Before 1969, abortion was illegal in Canada. Between 1969 and 1988, abortion was regulated by the Criminal Code, but in a way that amounted to abortion-on-demand. Since the Supreme Court decision in the Morgentaler case in 1988, abortion has been virtually unregulated. This means that in Canada today, children in the womb may be killed at any time, for any reason, and by any means.

In the last year, several tragic stories have heightened awareness among ordinary Canadians of the injustice of this situation. In September, a judge in Manitoba ruled that a pregnant woman addicted to sniffing glue could not be held in a rehabilitation centre against her will, in spite of the grave risk posed by her addiction to the child in her womb. In December, a judge in Ontario ruled that Brenda Drummond could not be charged with attempted murder for shooting her son Johnathan in the head while he was still in her womb, just two days before his birth.

The reason in both cases was that, according to Canadian law, children in the womb are not human beings, and therefore have no rights.

Ordinary Canadians from sea to sea are expressing outrage at this injustice, and even the normally pro-abortion media seem concerned. Many are calling for some kind of legal protection for children in the womb.

In the renewed debate on regulating abortion in Canada, some people have suggested that access to abortion should not be restricted in "hard cases," such as pregnancy caused by rape or incest, or when a pregnancy appears to threaten a woman’s life.

In responding to such proposals, Canadian pro-life leaders have consistently returned to the basic principle of the pro-life movement: the direct taking of innocent human life is wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

Apart from that, on the rape-incest question, it is important to remember the following: pregnancy as a result of rape or incest is extremely rare; a child conceived in this way is still a human being; a child conceived in this way is innocent of his or her father’s crime; and a woman who has been traumatized by rape or incest needs love and support, not the further trauma which an abortion would cause.

RU486, or Mifepristone, is a chemical which causes the lining of the womb to fall away, thereby killing the developing child. It is used in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. It is distinct from the "morning-after pill," which, although it functions in the same way and is therefore a form of chemical abortion, is used only within 72 hours after "unprotected sex."

The company which manufactures RU486 is Roussel-Uclaf (France). Its parent company is Hoechst (Germany); and its Canadian subsidiary is Roussel-Canada.

RU486 has already been used to kill hundreds of thousands of children in Europe; and in 1996 the US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in the United States. Last fall, BC Health Minister Joy McPhail (NDP) called on the Canadian government to invite the company which makes the pill to apply for approval to market the drug in Canada.

This is in spite of the fact that the "safety" of the pill is still questionable. In a landmark case, a hospital in France was recently required to pay a substantial settlement to the family of a woman who died after taking RU486.

A spokesman for Health Canada said the government did not intend to invite an application for approval in this country; however, the Liberals have since indicated they would not oppose any such application, and that RU486 would be judged according to normal Health Canada standards.

The many new reproductive and genetic technologies (NRGTs) now available in Canada have raised a host of very serious ethical issues. Countries around the world have begun regulating such technologies in an effort to use them responsibly.

Canada’s Liberal government introduced legislation on NRGTs prior to the current election campaign. The bill, C-47, actually contained some good things; but the regulations proposed to accompany it would have provided for the licensing of experimentation on human embryos up to 14 days after conception.

There is unanimous agreement among pro-lifers in Canada on the need to end public funding of abortion through provincial health-insurance plans.

From the experience of provincial pro-life groups, it is now clear that this issue must be dealt with at the provincial and federal levels at the same time. The reason is that, although the provinces are responsible for deciding which "services" will be funded by tax dollars, provincial leaders consistently avoid the issue by claiming that the federal Canada Health Act requires public funding of abortion.

In addition, some provincial legislators have said that the Liberal federal government has threatened behind the scenes to cut off healthcare transfer payments to any province which might dare to defund baby-killing. It appears the Liberals are unwilling to honour the right of the provinces to determine which "services" are medically necessary. (As we all know, of course, abortion is NEVER medically necessary. See "Calls for a ‘compromise’" above.)

It is widely recognized that doctor-assisted suicide is just around the corner in Canada. In spite of the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against it in the 1994 Rodriguez case, and a 1995 Senate committee recommended against legalizing the practise, there is now a great deal of momentum behind the "right-to-die" movement.