The Supreme Court of Canada last month decided against a man who had attempted to stop his ex-girlfriend from aborting their child. The effect of the court’s action was to leave Canada’s de facto abortion-on-demand rule in place. Canada has had no abortion law since January 27, 1988, when the Supreme Court removed restrictions that had prevailed since the 1960s.
Though the court set aside an injunction barring the abortion, the justices did not issue any opinions on the case and said reasons for the ruling would be released later.
In fact, the case ended as a moot question before the Supreme Court of Canada. The woman involved had received an abortion at an unidentified Boston clinic just days before the hearing.
The “Baby Daigle” saga began July 3, when 17-week-pregnant Chantal Daigle of Montreal left her live-in boyfriend, Jean Guy Tremblay, and revealed her intention to abort the child. A Quebec Superior Court granted Tremblay an injunction to stop the abortion. The injunction was later upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeals.
When Daigle appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, the vacationing justices were summoned back to hear the case on August 8. But when the court convened, Daigle’s lawyer announced his client had received an abortion the weekend before.
Subsequently, it was revealed that Daigle had crossed the border in disguise and traveled to a Boston abortion clinic. The $8,000 cost for the trip and the procedure was paid for through contributions raised by several Canadian prochoice groups. (Daigle reportedly also earned another $8,000 by selling her story to a British tabloid.)
Battle For Legislation
In recent months, highly vocal and politically sophisticated groups have joined the Canadian abortion battle on both sides of the issue.
The prolife group Campaign Life has been encouraging Canadians—especially fathers of unborn children—to take women who are planning abortions to court. (Tremblay refused to say whether any prolife groups financially supported him in his court efforts.) In two other provinces, Manitoba and Ontario, fathers who applied for such injunctions were turned down. Quebec’s Charter of Rights, however, under which Tremblay requested his injunction, specifically protects the rights of the unborn.
The Daigle case appears to have forced the federal government to accelerate its efforts to draft abortion legislation. A seven-member cabinet committee, which includes evangelical Jake Epp, is currently considering options prepared by the Justice Ministry.
Though evangelicals involved in Canadian prolife groups have been generally less outspoken than others in the movement, they nonetheless have become increasingly involved in attempting to shape an agenda that urges the federal government to legislate maximum protection for the unborn.
Aileen Van Ginkel of Toronto, acting chair of the social action commission of the 25-denomination Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), said the fellowship will very likely press the government to accompany protection of the unborn with “a package of social objectives which will support women experiencing pregnancies which are emotionally or economically difficult.” She said such a package should particularly recognize the needs of the single mother by addressing day care, skills training, housing, counseling, and adoption alternatives.
On August 4, EFC executive director Brian Stiller wrote Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, urging him to avoid legislation that would allow abortions based on length of gestation. Such an approach, Stiller said, suggests that “human life is at least value when it is most vulnerable.”
Stiller said the EFC would also want the government “to initiate and support social programs to assist women who, when facing pregnancy, might otherwise think that abortion is their only option.”
By Lloyd Mackey in Vancouver.
