Trudeau
is Gaslighting Canadians about Abortion
By Hendrik van der Breggen
October 1, 2022
On September 30, 2022, Canadians observed Orange Shirt Day, also known as National Day for Truth and Reconciliation: Every Child
Matters. Amen to that.
But two days before Orange Shirt Day, Canada’s
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promoted the view that not every child matters. How? By his statement on International
Safe Abortion Day.
The question arises: How can Canada’s PM get
away with this inconsistency? It turns out that our PM is engaged in gaslighting Canadians, i.e., telling us lies (some bigger than others) so we’ll doubt
truth and believe him (and his abortion ideology).
Bear with me as I make my case.
First, I will set out Trudeau’s statement.
Second, I will assess its major claims—its “gaslights.”
Prime Minister’s Statement on International Safe Abortion Day
Below is a copy of “Statement by the Prime Minister on International Safe Abortion Day” (September 28,
2022):
Today, on International Safe Abortion Day, we
reaffirm our unwavering commitment to upholding a woman’s fundamental right to
choose. No one should ever be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, and the
Government of Canada is unequivocal in that pursuit.
Here in Canada, we have had access to safe and
legal abortions for almost 35 years thanks to decades of hard-fought activism.
Abortion is covered under our universal health care system. But there is still
more work to be done to improve accessibility, particularly in rural and remote
communities. In May, the Government of Canada announced funding to support
civil society organizations, such as Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights
and the National Abortion Federation Canada, to strengthen access to safe and
inclusive sexual and reproductive health services, including by offering
financial assistance to cover travel costs for those seeking an abortion and
training for health care providers offering abortion services.
Abortions are an essential health service which,
when performed following medical guidelines, are safe. Unfortunately, nearly
half of all abortions performed worldwide are unsafe and these unsafe abortions
are a leading cause of maternal deaths. Tragic and preventable deaths will
continue for as long as women are denied the right to make choices for their
own bodies. That’s why we’re helping to advance sexual and reproductive health
and rights in developing countries, with funding to improve access to safe
abortions, post-abortion care, and family planning.
Today, we reflect on the progress we have made
and the work that still needs to be done to ensure everyone has access to a
safe abortion, including standing up to those who want to take us backwards. To
those at home and around the world continuing to fight for their safety and
their bodily autonomy: know that we will always stand up for your right to
choose.
Hendrik’s
Assessment
Think along with me. I’m going to look at six of
PM Trudeau’s claims and I’ll ask whether those claims are true. Please keep in
mind that “true” means that what is stated to be the case corresponds to what
is actually the case in reality (when language is used carefully and accurately
to describe reality).
Gaslight
1
Trudeau says women have a “fundamental right” to
choose abortion. Is this true?
Not in Canada. Abortion is not a right,
according to Canadian law. In fact, Canada has no abortion law.
In 1988, thanks to abortionist Henry Morgentaler,
Canada’s Supreme Court struck down abortion law at the time (which required a therapeutic
abortion committee, and which was deemed unfair for women who couldn’t get
access to such a panel) and the court asked parliament to craft a law. This law
hasn’t (yet) been crafted. But also no fundamental right to abortion was
granted.
“Ultimately, the 1988 Morgentaler decision did
not assume a right to abortion, did not create a right to abortion, and cannot
be interpreted as implying a right to abortion.” See “Under Section 7 Abortion is Not a Charter Right.”
Gaslight
2
Trudeau says abortion is a choice women make “for
their own bodies.” Is this true?
Not completely. The fact is that in abortion
there are two bodies: the body of the
mother and the body of the pre-natal child. Abortion destroys the child’s body.
Gaslight
3
Trudeau says that abortions, “when performed
following medical guidelines, are safe.” Are abortions safe? Nope.
Each abortion is the targeted killing of a pre-natal
human being. Abortion suffocates and/or tears apart the unborn human being. Only
unsuccessful or “botched” abortions are safe for the unborn child.
Also, there can be complications for the mother.
See the documentary Hush: A Liberating
Conversation about Abortion and Women's Health, directed by Punam Kumar
Gill (Mighty Motion Pictures, 2016). For trailer, see here. See too Angela
Lanfranchi, Ian Gentles, and Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy's book Complications: Abortion's Impact on Women (DeVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social
Research, 2018).
Gaslight
4
Trudeau says abortion is part of “sexual and reproductive
health and rights.” Is this true? Nope.
Reproduction, i.e., the creation of a child
(pre-natal human being/person) conceived via sex, occurs before abortion takes place. The right to reproductive freedom is
exercised before abortion takes
place.
The late Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology
and Culture at Hillsdale College, observes: “When pro-choicers have unforced
sex, they are choosing. That is freedom of choice. When they decide to kill the
child conceived during that sexual encounter, that is freedom from choice. They
chose; now they want to be free from the consequences of that choice, even if
someone has to die.”
