Dear Editor,
I would like to address the controversy related to the recent vote on Canada's Summer Jobs Program; specifically the House decision to include that eligible organizations must, "respect individual human rights in Canada... These include reproductive rights;" a decision that has been the cause of much scrutiny from right wing religious groups, the conservative party and our own MP, Larry Miller.
The opposition from the right appears to stem from a claim that this new rule is a violation of a charter right to freedom of conscious and religion, (Charter 2: Fundamental Freedoms.) Firstly I would like to point out that as stated in the Summer Jobs Eligibility Section, "That an organization is affiliated with a religion does not itself constitute ineligibility for this program," and that a spokesperson for the Labour Minister has stated that many of the denied applications were due to improperly filled out forms and not checking the box for the attestation. They have all been asked to reapply.
As for the charter violation, it is evident from past rulings that a woman's right to choose is a legal right as defined in section 7 of the charter and upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in 1988 during the Morgentaler appeal that Forcing women to endure potentially life-threatening delays while seeking abortions, violated their charter guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person.
According to WHO, it is estimated that between 4.7%-13.2% of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion each year. Around 7 million women are admitted to hospitals every year in developing countries as a result of unsafe abortion and the annual cost of treating major complication from unsafe abortion is estimated at US$ 553 million. How, as a first world, progressive country, can we support organizations that actively protest against the safety of women and their right to bodily autonomy? It is evident that when women do not have safe access to abortion, in desperation they will turn to illegal, unsafe and often life threatening options. Please remember, life, liberty and security of person.
"But what about the rights of the fetus?" You may ask. While this remains a complicated moral issue for many, legally this was sorted out in 1989 when the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a person. Therefore legally, life liberty and security of person does not apply until a viable birth is possible, (usually around 24 weeks gestation.)
Is it really justifiable for Canadian tax dollars to be allotted to programs that would seek to end the right to a safe and often life-saving procedure that is not only legal, but has historically held up in court as being protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Religious groups are not being asked to condone abortion. The attestation only requests that they respect individual reproductive rights as defined by Canadian law. Basically, if your group doesn't harass individuals based on a personal choice that is protected as a charter right, then there should be no problem signing it. The organization is only required to leave women alone when it comes to their reproductive health. Respect for Canadian law should always be a requirement for anyone seeking government funds.
It is also worth noting that Christian organizations were mostly uninvolved in the abortion debate before 1980, (except for some minority groups,) and abortion was perfectly legal until the mid-late 1800's, coincidentally, (or not,) during the women's suffragette movement.
Considering that there is no mention of pregnancy termination in the Old or New Testament, with the exception of, "The only passage that deals directly with the death of a fetus, Exodus 21: 23, which describes the penalty to be incurred for hurting a pregnant woman accidentally during a fight between two men. According to the Septuagint, if the fetus has not yet assumed complete human shape, the penalty is a monetary fine; but if the fetus is fully formed, the penalty is death." - The Founder and Director of Christian Democrats America.
It seems that at one time, even the church did not view fetuses in early pregnancy as people deserving of human rights. So why the shift? And why is this being debated as a section two issue, when this ideology seems to have been recently adopted by religions and has not always been fundamental to most Christian beliefs?
The simple answer: politics.
The religious affiliates in question have not been asked to give up their belief system. They have not been asked to approve of or condone abortion. Respect in this instance, I believe, simply means that the organizations in question will not interfere with individual rights that are protected by the Charter. If you do not respect Canadian Law, you should not be funded by the Canadian Government; this is hardly debatable.
So who stands to benefit from pandering to the religious right? It seems entirely evident to me who is playing politics here, Mr. Miller.
Kaitlyn Neath
Owen Sound
