Proposed sex selection abortion bill calls out Canada to live up to its equality ideals

By Brian Dryden, Canadian Catholic News

[Ottawa – CCN]  – A Conservative MP is calling on Canadians and her fellow MPs to rally around an effort to stop abortions based on the sex of a child after introducing a private member’s bill in the House of Commons on Feb. 26 that would target health workers who knowingly abort a fetus because it is a girl.

“In a country which seeks to foster equality between men and women, the practice of using abortion for sex selection needs to be prohibited,” said Yorkton—Melville MP Cathay Wagantall.

“Eighty-four percent of Canadians are against sex selective abortion. Legislators have the responsibility to ensure that it is prohibited by law. Sex selective abortion is antithetical to our commitment to equality and needs to be prohibited as an unacceptable practice,” she said of her proposed bill the Sex Selective Abortion Act.

Wagantall’s effort to raise the issue of abortion for debate in the House of Commons again is being praised by pro-life groups who continue to condemn Canada’s lack of any laws surrounding abortion.

“Canada is the only democratic country in the world that has no abortion law. We know that this complete lack of restrictions means abortion is used for sex selection, which is inherently discrimination. As a society that values equality of the sexes, we have an opportunity here to take a stand against the inequality manifest in deciding a child’s wantedness based on their sex,” said Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law.

According to Wagantall, the legislation she proposes would create a new penalty “for medical practitioners who knowingly perform an abortion when the sole reason is the genetic sex of the pre-born child.”

This not the first time that Wagantall has attempted to change the law in Canada on abortion.

She introduced a private members bill in February 2016 called the “Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act” that was eventually defeated in the House on Oct 19, 2016, by a vote of 209-76.

Wagantall, like the We Need A Law group, hopes that by putting the issue up for debate in the House, a larger discussion about abortion laws in Canada will be held.

“It is true that the majority of Canadians agree to having access to abortion,” Wagantall said, but she said it is also true that the vast majority of Canadians are against sex selection as a reason for an abortion and that “we have a responsibility to widely condemn this practice that is going on in Canada.”

“If we truly want equality, then we must stand in defense of equality,” she said.

Wagantall’s proposed bill targeting sex selection in abortion is not the first time this specific issue has been raised by an MP in the House of Commons. Most recently a motion to “condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination” was put forward by Conservative MP Mark Warawa in 2012.

And numerous motions and proposed private members bills have come forward since the late 1980s from members of the Conservatives, Liberals and former Reform and Canadian Alliance parties, none of which have received the required support in the House of Commons to change Canadian law surrounding abortion.

Wagantall said that targeting females in an abortion goes against what all Canadians stand for.

“Our silence condones and possibly perpetuates the practice of sex selection,” she said. “Canada must act now to condemn this practice and to make it apparent to all that Canada values women and equality. If there is even one female pre-born child who is terminated because of her sex, we need to act.”

And members of We need A Law are hoping that Wagantall’s fellow MPs will indeed act this time.

“We admire Ms. Wagantall’s commitment to defending the vulnerable and are thankful for her understanding of the value of life from its earliest stages,” Ewert said.

“We support her efforts to engage her colleagues in the ongoing abortion conversation in Canada, and hope to see hearts and minds changed through the debate around this bill.”

 

-30-