Government defeats Roxanne’s Law
It seems like a no-brainer that women should be protected from coerced abortions. Yet the House of Commons recently defeated a bill that would make this act illegal.
MP Rod Bruinooge, head of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, introduced Private Member's Bill C-510 in April 2010. It was nicknamed “Roxanne's Law" in memory of Roxanne Fernando, a 24-year-old immigrant from the Philippines.
Roxanne became pregnant but refused to attend the appointments her boyfriend made with an abortion doctor because she wanted to keep the baby. Her boyfriend, along with two friends, brutally beat her and left her to die in a snowy ditch rather than let her have the baby.
Bruinooge says Roxanne is not the only one who has faced coercion to have an abortion. Many women only have abortions because they face pressure from family or friends.
When Bruinooge introduced the bill, pro-choice MPs and organizations raised their usual arguments that the bill was a back door attempt to criminalize abortion. But the bill specifically excluded physicians who attempt to convince a woman to have an abortion because the pregnancy threatens her life or health.
The bill would have made coercing, or attempting to coerce, a woman into having an abortion a criminal offence. Are women really being coerced into having abortions? This flies in the face of the whole concept of choice.
Several pro-choice commentators argue that coercion is already illegal. But the only coercion that is currently illegal is in relation to prostitution, to assaulting a police officer or to exploiting a young person into having an organ removed.
Women should not have to face threats of physical violence or withdrawal of financial support because they want to keep their babies. And they should not have to wait until they are physically assaulted or killed before it is a criminal offence.
Bruinooge says he was not too disappointed that the bill was defeated. He was pleased that some Cabinet ministers and most female Conservative MPs backed the bill. This despite the fact that the prime minister and minister of justice did not support the bill. Stephen Harper has tried to keep the abortion issue out of the House of Commons as the hottest of hot button issues.
The pro-life community itself was not universal in its support of the bill. Some hardline groups will not accept any bill that opens the door to any abortions. Catholic lawyer Geoffrey Cauchi, for example, wrote an opinion piece in Catholic Insight arguing that the bill was contrary to Catholic doctrine. He argued that because it excepted physicians, it sends a message that it is lawful for a woman to choose to have an abortion.
Most pro-life organizations supported Roxanne's Law and actively campaigned for it. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Priests for Life and Campaign Life Coalition officially endorsed the bill. The EFC ran a video campaign featuring women who supported the bill.
While it is laudable that 97 members of Parliament voted for the bill, it shows the challenge that any bill remotely touching on the unborn has in becoming law. The bill was not about abortion or fetal rights; it protected pregnant women. Arguably, it protected a woman's right to choose, in this case, to choose not to get an abortion. But women who choose not to get an abortion should be protected.
The reality is that Private Member's Bills rarely pass and should be seen as an opportunity to raise the profile of important issues. Bruinooge rightly recognizes that Roxanne's Law gave him an opportunity to tell her story and highlight the issue. He stood his ground in the face of huge opposition and should be applauded.
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
