NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

____ ® UMI

A HOUSE DIVIDED: THE CANADIAN PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT, 1968-2006

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

of

The University of Guelph

by

JEFFREY LIMA

In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

January, 2010

© Jeffrey Lima, 2010. Library and Archives Bibliothèque et ?F? Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada

Yourfíle Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-71864-3 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-71864-3

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

¦+¦ Canada ABSTRACT

A HOUSE DIVIDED: THE CANADIAN PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT, 1968-2006

Jeffrey Lima Advisor: University of Guelph, 2010 Dr. Alan Gordon

This thesis examines the infrastructure, strategies, and goals of several Canadian pro-life organizations. Pro-life activism is generally manifested in educational, political, and counselling work. These efforts are often mischaracterized as being ideologically driven or confessionally motivated. This paper will demonstrate that even within these different "arms" or "streams," there were substantial differences regarding the most effective means of engaging in pro-life activism. These differences are reflected in factional disputes and organizational fissures. Numerous oral interviews, as well as other sources pertaining to the organizational history of the movement were compiled, and demonstrate the existence of a varied response to the issue. The nature of these disputes highlights the way in which contingency rather than religious or political ideology shaped a response to the issue for different groups of activists. Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to all who helped me in the process of writing this thesis. With the assistance and expertise of Dr. Alan Gordon and Dr. Keith Cassidy, I was able to bring this study to completion on schedule, and for this I am very grateful. Their patience and time is very much appreciated. A very special thanks to those who agreed to be interviewed for this project. Your willingness to participate, as well as your support and assistance, made this such an enjoyable project to complete. I hope that I have adequately portrayed your personalities and efforts.

I would also like to thank a very generous person who donated much of their time to help me edit numerous drafts of this thesis. Your help will not be forgotten.

? Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Chapter One: Historiography 8

Chapter Two: History of the Counselling and Educational Arm 26

Chapter Three: History of the Political Arm 54

Conclusion 101

Bibliography 106

Appendix A: Section 25 1 of the Criminal Code 115

Appendix B: Bill C-43 117 Appendix C: Visual Display of Pro-Life Groups 118

ii List of Abbreviations

AFL (Alliance for Life) CFL (Coalition for Life) CL (Campaign Life) CLC (Campaign Life Coalition) CPL (Canadian Physicians for Life) CYPLO (Canadian Youth Pro-Life Organization) EPC (Euthanasia Prevention Coalition) LC (Life Canada) OCCB (Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops) PFLC (Priests for Life Canada)

in Introduction

The abortion controversy has for forty years been one of the most divisive and persistent debates concerning public morality in North America. The contentious nature of the issue has given rise to competing claims amongst the active proponents of the pro- choice and pro-life movements. Several studies on the Canadian post-war period demonstrate that this era was one of social, political, and cultural upheaval.1 However, Canadian pro-life activism has not received an appropriate level of attention given its significance as a social movement. Moreover, its historical role has been misunderstood because of its characterization as politically and religiously reactionary. This mischaracterization is based on the assumption that the movement is motivated by emotion or conservative religious belief. The movement's accomplishment in developing varied organizational infrastructures merits consideration for it at one time allowed it to be a relatively potent political and cultural phenomenon in Canada. A contributing factor in the movement's recent absence from Canadian political culture is the demise of several organizations due to personality conflicts and infighting over strategies and goals. Both the initial promise of organizational diversity and its subsequent lack of success based on internal and external contingencies, demonstrate the existence of a structured, diverse, and rational response to a perceived human injustice.

'. Several notable examples include, Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English, Canada since 1945: Power, Politics, and Provincialism, Revised ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989); Alvin Finkel, Our Lives: Canada After 1945 (Toronto: J. Lorimer, 1997) and the collections in Philip Buckner, ed., Canada and the End ofEmpire (Toronto: UBC Press, 2005) and Magdalena Fahrni and Robert Allen Rutherdale, eds., Creating Postwar Canada : Community, Diversity, and Dissent, 1945-75 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008).

1 As will be shown in the first chapter, often overlooked in the study of pro-life activism is the development and maintenance of its organizational infrastructure. Consideration of this endeavour demonstrates that the pro-life movement fits into the larger historical narrative as a rational and politically engaged contingent of society. Chapters two and three will illustrate how coalescence into several, sometimes competing organizational bodies, compelled certain segments of the movement to develop new ideas and methods for engaging political elites and the general public. Thus, an organizational history of the movement demonstrates that contingency rather than religious or political ideology shaped their response to the issue for different groups of activists. Political and cultural conditions influenced the ways in which pro-life activists engaged the issue, and these broader circumstances affected movement leadership in guiding the efforts of their organizations. This was intended to ensure the movement's social relevance, though this was ultimately unfruitful in changing the political, legislative, or judicial circumstances concerning the abortion controversy. Debilitating disagreements tended to absorb much of the energy of these organizations and alienated numerous members.

Institutional pro-life activism has historically manifested itself in various forms, and the most organizationally diverse component of the Canadian pro-life movement has been its educational arm. Some notable organizations which have emerged include the Alliance for Life, Canadian Physicians for Life, the Canadian Youth Pro-Life Organization, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Life Canada and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. The basic mandate of these groups has been to change the "hearts and minds" of the general public, though they have also acted in legislative and judicial arenas by

2 presenting briefs to the government regarding proposed legislation, and by acting as interveners in several court cases. Most groups support and train their own members in pro-life work by establishing social networks and hosting conferences. Several of the organizations have materials provided, as well as distributed by, Life Cycle Books, a

Toronto based company which produces numerous pro-life resources. Related to the educational concern with changing "hearts and minds," is the individualized counselling work done through Birthright, for it attempts to convince patrons to carry their pregnancies to term. Project Rachael and Michael House represent more recent organizations which serve a similar function. As these efforts are largely anonymous, and because Birthright maintains a strict policy of confidentiality, it is difficult to document them thoroughly; however, individual counselling may well comprise a large proportion of movement activity. Indeed, Zaid Munson argues that in the United States, it accounts for the vast majority of pro-life efforts.

With the exception of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the educational groups tend to share a similar organizational make-up, operating as "umbrellas," in the sense that the national body mainly serves a coordinating function between groups at a local and provincial level. In most cases, local right-to-life associations have members on the board of a provincial umbrella group, which in turn select provincial representatives for the board of national bodies. Local groups maintain autonomy in this context, by performing separate campaigns and initiatives. Another educational initiative of the movement also attempts to affect changes in the broader culture through the publication of newspapers to counterbalance the

2. Zaid W. Munson, The Making ofPro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008), 1 13.

3 perceived media bias against the Canadian pro-life movement. Journalists for these publications have interviewed prominent pro-lifers, as well as advertised events, speakers, and materials. Though most organizations release newsletters to its members, several distinct and relatively autonomous pro-life news organizations have developed, including: The Uncertified Human, The Interim, and LifeSiteNews, the latter two being directly developed and supported by Campaign Life Coalition. Whereas the educational arm of the movement has developed into numerous organizations, the political arm is less diverse institutionally and aims at directly changing the political and legislative framework of Canada. The initial institutional construct of the political arm was created by the educational arm, with the Executive of Alliance for Life establishing the first such group, Coalition for Life. Coalition for Life was subsequently rivalled by Campaign Life, which emerged in 1978 as a distinct element within the political arm of the movement. The greatest cause for contention between these two groups was not personality differences but rather a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of being "pro-life". A serious rift between two distinct groups, "pragmatists" and "purists,"3 stunted the growth and blunted the effectiveness of the political arm of the pro-life cause. Thus, these two organizational manifestations represent unique points of view on the direction and meaning of pro-life activism. Of course, the organizations previously listed do not represent a complete list of all pro-life groups in the country. Several Canadian pro-life organizations could not be included in this study, but an effort has been made to outline the basic development and composition of some of the largest and most enduring groups. In this thesis, readers will note the absence of any analysis regarding the specific role of these organizations in 3. Terms used widely in pro-life circles. 4 influencing the courts or the political process through the presentation of briefs and statements to the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as their intervener status in several court cases. Also absent is any mention of these groups' formal relationships with political parties and candidates. Although these efforts comprised much of the work of these organizations, they are external to the argument in this thesis and would require a far more expansive discussion than is permitted here. As much as possible, this study has limited its focus to the internal dynamics of these groups, leaving the aforementioned aspects of pro-life activity to other historians. Some of these aspects of pro-life activism have been studied in some detail in the work of Michael Cuneo, F.L. Morton, and

Raymond Tatalovich; however, because the Canadian pro-life movement has been largely neglected by historians, a different focus was specifically chosen to correct this gap in our understanding. A note on method is necessary, as this thesis has relied heavily on oral interviews with several movement leaders. The emphasis on movement leadership was deliberately made for several reasons. Focussing on the leadership of the movement offers the most direct means of understanding its internal dynamics. It contrasts with the perception of the movement as a mass emotional phenomenon. This perception has arguably led to shortcomings in previous literature, where there has been the tendency to focus on individual grassroots activists. A disproportionate emphasis on more dramatic forms of protest such as street activism and direct action has resulted. When organizational leaders have been considered in previous studies, it has been in the context of the clergy, which further serves an inaccurate characterization because clerical leaders comprise a minority amongst formal pro-life leaders.

5 Prospographical questions asked by the author present fewer problems than do the more historically based inquiries. Personal data regarding religious affiliation, education, and occupation were collected to assess some basic characteristics of early pro-life leadership. Questions addressed when and how they first became aware of pro- life issues, when they first became involved in pro-life activities, the nature of their involvement in the groups with which they were associated, and the specific work they did.

Several key themes of the secondary literature have addressed political or religious aspects of the pro-life movement. Therefore, ways in which the interviewees understood their religious beliefs as having affected their views on life issues and their response to them, as well as the role they thought religion played, or should have played in shaping the movement have been assessed. Interviewees' characterization of their political beliefs and those of others in the movement, and whether or not political beliefs or allegiances changed as a result of movement involvement have also been gauged.

