Prolifers may see little reason for optimism in the recent report on abortion in Ontario made by Dr. Marion Powell for the provincial government. In fact, however, by showing just how normally bankrupt the so called  “pro-choice” position has become, the doctor will probably alienate far more people in her position than she will gain.

The Powell report, reported and discussed elsewhere in this edition is based on the viewpoint that abortion should be available under Medicare to all women in Ontario. It is further based, however, on a few assumptions that don’t stand up to known facts or to common sense observation.

First of all, we only have the word of pro-abortion lobbying groups, that there are, in fact hordes of women out there who can’t get a legal abortion fast enough and who either “face potentially harmful delays” or end up not aborting at all. We do know that from a strictly medical standpoint, the vast majority of women will come to no harm if a pregnancy continues, and from the standpoint of psychological well-being there are many more women who regret not bearing children than who regret doing so.

In any case, it’s just as reasonable to assume that this so-called “access problem” is vastly over blown. More than 27,000 Ontario residents managed to obtain legal abortions in  1985

a fact which in itself ought to put pro-abortion alarmists views in perspective..

Also, although all of Dr. Powell’s recommendations were designed to meet the letter of federal abortion law, there is at least one aspect of the law she overlooked:  No hospital is required to provide abortion, nor any doctor to perform them. There is no right to abortion in Canada.

The true intent of pro-choicers is apparent in a few of the realities cited by the report as problems.

First of all, Dr. Powell laments that fact that lots of doctors don’t do abortions and that some spoil sports won’t even give referrals for the procedure. Less committed souls can be forgiven for assuming that under a genuine commitment to free choice, professionals would be allowed to act on their moral positions. In fact, pro-choicers aren’t interested in anyone’s choicers but their own.

Also lambasted for blocking the road to easier abortion at those hospitals trying to stay out of providing them. It seems that institutions committed to serving everyone find that they alienate substantial numbers when they provide something that a godly chunk of society finds morally repugnant. But in the “pro-choicers” ideal ways around this detail have to be found.

Once again, only one choice would be safe-guarded. There’s more;  all abortion

expenses, even travel expenses would be reimbursed by Medicare, again dashing any chance for pro-life tax and premium-payers to exercise their right to choose.

Far from exposing any commitment to genuine freedom, pro-choicers are only

interested in creating an atmosphere where any woman can abort her child at public expense. The fact that some of us believe such an atmosphere is already close to prevailing

doesn’t stop the pro-choicer in the quest to tear down and degrade respect for the conscience.

personal responsibility and indeed life itself.

Judy Rebeck of the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics gave a laughable example of the pro-abortion mentality when she, too, lambasted the Powell report. It seems she has no use

for a report predicted on upholding the law!

More than one uncommitted voter, or even  vaguely-committed voter,  “pro-choicer,”

has been put off the pro-abortion stance permanently when the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the position is exposed. While she clearly didn’t intend to, Dr. Powell may have given pro-life it’s biggest boost in years.