By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission
Seeing as though this was on the front page of the National Post this week, one could say that the secret is out.
Over the past few years, pro-life politicians have adopted an incremental approach to eventually stopping abortion. John Ivison in this featured piece in the newspaper explains this process well.
As Ivison notes, “Roxanne’s Law” was targeted against coercive abortion while motion M-408 was to target the alleged problem of sex-selection abortions. Both were unsuccessful. I recall, though, that the advocates of these initiatives targeted the practice. Surely no one should be forced to have an abortion? Surely, no child should be aborted due to being the “wrong” sex? People who are moderate on this question may see these cases as egregiously bad, and worth restricting.
The closest quote that Ivison was able to get to support his thesis was one from an anonymous Pro-life MP, tied to the March for Life rally in Ottawa this past week, which led the reporter to surmise that pro-lifers may have more stick-to-it-iveness than the Energizer Bunny. .
“As one anti-abortion MP put it: ‘We need to move the debate beyond a political drive on the narrow question of a law limiting abortion access. That’s the old Morgentaler debate. Can the movement grow bigger than any political party and become the tail that wags the dog?’”
If you are pro-life, your response may be “And?” After all, the incremental way is how William Wilberforce worked to eliminate slavery in Britain, one step at a time, targeting the most egregious reasons to get rid of slavery first.
If it is clear to reporters now that this is the game plan, it might be good for pro-lifers to acknowledge this in public. Otherwise the pro-choice side will be able to say “We know exactly what you are doing…”