In order to outline the historical development of the movement, interviewees were asked to describe organizational change. Special consideration was given to questions pertaining to controversies within pro-life organizations over tactics and strategy, as well as respondents' opinions on the relative weight of personalities and issues in creating divisions within the movement. With regard to this set of questions several methodological issues arise. An oral history approach is not without its shortcomings. When speaking of their experiences, interviewees often communicate the events that they consider to be most relevant, and may primarily reflect on their specific role and place within historical

6 events.4 This poses as a unique problem, as the factional and personal disputes amongst movement activists augments this tendency to inflate individual frustrations and successes in the time period discussed. In some cases, the interviewees reported such dissimilar accounts, that several of these differing recollections have been recorded verbatim, for two reasons: first, in these circumstances little corroborating documentary evidence is available to favour one interpretation over another; and second, this approach serves to poignantly demonstrate the pervasive, and evidently persistent, factional and personal disputes of activist leaders. Thus, this main shortcoming also has a distinct advantage. Moreover, there is a slight tendency for certain groups of activists to report on events in similar ways. The way they "...generalize, explain, and interpret evidence..." often illustrates the main division between "pragmatists" and "purists". This may indicate the ways in which activist leaders perceived events and reacted to them. In this sense, interviewee responses do not indicate simple recall, but the interpretation of events thirty or forty years after the fact, and therefore subject to failing memory or exaggeration. These accounts have also been influenced by following circumstance, and in some cases, emotional pain. Nonetheless, an attempt has been made to critically address these issues and identify the more problematic aspects of personal accounts. It is hoped that this sifting process has contributed to a lucid and engaging narrative

4. Donald Ritchie, Doing Oral History (Toronto: Twane Publishers, 1995), 12. 5. Michael Frisch, A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1 990), 1 1 . 6. Trevor Lummis, "Structure and Validity in Oral Evidence" In The Oral History Reader, eds. Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (New York: Routledge, 1998), 273.

7 Chapter One: Historiography

The pro-life movement in America has elicited a range of academic discussion, while work analysing its Canadian counterpart is sorely lacking. Several studies have focussed on the development and reform of abortion laws in the United States, with particular attention to legislative, judicial and political contexts. A secondary focus of this literature has outlined the influence and development of the pro-life and pro-choice movements specifically. Examinations of the pro-choice side of the controversy are often embedded in works studying the feminist movement, while some studies of the pro-life movement argue that it is considered the less socially aberrant phenomenon of the two.8 Indeed, the pro-life movement, at least since the 1970s, has been directed towards a change in the status quo; as such it is much more visible and active. That most of the published work on the pro-life movement has been produced by anthropologists, sociologists and journalists is understandable given the relatively contemporary nature of the topic. To some extent, these studies reflect the interests of these disciplines. However, the work of sociologist, James R. Kelly, is particularly

1 . Suzanne Staggenborg, The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) , is one notable full length study on pro-choice activism specifically. William Saletan in, Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War (Berkley: University of California Press, 2003) , offered a highly critical look at the strategic and tactical decisions of pro-choice organizations more specifically. Also, see Lorna Weir, "Left Popular Politics in Canadian Feminist Abortion Organizing, 1982-1991," Feminist Studies 20, no. 2 (1994) and Melissa Haussman, "What does Gender have to do with Abortion Law?" Canadian Women's Movement- Parliamentary Interactions on Reform Attempts, 1969-91," International Journal of Canadian Studies 21, no. Spring (2000), for more limited studies on the development of these organizations and their political manoeuvring within Canada. 8. This is perhaps due to the enduring historical analysis provided by James C. Mohr's, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution ofNational Policy, 1800-1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978). Widely accepted and cited in the literature tracing the historical development of abortion laws. This work is considered authoritative in spite of the fact that it was heavily funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations (Mohr, viii), both avowedly pro-choice organizations. 9. Keith Cassidy, "Interpreting the Pro-Life Movement: Recurrent Themes and Recent Trends," Life and Learning IX (1999), 1 .

8 insightful, and his contributions over the past 25 years have been useful to those studying the movement. His work is largely focused on developments within the American movement, which correlate strongly with that of its Canadian counterpart, including its diverse social and religious composition.

The volume of material examining the American movement can provide several useful themes which may guide a study of the Canadian pro-life movement; however, the Canadian variant operates within a different set of legislative, judicial and political realities which has inevitably affected the development of its strategies and goals. Dissension over strategic approaches has led to organizational fracturing, thereby siphoning support from more broadly based national and local groups, which partly

l0. James R. Kelly, "Common Ground for Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Joining Forces to Challenge New Jersey Family Cap," America 1 80, no. 2 (23 January, 1 999), 8-13.; James R. Kelly, "Sociology and Public Theology: A Case Study of Pro-Choice/Prolife Common Ground," Sociology ofReligion 60, no. 2 (Summer, 1999), 99-124.; James R. Kelly, "Why Republican and New Democrat Welfare Changes Need Legal Abortion," America 173 (6 January, 1996), 7-8.; James R. Kelly, "Beyond Compromise: Casey, Common Ground, and the Pro-Life Movement" In Abortion Politics in American States, eds. Mary Segers and Timothy A. Byrnes (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1995), 205-24.; James R. Kelly, "Truth, Not Truce: 'Common Ground' on Abortion, a Movement within both Movements," Virginia Review of Sociology 2 (1995), 213-41.; James R. Kelly, "A Dispatch from the Abortion Wars: Reflections on 'Common Ground'," America 171 (17 September, 1994), 8-13.; James R. Kelly, "Seeking a Sociologically Correct Name for Abortion Opponents" In Abortion Politics in the United States and Canada, eds. Ted G. Jelen and Marthe A. Chandler (Westport: Praeger, 1994), 14-40.; James R. Kelly, "Pro-Life and Pro- Choice After Reagan-Bush," America (30 January, 1993), 1 1-15.; James R. Kelly, "Abortion Politics: The Last Decades, the Next Three Decades and the 1992 Elections," America 167 (1 1 July, 1992), 8-12.; James R. Kelly, "Abortion: What Americans really Think and the Catholic Challenge," America (2 November, 1991), 310-16.; James R. Kelly, "Beyond Slogans: An Abortion Ethic for Women and the Unborn," The Christian Century 107 (21 February, 1990), 184-86.; James R. Kelly, "The Koop Report and the Better Politics of Abortion," America 162 (2 June, 1990), 542-46.; James R. Kelly, "A Political Challenge to the Pro-Life Movement," Commonweal (23 November, 1990), 692-96.; James R. Kelly, "Ecumenism and Abortion: A Case Study of Pluralism, Privatization and the Public Conscience," Review ofReligious Research 30, no. 3 (March, 1989), 225-35.; James R. Kelly, "Toward Complexity: The Right to Life Movement," Research in the Study ofReligion, no. 1 (1989), 83-107.; James R. Kelly, "The Vanishing Middle in Abortion Politics," The Christian Century (August, 1988), 708-1 L; James R. Kelly, "AIDS and the Death Penalty as Consistency Tests for the Prolife Movement," America (26 September, 1987), 151- 55.; James R. Kelly, "Turning Liberals into Fascists: A Case Study in the Distortion of the Right to Life Movement," Fidelity (July/August, 1987), 17-22.; James R. Kelly, "Beyond the Stereotypes: Interviews with Right-to-Life Pioneers," Commonweal (20 November, 1981), 654-59. 9 accounts for the movement's lack of political clout in contrast to the American movement. '

This variance in the effectiveness of the different movement's in terms of political organization, persistence and growth is difficult to account for given the limited nature of the literature. The more detailed and comprehensive studies to date, have tended to explore motivations of political or religious activism in general, while the historical studies have not fully accounted for political or religious diversity within the movement, though in a more limited sense, they have outlined the broader political and legal context within which the movement operates.12 However, these studies often neglect the different ways specific organizations motivate and educate their members. Motivational and educational methodologies reflect the constraints, limitations, and goals of these organizations. A detailed analysis of the themes and content of studies on the American and Canadian movements suggests that a more focused organizational history of the Canadian pro-life movement is needed. Several early attempts to outline the composition and ideology of the American pro-life movement fall short of comprehensive analysis. Such works attribute ulterior motives to movement activists by contending that they are intent on preserving religiously based sexual mores and gendered hierarchy. Andrew H. Merton' s popular account, Enemies of Choice: The Right-to-Life Movement and Its Threat to Abortion,

". Barry J. Kay and others, "Single-Issue Interest Groups and the Canadian Electorate: The Case of Abortion in 1988," Journal of Canadian Studies 26, no. 2 (1991). n. See Thomas Flanagan, "The Staying Power of the Legislative Status Quo: Collective Choice in Canada's Parliament After 'Morgentaler'," Canadian Journal of Political Science 30, no. 1 (1997), 31-53, http://search.ebscohost.com.cerberus.lib.uoguelph.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTvpe=ip&db=ahl&AN= A000434177.01&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site and Donley T. Studiar and Raymond Tatalovich, "Abortion Policy Implementation in Canada and the United States," The American Review of Canadian Studies 25, no. 2/3 (Summer/Fall, 1995), 203. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=391 07800 l&Fmt=7&clientId=14823&ROT=309&VName=POD.

10 characterized the movement as one which has the goal of preserving "...anything unborn and human..."13 This misrepresents the pro-life movement as being solely against abortion, ignoring the stand many hold against euthanasia and capital punishment. He argues as well that there is a malevolent subtext which underlies the pro-life ethic which is subconsciously maintained.14 This includes efforts to restore a repressive sexual climate for women. Merton also argues that large elements within the movement are anti-democratic, anti-intellectual and anti-humanist, and combine to form an "oppressive crusade" comparable to Medieval witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi persecution of the Jews.15 The characterization of the pro-life movement as being significantly at variance with modern progressive society in demanding that it conform to its own Judeo-Christian world view, assumes that pro-lifers are a homogenous group active in the movement for the same reasons.16 Recent work by Zaid Munson has shown that this characterization is false; the pro-life movement has historically attracted a wide variety of people with differing world views, whose beliefs about the significance of the movement become refined and, in some cases formed, after active involvement.

Whereas Merton characterized the movement as inherently religious, Connie Paige in The Right-to-Lifers: Who They Are, How they Operate, Where They Get Their Money argues that the religious roots of the movement were shed by the late 1970s, albeit

13. Andrew H. Merton, Enemies of Choice: The Right to Life Movement and its Threat to Abortion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1981), 1. 14. Merton, 8. Susan Faludi in, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: Crown Publishers, 1991) also argued this point in a similar fashion. In addition to Faludi and Merton, Leslie J. Reagan's, When Abortion was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997) asserts that legalized abortion improved public health, strengthened patients' rights and civil liberties. Thus, the contention that the pro-life movement is involved in a broader cultural conspiracy to undermine women's rights is by no means unique to Merton. 15. Merton, 9-10. 16. This is reiterated in a softer contention by Nanette J. Davis in, From Crime to Choice: The Transformation ofAbortion in America (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985). 17 . Munson, 6.

