The following are some of the most commonly asked questions about the government’s abortion law, Bill C-43. At the time of writing, the Bill has yet to be passed by the Senate.

Doesn’t the fact that some doctors say they will stop doing abortions prove that the new law is better than no law?

Kim Campbell, the Minister of Justice, who is pro-abortion has told the doctors who perform abortions that the new law protects them. In a letter written to physicians (October 1990), she said the doctors need not be afraid that they will be sued for doing abortions after Bill C-43 becomes law. The Bill gives them more protection than they had when there was no law because it gives “legal recognition that abortion is a lawful medical procedure.”

Not only is the new law not better for the baby, but it gives abortionists greater freedom and protection to kill unborn babies.

How does Bill C-43 protect abortionists?

•    They are safe from the law because it is virtually impossible to prove in court that they did not think the woman’s life or health were threatened.
•    The Minister of Justice wrote that they are “legally protected from second guessing by any other person, including other doctors.”
•    Ms. Campbell says that it will be difficult if not impossible to lay criminal charges against abortionists, and even if they were laid, they could be stayed by provincial Attorneys General.
•    Abortionists are protected against injunctions. Fathers, according to the Minister of Justice and the Supreme Court, have no legal right to prevent their unborn children from being destroyed.
•    The Minister’s letter to the doctors threatens that criminal charges can be brought against individuals and organizations who harass doctors, in certain circumstances. She was speaking about picketing doctor’s homes and offices. It is important to note that harassment can mean merely the showing of a photograph of a pre-born child. A criminal charge could follow.
•    The Minister says: The legislation is designed to protect a doctor from being convicted under the new law….

Why couldn’t someone prove that the doctor knew that a woman was perfectly healthy?

It is virtually impossible for anyone to prove or disprove in a court of law what was the opinion of a doctor (or anyone else for that matter) on a particular occasion. You may know full well that the person is lying, but try proving that in court.

Dr. Paul Ranalli, a member of Physicians for Life, summed up the difficulties in an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail, November 21, 1990: “Unless a doctor were to turn himself in and declare that he did not form an adequate opinion at the time of the abortion, it is hard to see how he could ever be convicted.”

Is the new law really abortion on demand as pro-lifers claim?

Yes, it really is. All a woman needs is a doctor who is willing to say that, in his or her opinion, her physical, mental or psychological health will be threatened if she does not have an abortion. These provisions are so wide that the letter from the Minister of Justice says they will cover the woman’s “personal aspirations.”  This allows a doctor to claim hat in his or her opinion a woman’s health would be likely to be threatened if she had to miss a holiday or long stay in Europe, or competing in ski-races, or entering a beauty competition, because she was pregnant. Such “personal aspirations,” in the eyes of Canada’s Minister of Justice, would justify killing a pre-born Canadian.