Interim staff
It’s time for the Supreme Court of Canada to recognize that the right to personhood should be extended to unborn children.
That is the position Alliance for Life is taking in a court submission in the case of a pregnant, solvent-addicted Winnipeg woman who was ordered into a mandatory treatment program to protect her unborn child. The woman, identified only as Ms. G., had previously given birth to two children who suffered mental and physical injury due to the mother’s glue-sniffing habit.
Manitoba’s Child and Family Services had obtained a court order forcing the woman into a treatment program in an effort to prevent a similar injury to her third child. The order was subsequently overturned by the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Although Ms. G. eventually agreed to voluntary treatment for her addiction, child welfare officials decided to take the issue to the Supreme Court.
The child, William G., now six months old, has shown no signs of physical or mental injury.
The case has implications for the entire pro-life movement which has long argued that unborn children are entitled to protection under the Canadian Criminal Code.
The case draws attention to the responsibility of a pregnant woman towards her unborn child, and the court’s role in enforcing that responsibility.
Under existing law, the unborn do not acquire legal status until they fully emerge from the mother’s womb.
Alliance for Life is arguing that the courts should abandon the “legal fiction” that persons have legal rights only after birth.
“It is illegal to abuse a child after birth, therefore it is irrational to advocate that a mother can legally abuse this same child before birth,” said Alliance for Life executive director Michelle Blanchette.
“Society has a duty of care toward all its members,” she added. “It is reasonable to expect a mother to provide that same level of care for her child before and after birth.”
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), representing 28 denominations, is arguing along similar lines.
In a written submission to the court, the EFC said medical knowledge and technology give a clear understanding of when an unborn child is being harmed. The group said the old practice of waiting until a child is born alive, before extending legal protection in woefully inadequate.
“In a tragic situation where the addiction of a mother directly affects her unborn child, we need to fashion a way to protect the unborn child from physical harm which may last a lifetime,” said EFC president Gary Walsh.
Pro-abortion groups, concerned that a law protecting the unborn would infringe the rights of women, have also sought intervenor status in the case.
Both Alliance for Life and the EFG say they are not arguing for legal restrictions on the actions of pregnant women. Instead, they seek a law that will check behaviour harmful to the unborn.
They want the law to recognize that the mother has a duty to care for her unborn child and that the mother’s actions can cause injury to the child she is carrying.