11 superficially, in favour of political rather than religious affiliation. She argues that part of the perception of pro-lifers as religious is due to the failure of the news media to make a distinction between its earlier identity as a clerical proxy movement and its later absorption by the New Right in the 1980s.18 According to Paige's perspective, its Roman Catholic roots propelled it into a national movement by initially laying the foundation for its mobilization as a political "machine" through establishing its initial infrastructure, communications network, logistics, resources and ideology.1 Her most notable contribution to understanding the American pro-life movement is her analysis of its change over time. She assesses the different qualities of those leaders who made significant structural reforms within different organizations, though she focuses mainly on the National Right to Life Committee and the personalities within it such as Carolyn Gerster. Paige also maintains that the pro-life movement's later connection with the New Right allowed access to large sums of financial support which she believes should have ensured its political success. Instead it ultimately failed due to "...trying to turn back a historical clock with one-way hands." The recurring description of the pro-life movement's activities as attempting to run counter to progressive forces is revisited in the literature, consolidating its image as a socially aberrant phenomenon. In keeping with these previous interpretations Kristin Luker's, Abortion and the Politics ofMotherhood, one of the most widely cited works on the pro-life movement, defines it as inherently reactionary. She argues that activists hold in common "...an

'8. Connie Paige, The Right to Lifers: Who they are, how they Operate, Where they Get their Money (New York: Summit Books, 1983), 32. 19. Paige, 51. 20 . Ibid., 193. 21 . Ibid., 244.

12 internally coherent and mutually shared view of the world that is tacit, never fully articulated, and, most importantly, completely at odds with the world view held by their opponents."22 This world view includes the belief that men and women are intrinsically different23 and are meant to fulfill different roles in life,24 while procreation is the sole function and role of sexuality; making artificial contraception inherently wrong, and sex education morally repugnant. According to this view, the beliefs of pro-choice advocates are hence, diametrically opposed to the world-view of pro-lifers. This characterization of pro-life and pro-choice advocates assumes that most of their proponents more or less adhere to similar, yet opposed, world-views. In fact disagreement over such issues has been a major reason why pro-life groups fracture in both Canada and the United States. Authors Faye Ginsburg in Contested Lives: The

97 Abortion Debate in an American Community and Zaid Munson in The Making ofPro-

Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works, have noted that many

no groups/activists share little in common other than opposition to abortion. However, Luker's work provides a valuable insight by noting that the pro-life perspective is interconnected to a wide variety of beliefs about the nature and consequences of abortion which cannot be readily determined by religious faith or politics.

22 . Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics ofMotherhood (Berkley: University of California Press, 1984), 159. 23 Luker, 159. Ibid., 160. Ibid., 164. Ibid., 174-175. Specifically in regard to Luker's contention, Faye D. Ginsburg in, Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community (Berkley: University of California Press, 1 989) argues that although pro-lifers may accept inherent differences in male/female roles, they do not necessarily consent to hierarchy. (Ginsburg, 7) 2d. Munson, 6.

13 An attempt to dismantle the tendency to study pro-lifers under the assumption that they constitute a homogenous group is made by Dallas A. Blanchard in her book, The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Rise of the Religious Right: From Polite to Fiery Protest. She applies social movement theory to her study of pro-life activism, and develops the notion that although the movement began as an initiative by Catholic professionals, its Catholic demographic became quickly outstripped by its Protestant elements.29 She also acknowledges differences in the various elements of pro-life activism, establishing that socio-economic factors can influence the chosen form of movement participation. She argues that those involved in education and lobbying tend to be upper-middle-class professionals, while direct action activists are more likely to be composed of working-class men and homemakers. This provides a useful framework with which to understand activism in the pro-life movement, though she is less successful in profiling cases where activists participate in a range of these pro-life efforts.

Blanchard underscores the differences of opinion about approaches to issues that were heavily debated within the pro-life movement and describes the debate as it related to the

American Life League branching off from the National Right to Life Committee, a split caused by the NRLC being judged not "activist" enough. Kerry N. Jacoby criticized Blanchard's approach in Souls, Bodies, Spirits: The Drive to Abolish Abortion since 1973. While there are some methodological problems with Jacoby's work, her insights about the nature of pro-life activism are useful. She contends that the pro-life movement had the potential for broad appeal, but could not

29 . Dallas A. Blanchard, The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Rise of the Religious Right: From Polite to Fiery Protest (Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, 1994), 33. 30. Blanchard, 87. 31 . Ibid., 77.

14 move beyond its initial religious structure and politics. While its origin in religious activism provided a strong core of committed adherents, its demographic base could only attract like-minded individuals.32 In spite of this, Jacoby argues that traditional social movement theory is helpful in explaining how these groups formed a broad social movement,33 and concludes that the movement has its roots in previous religious revival movements in American society. Though hers is a valuable contribution, she examines the movement primarily as a post-Roe v. Wade phenomenon and thus overlooks the formation and composition of pro-life activists prior to that catalyst. 4 Differences amongst activists were studied in a more detailed fashion in James Risen and Judy L. Thomas' specific look at direct action participants in, Wrath ofAngels: The American Abortion War. Employing the use of over two hundred interviews, Risen and Thomas situate the motivation for protracted activism within the broader judicial and legislative framework. Referring to Roe v. Wade, they indicated that the Supreme Court's decision stunted a public debate still in its infancy.35 The assumption is that if the abortion debate was permitted to progress in the legislative arena, the abortion controversy might have become a less prevalent aspect of American political culture." Without a Supreme Court ruling which superseded state legal initiatives, there might not have been a direct target to galvanize both sides of the debate to either preserve or dissolve the ruling.

. Kerry N. Jacoby, Souls, Bodies, Spirits: The Drive to Abolish Abortion since 1973 (Westport: Praeger, 1998), 69. 33. Jacoby, 74. 34. Cassidy, 10. 35. James Risen and Judy L. Thomas, Wrath ofAngels: The American Abortion War (New York: Basic Books, 1998), pg, 38. 36. Anne Hendershott's, The Politics ofAbortion (New York: Encounter Books, 2006) has more recently noted this aspect of abortion politics in the U.S. 15 An important contribution of the book is its treatment of direct action supporters. Even amongst this group with a more limited focus, dissension and conflict regarding the best means by which to protest, is evident. The book attributes the movement's founding to Catholic leader and anti-Vietnam War protester John O'Keefe, transforming the academic understanding of the ideological and political roots of direct action protesters to the 1960s counterculture.37 Direct action split into factions led by Michael Bray and Joseph Scheidler who expressed disgust with, and questioned the commitment of, "mainstream" elements within the movement which they considered too complacent with the political and legal establishment.38 Randall Terry's approach to the issue through his group Operation Rescue attracted many followers in this context as well. In Pro-life Activists in America: Meaning, Motivation, and Direct Action, Carol Maxwell describes widespread variance within the ranks of direct action activists, and reports the results of numerous oral interviews. Her study includes an outline of the development of several distinct activist groups in St. Louis between 1978 and 1991. She attempts to explain the perceived transition from more conventional forms of political activism to more radical initiatives by pro-lifers and argued that various personal motivations guided the approach of these activists.40 This varied motivation for activism is said to be "...related to personal inclinations that lead to disparate types of activism."41 This offers a more sympathetic and nuanced portrait of pro-life activists in the sense that the cause of their activism is not seen solely in terms of religious or socio-economic

J7. Cassidy, 11. 38. Risen and Thomas, 102. 39'. Ibid., 220. 40. Carol J. C. Maxwell, Pro-Life Activists in America: Meaning, Motivation, and Direct Action (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 1. 41 . Maxwell, 17.

16 background. While the varied participants hold related values, the type of activism in which they engage, may be, to some degree, determined by personal life experiences in which a catalyst acts as an impetus for choosing a certain brand of activism. Related to this pattern of results and interpretation, Zaid Munson's study contradicts the findings of Luker and Maxwell and offers a different perspective on pro- life activism which may to some degree be applied to Canada. Munson's research shows that pro-life activists do not necessarily hold well developed beliefs about abortion prior to becoming involved. On the contrary, Munson asserts that "Action in the movement actually precedes commitment to pro-life ideas or the development of pro-life 'frames'".42 Thus, what pro-life activists do as involved members is more significant in understanding them than what they value prior to becoming involved. Munson thus allows for the importance of pro-life beliefs and argumentation, as they are essential for attracting and educating members. In this context, pro-lifers can be seen as appealing to more than religion or emotion, as their cause has resonance with broader elements of the population. While producing a highly useful study, Munson does not explore the composition of pro-life leaders and how they developed their organizational infrastructures and strategies in which activists participate and develop their beliefs. Following numerous oral interviews with activists in four major U.S. cities, Munson outlines four forms of pro-life activity, which he identifies as "streams," namely, activism in the realm of politics, direct action, individual outreach and public outreach. The political stream involves attempts to enact changes in the legal status of abortion.43 On the other hand, the direct action stream emphasizes the immediacy of abortion and

42 . Munson, 5. 43. Ibid., 102.

17 focuses exclusively on rescue, which may include protests, and intervening in the procurement of abortion services.44 According to Munson, the largest segment of the pro- life movement follows the individual outreach stream, which operates in crisis pregnancy centres. Their immediate goals are to provide psychological, emotional and material care.45 The fourth stream, public outreach, focuses on educating the public through advertising their viewpoint via billboards and ads.46 Munson states that people involved in these different streams rarely cross their boundaries and hold dissimilar world views which lead them to distrust those in other streams.47 Munson thus corroborates findings by Risen and Thomas in relation to their analysis of fractures within direct action.

Authors who have taken into account these broader national trends in the U.S. in terms of leadership, strategy and participation which may also illuminate trends in a Canadian context, include the work of Cynthia Gorney and Donald T. Critchlow. In her

AQ book, Articles ofFaith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars, Gorney focuses primarily on several activists' stories from both sides of the issue, including pro-choice nurse and founder of Reproductive Health Services, Judith Widdicombe, as well as pro- life activists, Dr. Matt Backer and Sam Lee. These activists' stories are told in relation to the changing strategies of national groups, showing how they operated on a local level while adapting to changing legal and judicial realities. Although not a scholarly work, Gorney sympathetically outlines the beliefs of members from both sides of the debate, providing a more nuanced and human understanding of the people involved.

. Ibid., 106. 45. Ibid., 113. 46. Ibid., 118. 41 . Ibid., 124. 4d. Cynthia Gorney, Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998).

18 In addition, Donald T. Critchlow's Intended Consequences: Birth Control,

Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America provides a more complex outline of the American pro-life movement. He describes the early Catholic response to federal family planning initiatives - including the relaxation of abortion laws - as "confused,"49 and though the religious background of numerous pro-life activists was Catholic, they were ill equipped to handle these changing circumstances. Moreover, as Critchlow indicates, the composition of activists was not exclusively Catholic, but included a large contingent of Protestant and racial equality activists.5 He also outlines organizational developments on a grassroots level which emerged without official sponsorship on the part of the Catholic Church.51 The sources dealt with thus far are studies of the American pro-life movement

and as is evident, the literature is considerably varied. Canadian literature is more limited, but there have been several informative studies. A comparative analysis of themes and methods surrounding the issue has been performed by Raymond Tatalovich in The Politics ofAbortion in the United States and Canada: A Comparative Study. Tatalovich tries to explain why the abortion controversy has been such an enduring feature of the American political landscape in contrast to that of Canada. He contends that the abortion controversy in the U.S. is more politicized precisely because of the traditional predominance of rights based jurisprudence. Tatalovich also argues that the main difference between Canadian and U. S. abortion politics stems from their different

. Donald T. Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 1 14. 50. Critchlow, 112. 51. Ibid., 137. 52 . Raymond Tatalovich, The Politics ofAbortion in the United States and Canada: A Comparative Study (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1997), 225.

