial threats, illegal acts, or through “argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity”. It was introduced on April 15 by anti-choice Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), who chairs the secretive Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.
Other reasons why Bill C510 is not needed or is suspect:
· The bill is mostly redundant because threats and illegal acts are already illegal under the Criminal Code.
· Counselors already screen for possible coercion in women seeking abortion. Abortion clinics do not perform abortions on women who are conflicted or being coerced.
· The bill patronizes women by implying they are frequently coerced into abortion, but the vast majority of women make their own decision to have an abortion and take responsibility for it.
· If the intent is really to protect women from abusive partners, we need better solutions than this bill. Women’s safety and security is best assured by helping them win equality and autonomy (e.g., with pay equity, affordable childcare, legal aid, and other programs).
· The law would have a chilling and intimidating effect on abortion providers because it would likely be used mostly against them. The anti-choice movement falsely believes that clinics coerce women into abortions, which may encourage frivolous charges under this bill, and harassment and violence against providers.
· Who decides when a line is crossed into illegal threats? How would proof of coercion be obtained in such circumstances?
· The bill is motivated by anti-choice sentiment, not by concern for women. Not only was it introduced by an anti-choice MP, it is strongly supported by anti-choice activists, and refers to a fetus as a “child.” This bill is an attempt to reintroduce the notion of fetal rights through
indirect means, by presenting abortion as a social harm to be criminalized.
· The bill’s rationale – the 2007 murder of a pregnant woman from Winnipeg – has been misrepresented. Bruinooge claims that Roxanne Fernando was murdered because she refused to have an abortion, but the murderer himself, his lawyer, and the Crown prosecutor all agree that this was not the motive.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC-CDAC)
POB 2663, Station Main
Vancouver, BC, V6B 3W3
info@arcc-cdac.ca
Are you trying to imply that women are basically never coerced into having abortions? Or are you trying to say women are indeed more often forced to actually become mothers? And have either one of these things ever happened to you?
ReplyDeleteDon't you think, as someone who supports abortion as a right women should retain without question, that this precious right should be kept far from abuse? And in keeping it far from misuse, will it not be less likely to come under scrutiny? And if it comes less often under fire, are women not more likely to retain this right?
Or are you so completely obsessed with YOUR issue that you've lost perspective? Are you not a feminist first? Do you not at least wince at the idea that a woman sometimes lets herself be talked into an abortion and deeply regrets her choice later. If you don't know anyone like that, I could introduce you to a few, and I'm no one special.