Justin Trudeau's "Pro-Choice" Decree

Trudeau’s recent pronouncement that new candidates for the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) must be "pro-choice" has stirred up some controversy. Criticism stemming from the National Post’s Andrew Coyne (Trudeau ban on pro-lifers implies the issue is settled. It isn’t) and the Toronto Star’s editorial board (Justin Trudeau contradicts ‘open nomination’ pledge) slammed Trudeau’s one-sidedness. The common theme is that this issue is still controversial and Trudeau is decreeing that it has been settled. Trudeau is accused of silencing dissent over an issue that can exist as an open-ended questions within a stable, liberal, democracy.

It is at this point, however, that I find myself in disagreement with Coyne et al. Insofar as we frame the issue as one between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” then indeed the issue has been settled. Canada is a firmly “pro-choice” country, like the others Coyne cites (Netherlands and Sweden). Let me explain what I mean. Between the options of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” the matter at hand is fairly simple. Either abortion is legally permissible or it is not. That’s it - let’s not add in any qualifiers. There is no stable, liberal, democratic country that remains on the side that abortion is outright illegal. Ipso facto, there is no country in the list Coyne produces that is “pro-life.”

Now, many will rightly point out that actual abortion policy varies from nation to nation. This is correct, however, the fact of the matter is that the “pro-choice” (i.e. legalized abortion) position has become the de facto, if not de jure, norm. Variations do not amount to concessions to the pro-life side.

Now, some will argue that because Canada has no legal guidelines on abortion Trudeau was wrong to take a side on the issue of abortion. I cannot see the connection here. Limitations on abortion exist within the framework of its permissibility.  Whereas the “pro-life” side can be honestly and accurately identified with the perspective that abortion is murder (and therefore absolutely impermissible), the “pro-choice” side cannot be identified with the opposite. Indeed, while there are a fringe minority that argue that abortion should be available for all nine months of a pregnancy, the vast majority of pro-choice supporters only desire a reasonable allowance for abortion. If we stop speaking of the issue abstractly, we can note that while Canada does lack legislative restrictions on abortion, there exists de facto limitations established by the Canadian medical community that essentially limits abortion to the first trimester, well in line with the norm amongst other “pro-choice” countries.

So what has Trudeau really done? He has said the future LPC must exist within the long-established status quo on abortion in Canada and that the stance that abortion ought to be outlawed should receive no accommodation. The debate instead should focus on how or if, within the rubric of a “pro-choice” (i.e. permissive) perspective, we decide to place limits on abortion. This debate, however, Trudeau seems rightly uninterested in having, because outside of the false debate on whether abortion should be legal (it should, is and will be), Canadians are quite satisfied with the de facto status quo. Even Stephen Harper is satisfied.

Coyne and the rest who are scrambling to denounce the end of free speech or free votes on the issue of abortion are, in my opinion, creating controversy where there is none. Certainly one can still run for parliament as a pro-life supporter whether as an independent or perhaps in a post-Harper Conservative party. Otherwise, all Trudeau is doing is sidestepping a pointless debate that has already been settled. To allow it to, even potentially, take the spotlight within a major political party (especially of the centre/left variety) is, in my opinion, the equivalent of allowing a debate between anti-vax and vaccine supporters. Its a non-debate. Trudeau was right to treat it as such.

*Edit: It has been pointed out to me that the issue of access to abortion services needs to be urgently addressed as there are growing areas of the country that effectively forbid abortion because of the lack of available (funded) medical services.  I strongly believe that *this* is the issue that should be addressed in parliament.  The "debate" between pro-life and pro-choice unfortunately distracts us from addressing this crucial issue.