19 governmental systems and political party dynamics and how they ultimately manifest themselves as "The Canadian parliamentary system, with its strongly disciplined parties, was able to neutralize the abortion controversy, whereas the American separation-of- powers system, with its loosely organized parties, gave expression to its explosive qualities."53 His explanation for the enduring nature of the abortion controversy in the U.S. compared with Canada thus lies simply in the mechanics of party and governmental politics. Perhaps the strongest reason offered by Tatalovich to explain why the abortion controversy has been more pervasive in the U.S. than in Canada, is that their legislative frameworks are significantly different. In the U.S., abortions performed in the first trimester have effectively been declared a constitutional right, whereas in Canada, abortion is permitted only because Parliament has not acted to institute any law on the matter following the 1988 R v. Morgentaler decision. The Canadian pro-life movement lacks a clearly identifiable target against which to direct its efforts and focus. The Canadian movement, working in its more nebulous framework, risks its organizations succumbing to on-going factional dispute over whether or not to pursue an incremental approach, or an as yet ill-defined legislative mechanism for completely eliminating legalized abortion. Another crucial study of Canadian pro-life activism is Michael W. Cuneo' s Catholics Against the Church: Anti-Abortion Protest in Toronto, 1969-1985. Cuneo argues that the movement serves to create greater tension amongst Catholic adherents than it does in society at large as it tends to be "...scorned by Canadian Catholic elites

'. Tatalovich, The Politics ofAbortion in the United States and Canada, 237.

20 and scarcely tolerated by most bishops." Cuneo further states that movement activists do little to conceal their "contempt" for the institutional hierarchy.55 Thus, classifying it as a "Catholic movement," does not take into account its tenuous relationship with the clergy. He broadly outlines some major organizations and indicates how they operated with respect to tax exempt status. As organizations involved in political lobbying do not qualify for this status, the Alliance for Life Executive founded a political offshoot to its parent group called, Coalition for Life (which later changed its name to the Coalition for the Protection of Human Life), which engaged exclusively in political and legal efforts.

In contrast to Munson's findings that different streams of the movement do not cooperate extensively, Cuneo demonstrated the close relationship between the two groups. Cuneo outlined distinct streams within the movement which he identified as "civil rights", "family heritage", and "revivalist Catholic" activists. Unlike Munson, Cuneo understands these streams as ideological instead of functional. Respectively, they believe that abortion should be provided to save the life of the mother, that abortion is a problem connected to a variety of social evils which undermine the basis of the family, and that the very survival of institutional Canadian Catholicism relies on its being successful in eradicating legalized abortion. He presents some valuable comparisons, and offers a framework for comparing the American and Canadian movements. For example, whereas the American movement has made inroads into mainstream politics, most Canadian politicians view the movement as a political liability. He considers this lack of political voice to be the primary reason

54. Michael W. Cuneo, Catholics Against the Church: Anti-Abortion Protest in Toronto, 1969- 1985 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), ix. 55. Cuneo, ix. 56'. Ibid., 85.

21 for recourse to more radical and extreme forms of protest within Canada. The

American movement is generally considered, at least initially, a Catholic movement, which later became more secularized and sociologically broad. Cuneo believes that in the Canadian case, the movement transformed itself from "...a movement of political reform to one of religious crusade."58 Thus, he posits that the situation is inverted in the

Canadian case.

In contrast to Cuneo' s book, F.L. Morton's Morgentaler v. Borowski: Abortion, the Charter, and the Courts, presents the abortion issue as being led by personalities that illustrate the inner workings of the Canadian legal process.59 For Morton, the abortion issue provides the necessary framework from which to examine the most crucial changes to the political and legal establishment since the adoption of the Charter. He believes that the Charter imbued "rights" language into the Canadian political and legal context to such an extent that litigation was used in place of traditional forms of political organizing to enact legislative change. As such, he takes the legal battles of Joseph Borowski as the main subject of his analysis regarding the pro-life movement. This particular approach is misleading because it understates the importance of the fundraising and court intervener work performed by groups in support of Borowski; work performed in part by Alliance for Life. Morton does recognize some grassroots fundraising support for Borowski' s initiatives, such as the work performed by Sharelife, Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Women's League.60

. Ibid., 74. 58. Ibid., 185. 59. F. L. Morton, Morgentaler v. Borowski: Abortion, the Charter, and the Courts (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1992), 9. 60. Morton, 132.

22 In spite of this shortcoming, Morton adequately analyzes the effect of the American abortion controversy on Canada; for example, Morgentaler' s galvanization by Roe v. Wade to begin challenging Canadian abortion laws.61 In a more direct way, Morgentaler' s lawsuit to have section 251 of the Criminal Code nullified, challenged section 251 on the grounds that it violated sections 2, 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter. In the

absence of a relevant Canadian precedent for this, his lawyer used the Roe decision to frame his argument.62 Morton is correct in placing emphasis on the entrenchment of the Charter to

examine the issue. Morgentaler's legal cases had begun in June 1970 when he was arrested and charged with three counts of performing criminal abortions. He had subsequently been acquitted by three Quebec juries, the first being in 1973 whereby he argued a defence of necessity on the basis that the abortions he performed were allegedly emergency procedures intended to save the life of his patients. The court did, however, maintain its ruling in favour of the prosecution in spite of the jury's decision. Morgentaler was also unsuccessful in his attempts to challenge the validity of the abortion law directly on the basis of the Bill of Rights before the Supreme Court in 1974, and was convicted in 1975 after the Court rejected his claims that the law violated women's right to liberty, and equality before the law.63 It has been argued that his failure at that time was due to the absence of any basis for a judicial veto of Parliamentary legislation in the Bill of Rights. The sole requirement of legislation was that it not be at variance with the rights enumerated by the Bill, however, its absence from the basic

61 . Ibid., 36. 62. Ibid., 224. 63. Rainer Knopf, Ted Morton and Peter H. Russell, Federalism and the Charter: Leading Constitutional Decisions (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989), 515.

23 constitutional framework invalidated its use for overriding legislation. Indeed, in his written judgment nearly six months after the decision, Chief Justice Laskin indicated that part of his reason for voting against Morgentaler' s argument was that the Bill of Rights was not constitutionally entrenched.65 Once the Charter became entrenched, Morgentaler successfully challenged the abortion law. The Supreme Court ruled five to two in his favour, and all existing proscriptions against the practice or procurement of abortion were of no force or effect. In the absence of any law following the 1988 Supreme Court decision on Morgentaler' s challenge on the basis of the Charter, Bill C-43 was introduced into the House of Commons. If passed, the Bill would have made it an indictable offence to perform an abortion unless a medical practitioner was of the opinion that it was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. However, both pro-choice and pro-life MP's opposed the measure. The former believing the Bill too strict, and the latter, too relaxed. Morton does not contextualize the failure of Bill C-43 in terms of the tactics and strategies of the opposing movements, nor does he examine factional infighting amongst these groups, which may have contributed to this result. Rather, he sees this as "...no doubt attributable in part to the climate of polarized intransigence promoted by the black-and-white, rights- based quality of Charter litigation."66 Thus, while his analysis is helpful in many areas, the issue ultimately serves as a platform for his criticism of the Charter. A study of the secondary literature outlines different understandings of social and activist movements as they relate to the abortion controversy. However, several

64 . Walter S. Tarnopolsky, "The Constitution and Human Rights" In And no One Cheered: Federalism, Democracy and the Constitution Act, eds. Keith Banting and Richard Simeon (Toronto: Methuen, 1983), 263-264. 65. Knopf, Morton and Russell, 516. 66. Morton, 292.

24 questions are as yet unanswered, the most significant of which concerns the role and function of the largest national organizations in orchestrating the efforts of their members. There has not been an institutional/organizational history of the Canadian pro- life movement which outlines the various developments of several of the largest groups which have operated at a national level. The following two chapters seek to correct this oversight in some small measure.

25 Chapter Two: History of the Counselling and Educational Arm

The emergence of pro-life counselling and educational organizations represent some of the earliest work of the Canadian pro-life movement, and is characterized in its development by several strong personalities. Numerous contingencies influenced the direction and focus of many of these groups, and several fissures resulted from a perceived need to directly address different members of society. Splintering of various groups also occurred as the result of pervasive personality conflicts. The pro-life position articulated by all these groups held the basic tenet that human life has inherent dignity from conception onwards. Yet the way in which certain aspects of this position were argued or emphasized reflected the adaptability of some groups, and in some cases, initiated significant debilitating conflicts. An early organization formed in this context was Birthright. Birthright is by no means the only pregnancy counselling service; other organizations with similar mandates exist, as do the piecemeal efforts of individual pro-life activists who counsel individuals as part of their concern for the cause. However, Birthright is significant in that it was the first organization of its kind and has grown to international proportions. A more pragmatic reason for focussing on this group is that its work may be documented in ways which smaller confessional counselling centres may not. Birthright does, however, maintain a strict policy of confidentiality. Louise Summerhill formed Birthright after having been a member of a pro-life political lobby group. She felt that the work she was performing did not allow her to address the concrete needs of women for material and emotional assistance during

26 pregnancy. Founded in Toronto in 1968, Birthright has maintained its organizational focus with little to no change, and has not been subject to the same controversies and divisions prevalent in other organizations. This is largely due to the strict enforcement of its charter document and the nature of its franchising. Though Summerhill died in August 1991, she left an account of the development and growth of Birthright in its first four years. Originally published in 1973, The Story of Birthright: An Alternative to Abortion, has been reproduced as recently as 2006. Summerhill, whose daughter claimed had been disowned and expelled from home by her avowedly atheist father when she converted to Catholicism at seventeen, offered an unapologetically spiritual narrative of the origin and development of Birthright. The plight of women facing unplanned pregnancies was the overriding concern of Birthright from its foundation. Summerhill had heard of an abortion referral agency called "Abortion Anonymous" operating out of Birmingham, England which offered to secretly arrange abortions. Summerhill decided to model an organization on a similar basis with a different focus.6

Formally established on October 15, 1968, Birthright's mandate emphasized a receptive attitude towards women considering abortion "We do not need professional training in order to listen, to understand, to love.. .We, in Birthright, rely on intuition,

70 common sense, and a loving receptive attitude, free from all judgement." L.L. deVeber, one of the earliest board members of the organization, claimed that the support offered by Birthright included material support as well "Because part of Birthright was to not just

61 . Louise Summerhill, The Story ofBirthright: An Alternative to Abortion (Mississauga: Birthright International, 2006), 3. 68. Mary Berney, interview with author, 29 September 2009. 69. Summerhill, 4. 70. Ibid., 7.