In other words, justifying abortion via “sexual
and reproductive health and rights” is a ruse.
Gaslight
5
Trudeau says abortions are “an essential health
service.” Is this true? Nope.
The claim that abortion (in general) is
essential health care is false because most abortions are not done for medical
reasons.
The vast majority of abortions are done not for
medical reasons but for other reasons.
It turns out the hard cases—rape, incest, threat
to life of the mother—to which many abortion-choice proponents point as
justification for abortion account for fewer than 5 percent of all the abortion
cases.
In his 2015 book The Abortion Wars ethicist Charles Camosy reports that the number
for the hard cases is 2 percent. (Camosy bases his number on research from the
Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-choice organization.)
But there is more to be said—much more.
It turns out that abortion is not even needed
medically.
Dr. Kendra Kolb, a
neonatologist, stated this in 2019: “There is no medical reason why the life of
the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.”
Yes, treatments for ectopic pregnancies occur,
but they’re not abortions per se, if we use language accurately. Yes,
treatments for heart disease or cancer can involve pre-term deliveries that
might result in the death of a child, but they’re not abortions per se, if we
use language accurately. When we accurately define “abortion” as the direct and
intentional ending of a pre-natal human being’s life, abortions are not
medically necessary.
As Kolb points out, medical
treatments/procedures have different purposes, which need to be made clear with
language that accurately describes reality. This is important to remember,
especially when we are being told by politicians and others that, in general,
abortion is “an essential health service.”
Also in 2019, Omar L. Hamada, M.D., Fellow of
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stated this: “There is
absolutely no medically justifiable reason for abortion (‘the intentional and
elective targeted killing of an infant at any stage of pregnancy for matters of
maternal choice or convenience’) to save the life of the mother. Period. End of
story.”
Also, Dr. C. Everett Koop in 1980 (when he was
Surgeon General of the US) stated this: “In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I
have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the
mother’s life.” (C. Everett Koop, “Deception-on-demand,” Moody Monthly, May
1980, p. 27.)
Also, consider that Dr. R. J. Hefferman of Tufts
University stated this in 1951: “Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion
(for physical disease) is either ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications
of pregnancy, or is unwilling to take time to use them.” (Congress of American
College of Surgeons, 1951; cited by Dr. and Mrs. Willke in Abortion: Questions
and Answers [Cincinnati, Ohio: Hays Publishing Company, Inc., 1985], 120.)
And consider this: The Dublin Declaration on
Maternal Healthcare (signed by over 1,000 medical professionals) stated this in
2012: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and
gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion—the purposeful destruction of the
unborn child—is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.”
So why are there still politicians who say
abortion is sometimes a necessary medical procedure? I submit that it’s because
they are not using language accurately. As Dr. Kolb (mentioned above) points
out, medical treatments/ procedures have different purposes, which need to be
made clear. Many politicians are not making this clear. Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau is one such politician.
Summary: Even if abortions are needed to
preserve the health of a mother, this small number (less than 5 percent)
doesn’t justify the abortion practice in general; and according to many doctors
(who use language accurately), abortions are not even needed medically nor to
save the life of a mother.
Again: Is abortion is “essential health care”?
In the vast, vast majority of cases this is definitely false.
For more on this topic, see “Is abortion really ‘essential health care’? Social and economic problems require social and economic solutions, not the killing of children.” And, again,
see Dr. Kendra Kolb
(5 minute video).
Gaslight
6
According to Trudeau, “Abortion is covered under
our universal health care system.” This is true. But in the context of Trudeau’s
statement, the suggestion or implication is that it also should remain true.
Should it remain true? In view of the above falsehoods
set out by Trudeau, the answer is no.
Because abortion is not essential health care, Canadian taxpayers can correctly judge
abortion to be a non-essential medical procedure, and thus taxpayers have
reasonable grounds for thinking their tax dollars need not fund abortions.
These grounds are reasonable, whether one is pro-life or pro-choice.
Of course, many choices for abortion, though not
medically necessary, are not made lightly (the Shout Your Abortion crowd
notwithstanding, which sees abortion as a badge of honour). Those cases in
which abortion choice is not medically necessary and not made lightly seem to
be due to social and economic pressures. But if there are social and economic
reasons for why mothers feel their only option is abortion, then tax dollars
should be directed not to abortion as faux
“essential health care” but instead to help pregnancy resource centers, mothers
and families in need, foster care, and adoption agencies.
Surely, social and economic problems require
social and economic solutions, not the killing of children.
Conclusion
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is gaslighting the
Canadian public. Don’t let him, for the sake of the children. After all, every child matters.
For
additional thought
Hendrik
van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired Canadian philosopher and author of the book Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments: Critical Thinking about Abortion.
