A lot has been made of Rona Ambrose's support for Motion 312, including this poster which has been floating around (and its accuracy is indeed questionable, but isn't that true of most memes?)
Now, I'm not 100 per cent sure if that was her specific motivation for supporting Motion 312 or not. Here's a tweet that she sent out, explaining her position:
@zoeyryan I have repeatedly raised concerns about discrimination of girls by sex selection abortion: no law needed, but we need awareness!
— Rona Ambrose (@MinRonaAmbrose) September 27, 2012
In this regard, I somewhat agree with her; I admit that it's difficult for me to support the abortion of an otherwise-healthy fetus, simply because it has XX chromosomes. But I don't think that limiting womens' access to abortion is a productive answer.
Some people have suggested prohibiting ultrasound technicians from disclosing the sex of the fetus until the third trimester, as a means of combating sex-selective abortions, but in my mind, this is ignoring the true root of the problem: Health Canada's hastily-enacted policy, which prevents sex selection during artificial insemination. If Minister Ambrose truly cared about both a woman's right to choose and wanted to prevent sex-selective abortions, why wouldn't she try to remove this restrictive policy instead?
It may seem noble on the surface to want to stop sex-selective abortions, and there is some evidence to suggest that certain communities prefer male children, and use sex-selective abortions to abort female feti. (Spell-check note: No, I definitely DID NOT mean to write "female fetish"! Stupid spell-check.) But sex-selective abortion is simply a work-around that couples might use because they can't choose their child's sex during the assisted reproduction process. For those who cannot afford assisted reproduction but still prefer a male child, the alternative is even worse; preventing sex-selective abortions would necessarily lead to an increase in female infanticide, as has been the case in China during the one-child policy.
A good amount of research has been done in many jurisdictions, including most states in the USA, which allow sex selection during the insemination process. So far, no evidence suggests any strong gender bias among those seeking reproductive assistance. Often families will seek out "balance" among their children (such as a family that already has three boys now wants a girl, or vice-versa) and even when a couple prefers a boy or a girl for their first child, things tend to balance themselves out over the aggregate.
Therefore, there's no evidence to suggest that allowing sex selection for insemination would have any impact on overall demographics, nor would it create any social preference for children of one sex over another.
It should be noted that the same policy also prevents same-sex female couples from choosing a specific sperm donor, requiring that all donations be anonymous (which increases the chances of serious genetic disorders being passed on to the child) and also prevents people from receiving payment for donation of either their eggs or their sperm. I'm not going to weigh in on the moral questions of whether it's right or wrong to ask for money for such a donation, but the policy still serves to limit the options available to couples seeking reproductive assistance.
Minister Ambrose, if you truly wish to represent the rights of women to make reproductive choices for themselves, you will instead work to remove these restrictions. In doing so, you will increase the choices available to couples wishing to have children, and at the same time, you can reduce or eliminate the incidence of sex-selective abortions.
If you do not follow your vote on Motion 312 with a similar attempt to remove these restrictions on womens' and couples' reproductive options, we can only conclude that you indeed wish to reduce womens' choices regarding their reproductive rights.
If we don't see any follow-up action to increase womens' reproductive options, my recent tweet will remain accurate:
When was the Ministry for the Status of Women renamed the Ministry for the Status of Bible-Thumping? Must have missed the memo... #m312
— Nikki Thomas (@MsNikkiThomas) September 27, 2012
Please, Minister Ambrose -- prove me wrong.
*This post originally appeared on the author's site.
Follow Nikki Thomas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MsNikkiThomas
We have socialized healthcare, these questions are meaningless.
Something to think about, Compare
Latimer Abortion
Seed of child, part him,her Mothers Womb, part her, him
Both Cared stress for 12yrs Cared for 6-8 months stress for her
wasn't able to walk Wasn't able to walk
Wasn't able to eat alone Wasn't able to eat alone
Was severly disabled ?
Dependent on him,her,others Dependent on mother
EQUALS
10 yrs. in Jail ?
More importantly: can we talk about how the REAL intend and purpose of M-312 and M-408 is not to "discuss" when life begins or what we can do to prevent sex-selective abortions but how their REAL purpose is to recriminalize ALL abortions in this country?
Please. Let's not go into their rhetoric because that's exactly what they want. Let's uncover and deconstruct the real meaning of their motions and the real intent of their actions. They gamble on the assumption that women will not notice. They gamble on the fact that we won't delve into the purposes of their actions. Let's show them we won't be fooled.
It is not your choice for other women. I will repeat a post from 1988 ruling - SCoC:
"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."
"the right to security of the person of a pregnant woman was infringed more than was required to achieve the objective of protecting the fetus, and the means were not reasonable."
So it's not up to you or the "honourable minister for the status of women" to approve or disprove.
WHO has stated
“The major complications that account for 80% of all maternal deaths are: …unsafe abortion”
“To avoid maternal deaths, it is also vital to prevent .... All women, including adolescents, need access to family planning, safe abortion services to the full extent of the law, and quality post-abortion care.”
Those that don't want abortions, don't have to have them. Those that do, should get safe care & followup care.
It's when other's, like some in the HoC, decide they want to control women; they know better.... and it's based on religious beliefs that have no place in our laws.