27 dump these girls once they had a baby, but to follow them along."71 Thus, ongoing material and emotional support were to be offered by the organization. Summerhill was consistently mindful of optics and wished to avoid "...any hint of being a bureaucratic, highly organized agency."72 However, Birthright did develop a charter, the composition of which L.L. deVeber aided. It has since acted as the guiding document for Birthright activity and is strictly enforced throughout franchised groups, upheld as it is by Birthright's status as a trademarked organization. Birthright's charter maintains proscriptions against proselytizing, charging for its services, becoming associated with pro-life political lobby groups, and giving advice on contraception and sterilization. Franchised groups are obliged to follow the charter if they wish to continue use of the trademarked Birthright name and logo. Except for obeying the proscriptions and exhortations listed in the charter, Birthright centres are otherwise completely autonomous. They have their own director, raise their own funds, and have their own tax-exempt number.73 The international office of Birthright serves a coordinating function insofar as it upholds the charter. Birthright counsellors thus seek to assist women during and after pregnancy, and serve an educational function by training volunteers in pro-life counselling, and working to instil among callers the dignity of human life from conception onwards. Birthright's educational work, aiming to change the "hearts and minds" of patrons, is a necessary component in preventing recourse to abortion, yet this group represents a distinct feature of the pro-life movement, and avoids involvement with other political and educational pro-life groups, allowing Birthright to maintain an independent reputation. The distance

71 . L.L. deVeber, interview with author, 25 September 2009. 11 . Summerhill, 15. 73. Berney, interview with author, 29 September 2009. 28 thus maintained is intended to reinforce its commitment to being an approachable organization. Birthright is similar to other pregnancy counselling centres in a number of ways, and a remarkable degree of unity exists between these groups. This is attributable to the concrete work that Birthright performs. Having a less abstract mandate, the consequences of its actions as an organization are more readily evident on a regular basis. Mary Berney, SummerhiU's daughter and current co-president of Birthright International, indicated that the degree of cooperation and support between Birthright and denominational pregnancy counselling centres is indeed due to the concreteness of this aspect of pro-life work "If we're helping mothers and saving babies' lives, that's what we're here for."74 The pro-life movement's counselling/support arm however, also includes other organizations such as the post-abortion counselling service, Project Rachael, as well as Michael House, which primarily offers material assistance to pregnant women. These societal changes on an individual level are undertaken on a much larger scale by another significant effort of the Canadian pro-life movement, the publication of its own independent newspapers. As its primary function is to engage and influence the broader public, the educational arm especially, seeks to inform its own members on various aspects of life issues with the intention that this information will permeate the culture, and help pro-lifers become more engaged public activists. The movement generally does this is two ways: through the use of informational pamphlets which are intended for distribution to the convinced and unconvinced alike, as well as through the development and distribution of pro-life newspapers. In this context, three publications

74. Ibid.

29 deserve mention as having the largest circulation and being relatively independent, not being newsletters of the large national organizations, though they have had close relationships with them. The Uncertified Human, The Interim, and LifeSiteNews have all had a significant presence within the Canadian pro-life movement. As it was the first of its kind, The Uncertified Human (which later changed its name to The Human), deserves special mention. The Uncertified Human grew quickly from a circulation of 1500 subscriptions by December 1973, to 3500 in 1975, eventually running as high as 5000.75 By 1978, the paper had two overseas correspondents in Britain and Spain, as well as one in the U. S. The Uncertified Human had national, as well as international readership, and published letters from such diverse places as

Ontario, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia in Canada, and elsewhere including Ireland, the United States, England, and Australia. Some members of the editorial board held leadership positions in the larger national groups. Heather Morris and Martha Crean, who later became the president of

Coalition for Life (CFL) in 1978, are cases in point. The Uncertified Human through its staff writings, to some degree provides an adequate illustration of the intellectual and ideological roots of the Canadian pro-life movement. The Uncertified Human was established by several Toronto area university students, with Denyse Handler (hereafter cited in this thesis by her married name, Denyse O'Leary), serving as the newspaper's editor. The first issue was distributed in June 1973. Its stated purpose was to "...encourage pro life discussion of all life issues and to keep pro life people informed on the true state of affairs in every issue." "Life issues" entailed a variety of related topics including abortion, human experimentation, 75. Denyse O'Leary, "Oral History Thesis," email to author, 24 September 2009.

30 infanticide, euthanasia, genetic engineering, compulsory sterilization, racism, genocide, capital punishment, and "brain control." Over the years, the newspaper stayed true to its original mandate by covering issues as diverse as torture, child abuse, pornography, teen homelessness and the plight of ethnic minorities with disabilities. Also covered, were the various petitions, lobbies, and rallies conducted by CFL and Alliance for Life (AFL). Tony Oomen, a former member of the editorial staff, believed at the time that the pro-life stance "...went beyond the abortion issue.. .It got into any area where the sanctity of life was challenged in some way."77 Clearly "pro-life" issues included a large gamut of concerns which were understood to be part and parcel of the exploitation of vulnerable members of society. For these newspaper editors, "pro-life" encompassed much more than being anti-abortion as such; it was interrelated to many cultural and political issues.

The first issue indicated that many staff members were feminists, and it encouraged the submission of articles relating to pro-life feminism. Several such articles, two of which were written by members of the board were included in that first issue. Jessica Pegis explained that in her view, feminists should refuse to tolerate abortion because it perpetuated gendered power relationships. In like manner, Martha Crean expressed her belief that the pro-life ethos was in keeping with these main aims of feminism, as "Pro life is an attempt to bring into actuality a radically humanitarian view of life...It is a commitment - to halt the victimization and exploitation of any and of

'. "Why this Newspaper?" The Uncertified Human, June 1973, 1-2. . Tony Oomen, interview with author, 21 July 2009. . "Why this Newspaper?," The Uncertified Human, 2. 31 all." The name of the newspaper was chosen to reflect this ideology, being based on the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case, whereby Chief Justice Roger B. Taney infamously declared that African-American' s were not officially persons under the law. The editorial board intended to speak for the numerous uncertified humans in their contemporary society. The paper had an important relationship to CFL, although O'Leary described the editorial staff as a heterogeneous and eclectic group of individuals. O'Leary commented that, "Coalition was a bit like The Uncertified Human, and was a natural ally to it..."

O'Leary first became aware of the issue when her mother, a registered nurse at a hospital where abortions were performed, one day described her and the other nurses' revulsion towards the procedure, and commented that she would try to rescue some of the infants if she could.81

The Interim, on the other hand, reflected the philosophy and focus of Campaign

Life Coalition (CLC), a national political organization discussed in more detail later. However, The Interim, and LifeSiteNews for that matter, have a common mandate with The Uncertified Human, to supplement the supposedly biased reporting of the mainstream media.82

Founded in March 1983, The Interim was directed by Jim Hughes, its first editor, after he became frustrated by mainstream media coverage, or more properly lack of coverage, of pro-life events. In particular, Hughes felt that mainstream news

19 . Jessica Pegis, "Feminist for Life," The Uncertified Human June 1973, 2; Martha Crean, "A Radical View of Life," The Uncertified Human, June 1973, 5. These views may fit into the larger context of fissures within the Women's Liberation Movement of the same period. See Naiomi Black and others, Canadian Women: A History, Second ed. (Toronto: Harcourt Brace, 1996), 424. 80. "OUR NAME," The Uncertified Human, August 1978, 2. 81 . Denyse O'Leary, interview with author, 3 June 2009. 82. Conversations with Denyse O'Leary, Jim Hughes and John-Henry Westen. 32 organizations had ignored a series of press conferences held by Barnard Nathanson, a former abortionist who switched his support to the pro-life cause and later produced the film, The Silent ScreamP The Interim differed from The Uncertified Human in its opposition to "...the advance of the gay-rights agenda, contraception, immorality taught in schools (including through 'sex ed'), the marginalization of religious views in the public square..."84 and its specific focus on religious freedom. 5 Thus its voice is of a broader, socially conservative position. In keeping with this paradigm, LifeSiteNews prides itself on being "The world's leading news service for life and family issues."86 In a standard advertisement intended for distribution at conferences, the organization claims its most notable accomplishment as being the coverage of news ignored by the mainstream media, such that it has now been quoted in the New York Times, the London Telegraph, and the Washington Times. Another advertized feature is its attempt to be "Always faithful to authentic Catholic principles."87 LifeSiteNews began in 1997 when Jim Hughes' "right hand man," Steve Jalsevek, approached John-Henry Westen, then working as a researcher for CLC, to develop a website for the organization. The website was intended mainly as a resource for contact information for Members of Parliament, with the news portion originally just being an occasional feature. It has since become a large pro-life news source employing several

Paul Tuns, "A History of the Interim" The Interim, April 2008, 13. Paul Tuns, "A History of the Interim," The Interim, 13. Ibid. Standard LifeSiteNews business card, with contact information. LifeSiteNews Conference Poster, "THE TRUTH: NEWS reports on life, family, faith, culture 1.

33 international correspondents, and placing a special emphasis on coverage of issues related to the Catholic Church, apparently receiving one million page feeds a month. For most of its history, the educational arm of the Canadian pro-life movement has been overshadowed by its largest and most active organizational manifestation, AFL. Obstetrician-gynaecologist Dr. Heather Morris came to lead the organization in the early 1970s in a rather haphazard manner. While sitting in the surgeon's room of the Women's College Hospital in Toronto, she was involved in a discussion between the nurses and doctors about the recently passed omnibus bill legalizing abortion. During the course of the conversation, Morris had suggested that there were more appropriate ways of assisting those facing unplanned pregnancies, though this had only been an impromptu comment, as she had been fairly oblivious to the abortion situation until the law was passed. Two weeks later, she received a phone call from the organizer of an abortion debate who had been given Morris' name as somebody who supported the pro-life position. Apparently, an anaesthetist present at the aforementioned conversation had heard Morris' comment, and submitted her name. Morris agreed to participate. Soon after, she was approached by Gwen Landolt who asked for Morris' support in forming a Toronto area pro-life organization. Morris agreed, and thus The Right-to- Life Association of Toronto and Area was formed with Landolt as its founding president.90 At the same time, a just burgeoning national educational group AFL, which was formed in Ottawa in 1968 by Philip Cooper, had become overextended and its staff fatigued from vociferously opposing the omnibus bill. It approached members of the Toronto group, and asked them to lead the national organization. The Right-to-Life

88. John-Henry Westen, interview with author, 1 8 June 2009. 89. Heather Morris, interview with author, 24 June 2009. 90. Morris, interview with author, 24 June 2009.

34 Association of Toronto and Area was "...quite willing to assume..." the responsibility,91 and completed the formation of a national office based in Toronto in October 1971.

Morris was thereafter elected President of AFL, and Landolt served as her vice-president. In subsequent years, much of the work performed by AFL was intended to respond to changing conditions and perceived cultural requirements for attention to be paid. Changing circumstances often influenced decisions to orchestrate petitions, demonstrations or other campaigns. As President of AFL, Morris' work included speaking engagements across the country to educate the general public, and galvanize members of local groups. She remembered that at several of these talks, she was denounced as a "...damned self- righteous Catholic," and told to forget her "...medieval Catholic upbringing," and was also accused of being uninformed about the issue. She knew these comments were illegitimate because "...here am I as a Jew and an obstetrician who therefore had all the things that they couldn't dismiss."92 Also, as president she gave talks around the country, appearing at conferences and media engagements such as television and radio interviews. A typical visit hosted by a local pro-life group would include a schedule similar to those of her appearances planned through the League for Life of Manitoba in 1974. She was to land at the airport on Tuesday May 21 at 1:55pm, after which she was to attend their organization's meeting for 7:30pm. Another "business meeting" was to begin at 8pm, and Morris was to give a talk at 8:30pm. The next day, Morris was scheduled to speak to the nurses of the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre at their in- service training session beginning at 7:30am, and at 10am she was to begin an interview

91 . Gwen Landolt, interview with author, 10 July 2009. 91 . Morris, interview with author.

35 at the CTV studio for a live local morning show, which Morris preferred, considering that pre-recorded interviews were often spliced and edited to reflect badly upon her. At 3pm she was brought to the CBC studio for the taping of a local program set to air after the 6pm news. After the day's events, she was returned to the airport for departure to Toronto at 8pm.94 Morris recalls that in her capacity as president, she devoted every spare moment of her life to the cause, as she still continued her work as a practicing physician and remained on call at the Women's College Hospital. As vice-president, Landolt worked to create a viable and active national office. She reported several issues to AFL members as they developed, and began organizing the development of other educational groups. As an example of her efforts, she encouraged members to approach United Church ministers prior to their 26th General Council meeting at the University of Guelph in 1974, suggesting that all local pro-life groups in Canada contact potentially sympathetic ministers, to request their selection of pro-life commissioners from the presbytery and conference levels of the Church to attend the meeting.96 As commissioners acted as delegates at the meeting, it was hoped that their influence would compel a consistent pro-life stance on the part of the Canadian United

Church.

The excellent efforts of these two leaders was recognized, and appreciated as such by the Executive committee of AFL. Landolt was lauded for performing the "spadework" of the organization, having organized meetings with various religious leaders and assisting in forming new pro-life organizations such as Anglicans for Life,

93. Ibid. 94 . Private archives of Dr. Heather Morris, Valerie Doll to Heather Morris, 1 3 May, 1 974. 95 . Morris, interview with author. %. Clara Thomas Archives and Special Collections, Ian Gentles fonds, F0106, 1995-019, 1:6, Gwendolyn Landolt to All Pro-Life Groups in Canada, 7 March, 1974, 2. 36 Lawyers for the Protection of Human Life, and representing the Canadian Medical Association, the Friends of Hippocrates. Morris' role on the other hand, was that of a "...'field general', giving talks across the country and stimulating the formation of new affiliates, writing the newsletter and soliciting funds." However, "frequent conflicts" between Morris and Landolt occurred. 97

Local and provincial groups worked in association with AFL, though their work primarily consisted of giving talks at high schools and university campuses, as well as distributing pro-life informational pamphlets. These materials were mainly produced by Life Cycle Books, founded by Paul Broughton in May 1973. Broughton learned about the abortion issue while working in a small Catholic bookstore in Toronto which was owned and operated by his brother. His brother's store was on the mailing list for the Right-to-Life Association of Toronto and Area's newsletter, and he remembers reading through it on his lunch breaks. He decided to increase his involvement in the issue, and while still in high school, joined the local Toronto group; first as a part-time volunteer, then as a full-time worker, in addition to his position on another organization which he helped found, the Canadian Youth Pro-Life Organization (CYPLO). Upon graduating, his parents insisted that he begin a paying job. He founded Life Cycle Books to satisfy their request. Though it began as a relatively small operation, distributing pro-life pamphlets and copies of Morris' speeches within Toronto, the company quickly grew, distributing content all across the country to groups situated in London, Ottawa, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Vancouver. When the copyright ran out on Bernard Nathanson's

97'. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 1 :6, Ian Gentles, Gwen Landolt, Elmar Kremer and Theo Pillo to the Board of Directors of Alliance for Life, 20 May, 1974, 4. 98. Paul Broughton, interview with author, 9 June 2009.

37 book, Aborting America, the hardcover having originally been issued by Doubleday, an auction at which no bid was made, was held for the paperback rights. Broughton was able to buy the rights at a bargain price as no other publisher was interested. Broughton recognized the potential commercial value of the book, believing that other publishers' lack of interest was simply due to its pro-life content making it an undesirable purchase in their view. Life Cycle Books eventually garnered international demand for Aborting

America, as it had sole publishing and distribution rights. As previously mentioned, Broughton was also instrumental in founding CYPLO, the forerunner of other student led pro-life groups, such as the current National Campus Life Network. At the time, the group acted as a social networking body for pro-life high school students, and facilitated the exchange of information on the abortion issue. Thirty five youth attended the founding meeting on March 22, 1975 in St. Michael's Cathedral parish hall in Toronto.100 The first national conference followed shortly thereafter. As Paul Broughton remembers it, the group aimed to instil a greater appreciation for life at all stages of development, as well as to facilitate the training of future pro-life activists. One early member of the group was Thomas Lynch, later ordained a Catholic Priest, and becoming president of Priests for Life Canada.101 Membership in CYPLO could be

102 purchased for two dollars, which included the price of a bi-monthly newsletter. The Uncertified Human featured a lengthy article on the establishment of Broughton' s recent educational group, noting that its development drew some criticism from elements within the pro-life movement amongst "older" activists. These

". Broughton, interview with author, 9 June 2009. 10°. "The New Youth," The Uncertified Human, May 1975, 2. 101 . Broughton, interview with author. 102. "Youth Membership Wanted," The Uncertified Human, May 1975, 3. 38 individuals took issue with the fact that "...youth groups should exist only as 'caucuses' of other pro-life groups, that all members of any youth group should be 'assumed' to be members of such other groups and that any real independence on the part of youth groups would seriously weaken the cause." The newspaper vociferously disagreed, arguing instead that "It is better if they start and run their own groups and bring new blood into the scene."103 The youth group extended its activities beyond pro-life education per se, becoming involved in local communities by working at homes for disabled children. As the educational arm continued to develop, problems caused by Morris' personality became evident by the mid-1970s.105 Several AFL board members had complained in a letter to the board of directors that "Dr. Morris has had personality conflicts with each of us..." and "If Mrs. Landolt has had more frequent conflicts with

Dr. Morris than the rest of us have had, it is only because of the enormous part of Alliance's work Mrs. Landolt does." They also complained of being subjected to verbal abuse and secret tapings of conversations.106 This letter was signed by Landolt, as well as Elmar Kremer, Theo Pillo, and Ian Gentles, the research director for AFL. As Landolt had some backing in this regard, she began to seek the presidency, which then became the main source of controversy in the organization until Morris relinquished her position in 1976. There are, however, several differing accounts as to why this occurred. A common element in accounts by movement activists attributed Landolt' s pursuit of the presidency as a quest for personal prestige and power, until Morris simply

. "The New Youth," The Uncertified Human, 2. 104. Broughton, interview with author. 105. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 1:6, Ian Gentles, Gwen Landolt, Elmar Kremer and Theo Pillo to the Board of Directors of Alliance for Life, 20 May, 1974, 2-3.

39 backed out due to an unwillingness to participate in a power struggle. Martha Crean conceded that Morris could be very "abrasive," but that wielding power over the organization was highly appealing to Landolt. As Morris was absent much of the time on speaking tours, the opportunity was taken to criticize the acting president since Landolt "...really had it in for Heather." Crean remembered Morris as being too preoccupied with speaking tours and her medical practice to be concerned with power politics within the organization, whereas the nature of Landolt' s involvement in AFL allowed her to devote significant amounts of time to the endeavour. On the other hand, Gentles attributed this conflict to a difference of personal views regarding the pro-life position, as Landolt "...was an absolute purist, and if anybody wavered a little bit, if anybody, sort of, showed any inclination to be in favour of gradualism, then she denounced them...And that was Heather Morris' approach."109 Thus, the personality conflict between these two figures may have been fuelled by their differing views on the nature of appropriate pro-life activism, caused as it were, by the factional disputes in the political arm of the movement. Landolt had a persistent conflict with Morris over the necessity of publicly denouncing Planned Parenthood of Canada, while also appealing to the government to discontinue funding to the organization. Morris disagreed on the basis that AFL would lose any public relations struggle against the group due to its public notoriety. As Landolt recalls "I remember that was a burning issue with Heather...Well I said, ? really didn't care and that we had to do it.'"1 10

107. Anonymous source, interview with author. 108. Martha Crean, interview with author, 3 June 2009. 109. Ian Gentles, interview with author, 12 June 2009. n0. Landolt, interview with author, 10 July 2009. 40 Morris, however, indicateci no negative reason for her departure. She remembered devoting a significant portion of her time to the organization while also maintaining her position as an on-call obstetrician-gynaecologist. Eventually, the doctor who substituted for her while she was on speaking tours developed cancer, and she no longer had the flexibility in her schedule to perform extensive work for AFL. However, she did note some conflicts with a handful of pro-life activists which revolved around

"...closet anti-Semitism in Toronto right-to-life." Moreover, the public notoriety she gained as the public face for the pro-life movement drew some contempt from fellow activists as "I was the one who was being asked to speak, and again, people who are working for volunteer organizations need some positive stroking, and it looked like I was always in the press, and they were working very hard and weren't getting the so-called recognition." However, she stated that they should have recognized this as more of a benefit to them, as she was often the target of abusive phone calls at her home and office, which included misinformed accusations regarding her "medieval" Catholicity. Despite these differing accounts, several commonalities may be deduced. Namely, that there were persistent conflicts among highly prominent members of the organization which primarily involved Morris and Landolt, and that these conflicts were generated in part by differing approaches to the abortion issue, indicating an interconnection with fissures occurring in the political arm. These conflicts were exacerbated by Morris' public notoriety and movement leadership, as her "fame" gained the ire of some, while her absence at the national office afforded opportunities to make

her position untenable.

1 " . Morris, interview with author.

41 Morris moved forward in other activities, becoming the first female president of her synagogue in 1980. She also remained active in the pro-life movement as co- founder and President of Canadian Physicians for Life (CPL) which she helped form while President of AFL. The group was founded at the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association convention in Calgary on June 25, 1975. The board consisted of Dr. Morris, as well as Drs. Thérèse Jutras from Quebec and Paul Adams from Winnipeg as first and second vice-presidents. Dr. L.L. deVeber - who was involved in performing one of the first amniocentesis procedures in Canada, and was active in the movement since he was a medical student in the 1950s, having also composed a presentation to the parliamentary committee on Trudeau' s original omnibus bill - served as secretary treasurer.113 At the conference, the new group denounced the "...irrational and unscientific..." adoption of CMA policy in favour of removing the mention of Therapeutic Abortion Committees from the Criminal Code, which in its view, removed a merely symbolic, albeit necessary, bureaucratic barrier against the procurement of abortion.114

The group was formed to provide a forum for the arguments of pro-life physicians, as well as social support for fellow medical professionals. The group planned speaking engagements for fellow professionals, while some members, including Morris, wrote articles in medical journals defending the pro-life view.1 Morris also

m. Ibid. "3. deVeber, interview with author, 15 June 2009. "4. "Canada: Doctors for Life," The Uncertified Human, August 1975, 3. "5. To give a sense of the type of arguments used when approaching fellow members of the medical profession, in an article written in the journal Modern Medicine of Canada in February 1976, Morris argued: "I will not contest the relative maternal safety of early abortion induced in hospital nor the hazards of later abortion, both physical and emotional. The schizoid activity of colleagues who pass from the 'disposable' saline-poisoned fetus to intensive caring for a baby, scarcely larger or older, baffles. 42 stated that the organization worked closely with nurses and doctors who were facing reprimand for refusing to perform abortions, or who were otherwise overlooked for promotion due to their unwillingness to cooperate with the practice. Morris also noted the group's involvement with Birthright, in that the network of doctors involved in CPL would provide free medical services to women from Canada and the United States who wanted to maintain their pregnancies but did not have the financial means necessary to receive adequate medical care.11 After Morris left AFL to work in these, and various other capacities, it is widely held amongst former AFL Executive members that the organization was not run as effectively under Landolt's leadership. Certain members of the Executive recalled that the successful functioning of the group was harmed because "...She was very, sort of, confrontational and aggressive and divisive we thought."1 O'Leary recalled Landolt's "purism" as a further source of tension within the group, as she felt that this type of approach could not have any traction in the broader culture because "You couldn't sell her sweeping message to Catholic high school girls, let alone the two women across the street."118

Confessing, in Canada, to know little of the effects of induced abortion on subsequent pregnancies, we diminish the importance of the evidence from Europe which demonstrates a subsequent 20% spontaneous abortion rate, increased prematurity and infertility. The now barren woman pleading for a successful pregnancy, confronts herself and her husband, guilt-ridden and demeaned. Does she point her finger at our too easy acquiescence to her demand for pregnancy termination at some earlier inconvenient time? One cannot deny that an unwanted pregnancy can be a tragedy. Certainly, I would not make such a claim. The potential for human misery is enormous and each one of us has a responsibility to lessen that misery in any way legally, professionally and morally acceptable. But to share the agony of those who give birth to a child against their will is not to support the killing of another innocent human being. It is there that we must draw the line." Heather S. Morris, "Death before Birth," Modern Medicine of Canada 21, no. 2 (February, 1976). "6. Morris, interview with author. 117. Gentles, interview with author, 12 June 2009. 11d. O'Leary, interview with author, 3 June 2009. 43 Dr. Janet Smith, who became involved on the board as a graduate student at the University of Toronto, opposed "compromise" legislation, but questioned Landolt's leadership qualities: Even at that time, when I was with the position of the no-compromise people, I didn't want to shut down the other people...To silence people who thought, or to denounce people who thought something else, I felt was completely counter-productive. These are your allies, these are your friends, don't waste your energy.119

Dr. Smith also recalled that personality disputes amongst key members of the organization caused a further split between the executive and the president. She explained that academics on the board were more likely to want to discuss issues and courses of action before undertaking any initiative "...whereas Gwen would show up with an agenda already set that she just expected us to rubber stamp, and that would have offended all of us."120

This rift between Landolt and the board made the work of Executive Director

Graham Watson nearly impossible, and he resigned. He explained his reasons in depth in a letter to the executive committee in August 1977: ...the present situation of conflict within the Executive has made my position completely untenable. I cannot be responsible to a President on a day to day basis, and an Executive on a month to month basis, when there is no agreement on fundamental matters between the two. I have not merely lost confidence in my ability to effect meaningful change, but also in my ability to function satisfactorily as an efficient Executive Director.121

These unresolved issues in the upper echelons of the organization obviously hindered the daily operations of the group.

"9. Janet Smith, interview with author, 19 August 2009. 120. Smith, interview with author, 19 August 2009. 121 . Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 2:8, Graham Watson to All Members of the Executive Committee of the Alliance for Life, 1 August, 1977, 1. 44 Landolt remained president for several more years until AFL moved its national headquarters to Winnipeg in 1979, an action which The Uncertified Human reported was undertaken to make the group "more central."122 However, the underlying reason may be more complex. Whereas Landolt recalled the move as being made in order to protect the

I 9^ precarious tax exempt status of the group, O'Leary attributed it to the overwhelming feeling amongst the executive that "The woman [Landolt] was running it into the

1 94 ground," and that they needed to wrest it from her, "...malign influence..." This apparently resulted in further intra-movement tension, for Anne Desilets, one of the founding members of the League for Life of Manitoba, was worried that the prevalence of pro-life activity there would overwhelm the province. She remembers that as president of the provincial organization "...I was not happy when Alliance for Life was moved to Winnipeg, because we already had League for Life of Manitoba, and we had Joe Borowski here, who was very active and very vocal. So we already had two levels of pro-life working, that people just get confused..."125 O'Leary shared these sentiments, and felt that the organization was weakened when it moved to Manitoba due to the addition of several more paid positions: "...it became a way for Catholic professionals, and some evangelical professionals to dissent from the culture in a safe and respectable way."126 Landolt concurred, insofar as she voiced her opinion that the group "...lost its thrust..." when it moved to Manitoba.127 The prevalence of funding for more paid positions might well have been due to the presence of the Grey Nuns in the area, who

122 "Qfflce ]vioves to Winnipeg - Alliance for Life Gets New Executive Director," The Uncertified Human December 1979, 10. 123. Landolt, interview with author. 124. O'Leary, interview with author. 125. Anne Desilets, interview with author, 20 July 2009. 126. O'Leary, interview with author. 127'. Landolt, interview with author.

45 were involved in a campaign to fund the addition of paid staff for several pro-life organizations with money received from selling one of their hospitals to the government. This was originally how Peter Ryan, the first President of Life Canada (LC) got involved

? TO in working full time for the pro-life movement. In 1983, Landolt went on to found R.E.A.L. (Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life) Women of Canada, becoming its first President. Landolt believed at the time that "There has to be an alternative pro-life, pro-family voice for Canadian women," which was ultimately the purpose of the organization. The founding of R.E.A.L. Women of Canada drew the ire of some pro-life activists, who felt it allowed Landolt to continue to have a forum through which to maintain public notoriety. At almost the same time, the Human Life Research Institute was formed in the wake of the factional splits in the political arm of the movement in the late 1970s. The group formed in 1982 to promote scholarly research on bioethical issues. Several original members of the movement participated in the endeavour after having been made to feel unwelcome in mainstream pro-life circles. Morris, Gentles, Crean, and Dr. John Hartley developed the organization, and their aim was to produce material concerning

??? bioethics which was "non-ideological" and academically researched. Denyse O'Leary was selected as its first executive director. The Human Life Research Institute eventually changed its name to the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, to avoid

. Peter Ryan, interview with author, 30 July 2009. 129. Ryan, interview with author, 30 July 2009. 13°. Smith, interview with author. 131. Crean, interview with author, 3 June, 2009.

46 confusion with a pro-life organization in the United States that was using a similar name. It was renamed to honour Dr. deVeber for his dedication to human life as a doctor.1

AFL continued in existence for several more years before it dissolved as a national organization in the late 1990s. Its "sad demise" was caused, as its former Nova Scotia board member Wayne MacMillan remembers it, solely by AFL' s loss of tax exempt status after an audit by the Canada Revenue Agency.134 This might have occurred because of the organization's development of a political action group in the late 1990s,

Alliance Action, which had an identical board. Rachael Murray served for many years as the Manitoba representative on the Executive, and she claims that after an audit in the early 1990s, AFL was warned by the government to avoid political action, such as

1 ÌS attending UN conferences as a non-governmental organization. She claimed that they were advised to form a political action group to avoid bringing its tax exempt status into further question "So we thought we were okay, because the government basically said we were okay." When it was audited again in the late 1990s, the CRA removed its charitable tax number, and it was determined at the 1999 Annual General Meeting that AFL should disband.136

However, Anne Desilets, the executive director at the time, considers the organization's loss of tax exempt status as the "final nail in the coffin," as there were already debilitating personality differences within the group. Though it is difficult to determine the exact details regarding these conflicts, Desilets alleged that they were focussed on members' desire for personal aggrandizement within the organization. As

132 Ibid. 133 Jakki Jeffs, interview with author, 2 June 2009. 134 Wayne MacMillan, interview with author, 7 September 2009. 135 Desilets, interview with author, 20 July 2009. 136 Rachael Murray, interview with author, 15 July 2009.

47 the national board members were selected among the provincial groups whose boards were composed of representatives from local groups, the nature and quality of volunteers was difficult to control, and Desilets contends that "Their field of competence was sometimes very limited." Based on her experiences Desilets believes that "Some people go on boards and this gives them a boost to their ego that they desperately need for some reason...They feel powerful without having the knowledge and the ability to carry out their jobs." Desilets expressed the regret that even if the group maintained tax-exempt status it was doomed to become socially irrelevant, as members were engaged primarily with infighting rather than on life issues. Though she had ended her tenure as Executive Director in 1997, she was asked to oversee the relinquishment of the organization's assets in 1999.137

Many members in the movement felt that a national educational body was still

1 OO necessary, for much of what they did fell under federal jurisdiction. In early 2000, a meeting of several members of the defunct national group, along with several other pro- life activists, formed LC, intending it to be an improvement upon AFL. Peter Ryan, who made a career out of pro-life work, and had run New Brunswick Right-to-Life for several years, was selected as LCs first President and was followed by Jakki Jeffs, Joanne Byfield and Delores Doherty.140 In contrast to its predecessor, one of the distinct features of the organization is that it has never applied for a charitable tax number, though a debate over whether or not to apply for one re-emerges every year. It has

137 Desilets, interview with author. 138 Joanne Byfield, interview with author, 1 3 June 2009. 139 Monica Roddis, interview with author, 15 July 2009. 140 Ryan, interview with author. 141 Byfield, interview with author, 1 3 June 2009. 48 also promoted a Mastercard affiliate card through the Bank of Montreal. Greater autonomy of provincial groups is another feature of LC. AFL' s impotence near the end of its existence forced these organizations to be more self-sufficient, making LC much less influential in coordinating local activities. LC has a similar structure to its predecessor; with representatives from each province except Quebec on its board. Quebec is not represented, because that province lacks a provincial pro-life body, though LC has tried for over five years to encourage the development of one. With three representatives from Ontario, and one from every other province, LC maintains places on its board for CPL, a youth representative which by default is the permanent seat of the National Campus Life Network, and another rotating spot reserved for Campaign Life Coalition and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

(EPC). In spite of the organizational setbacks of the late 1990s, the educational arm of the pro-life movement continued to grow with the founding of the EPC. This was a local provincial organization formed in 1997 in British Columbia in response to the Sue Rodriguez case. The nationally based organization originally began as a provincial body serving Ontario, however, by 1998 it began to take on a national focus and came to into full operation in that capacity in 1999, after which Alex Schadenberg left his work with the Catholic Diocese of London to become its first executive director. Schadenberg began his work in the pro-life movement while in university, when he joined CYPLO in 1986 as its education secretary. When he became its president in 1988, he wanted to expand its base to encompass truly national representation. So, in the

142. Delores Doherty, interview with author, 4 June 2009. 143. Murray, interview with author, 15 July, 2009.

49 summer of 1989, he travelled across the country on a speaking tour as the President of CYPLO along with George Dienesch, and expanded its membership to approximately 1500, while galvanizing 500 students from across the country to attend its national conference at Charlottetown. The group dissipated in 1992 shortly after Schadenberg' s work as president, due to a lack of interest in the office of the Presidency and the absence of national conferences.1

Although the EPC was formed very shortly before Schadenberg came to work for the group, he has directed its focus as Executive Director for several years. Though he has been very active in the pro-life movement, he is adamant that he is no longer associated with it as the leader of the EPC because "We do not consider ourselves a pro- life organization, we are opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide...That would be defined as a pro-life organization by most people, and that's fine. But we would say, 'no, we are about this."

Some veteran pro-lifers attribute this attitude to the failure of the pro-life movement to make any significant inroads into the broader culture and so "They [the

EPC] don't talk about abortion, because they knew that basically the abortion question has been settled."146 However, Schadenberg welcomes the support of any group, pro-life or otherwise, for the purpose of combating the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide. These include mainstream pro-life groups, as well as palliative care physicians associations, and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Schadenberg ultimately believes that the issue is not about patient autonomy, but rather the ability of physicians

. Alex Schadenberg, interview with author, 13 June 2009. . Schadenberg, interview with author, 13 June 2009. '. Crean, interview with author.

50 to be "...directly and intentionally involved in taking somebody's life.. .Do we eliminate the suffering, or do we eliminate the patient?"

Even though the pro-life movement from its earliest stages has included euthanasia and assisted suicide as one of the social issues it opposes, Schadenberg fears that the organization will be harmed if characterized as part of the broader pro-life movement, and works actively against this perception in the media, including the pro-life press. LifeSiteNews will sometimes refer to him as a pro-life leader, but he continually reminds them never to refer to him in that way because "If this becomes a religious issue, we're gonna lose the battle. If this becomes a pro-life issue, we will lose the battle." He thus notes some of the ways in which his organization may lose credibility. The pro-life position is thus considered to be a liability, and Schadenberg seeks to dissociate his organization from its implied connotations. This is due to the fact that the position is often associated with an anti-abortion position, which may alienate members of his broad based coalition. Focussing exclusively on one issue is believed to have greater resonance

with more members of society who may be opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide, but may be in favour of abortion. It is clear then that the EPC is a relatively stable organization which has not been beset by some of the difficulties and personality conflicts which have plagued other organizations. The personality issues which have hindered much of the educational arm are difficult to account for, but some attempt at understanding them has been undertaken by movement activists. Besides the aforementioned reasons which Anne Desilets outlined, Dr. Janet Smith described this phenomenon in her own terms:

147. Schadenberg, interview with author.

51 ...people who start organizations or movements are generally what I want to call impossible personalities. ..I mean, they're people that the whole world is resisting, and they have to have these incredible, dominant, stubborn personalities that will get where they need to go, and they will get there by force of, just by force of personality, force of indefatigable energy, everything...They can lead an organization, but when you need a consensus and cooperation, they can't do it...14 Thus, the answer for these personality conflicts may merely lie in the psychology of movement organizers. Besides these personality conflicts, several other factors influenced and directed the development of counselling and educational pro-life groups. Internal and external contingencies, including personality conflicts, had more force than religious or politically ideological considerations in shaping the formation and development of these groups. As one example, Summerhill founded Birthright due to the perceived need for women to have direct access to pregnancy counselling. There was no such organization in existence, and Summerhill founded the group to meet this need. Educational groups such as AFL developed in response to the changing status quo with regards to the abortion law in Canada. Subsequent educational groups grew out of the factional splits amongst the educational or political arms, wanting to contribute in some way towards reforming common interpretations of bioethical issues. Others, such as CYPLO and CPL were formed independently, and targeted a specific demographic. The EPC on the other hand, focuses exclusively on one aspect of the pro-life ethic which serves the function of maintaining a broad coalition. Life Cycle Books serves as an example of another highly specialized type of pro-life organization. In this case, it is one which primarily provides pamphlets for distribution by several large national pro-life

149'. Smith, interview with author.

52 bodies. This group may be seen as being in direct service to the pro-life movement, but only minimally engaging the broader culture. Personalities did play a large role within the educational arm of the movement, and evidently stunted the work of AFL. LC formed as a direct result of these ultimately destructive differences within AFL, but it is a weaker manifestation of its predecessor. The political arm likewise responded to changing political and social circumstances, though personalities played a much smaller role in absorbing the energies of that arm of the movement; its debilitating conflicts tended to circulate around strategies and goals.

53 Chapter Three: History of the Political Arm

Divisions in the political arm were caused by disagreements over strategies and goals. These issues were divisive precisely because of their symbolic and real political significance. Adopting one or another strategy was characterized as promoting "pro-life" or "sell-out," legislation. Indeed, the battle over strategies and goals became a battle over the direction and meaning of the pro-life movement. That these heated discussions took place amongst deeply committed members of the cause, who had made major personal contributions of time, talent, and energy, created such tension and animosity that unbridgeable gaps solidified between "pragmatists" and "purists". Two points in the history of this arm of the pro-life movement highlight this tension: first, Coalition for Life's composition and presentation of a brief to the Ontario government following the Badgley Report in 1977; and second in 1988, when Bill C-43 was being debated in the House of Commons. In the former case, the ideological split was severe enough eventually to create the more outspoken break-away group, Campaign Life. The almost complete lack of cooperation between these two groups divided the time and energies of the members of the main pro-life political organisations, resulting in the eventual dissolution of the Coalition for Life.

Due to its tax exempt status as a recognized charitable organization, Alliance for Life (AFL) was prohibited from undertaking political work. It therefore established Coalition for Life (CFL) which was wholly autonomous, in that it had its own executive board separate from its counterpart. AFL' s charitable status demanded that those of its members who formed CFL switch entirely over to the new organization to avoid

54 overlapping executive bodies in order to protect its standing with the Canada Revenue Agency.150 Founded on March 15, 1973, CFL expressed in its founding document its fear that "...an innocent human being may be killed for the convenience of others, currently expressed in the pressure for abortion on demand..." and its commitment to "...urge and promote..." legislation which would allow for full legal protection for the unborn.151 Several of these founding members, such as Dr. Heather Morris and C. Gwendolyn Landolt, were involved in other pro-life pursuits. While other notable signatories included Dr. L.L. deVeber, Dr. Ian Gentles, Dr. Elmar Kramer, Dr. John Rist, and the famous media theorist Marshall McLuhan. The national office served a coordinating function, establishing contact networks between pro-lifers on a local and

? s'y national level, as well as offering suggestions and support for local political initiatives. Another of CFL' s founding documents encouraged efforts at shaping public opinion by "promoting public discussion of abortion in pro-life terms," and, organizing voters in ways intended to allow politicians to promote pro-life legislation without fear of harming their careers. Interaction with MPs was to be calm, and undertaken in a patient manner "...in order to dispel any image of Coalition as fanatical or extreme." Optics were a key concern for Coalition for Life members in subsequent years and contributed to the mistrust that eventually drew more assertive members into Campaign Life. The connotations raised by their respective names suggests their different appeal to those who wished to carry out the fight more like a military campaign, as opposed to those willing

. Gentles, interview with author. 151 . Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 1:7, Coalition for Life Statement of Purpose, 15 March, 1973, 1. 152'. Ibid., 1:7, Coalition for Life National Newsletter no. 1, January 1974, 6. I53. Ibid., 1:7, "Goals for a Proposed Program of Public Education on the Abortion Issue," undated, 1-3.

55 to gather into a coalition anyone who supported the essential cause without the expectation of total and swift victory. Immediately after its inception, CFL exercised its political mandate through a joint operation with AFL in planning the "Festival of Life," comprised of several events organized to take place through November 1, 2, and 3, 1973. The Festival of Life included a "Lobby for Life" on November 1 involving visits to MPs conducted by CFL with approximately three hundred participants, including the former leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, John Wintermeyer.154 Lobbying was intended to impress upon MPs the significance of the pro-life position, and to gain their support for the cause. A "Forum for Life" took place the next day, and included a panel of speakers featuring Bernice Gerrard, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Morris Shumiatcher, and was to be moderated by Dr. Heather Morris. These events were to be followed by a "Rally for Life," on November 3, which included a demonstration and concert and was to conclude with a "Walk for Life"

to Parliament Hill where three federal MPs, Doug Roche, René Matte, and Ralph Stewart, spoke to the crowd.155 Although Morris was initially opposed, the persistence of Drs. Ian Gentles and Elmar Kremer ensured that the event would take place even though

the Canadian Women's Coalition for the Repeal of Abortion Laws cancelled its event, to which the Festival of Life was meant to serve as a counter-demonstration.156 CFL's

prime task was to organize the lobby, but participation in the other aspects of the event

154. "Ex-Liberal Leader Lobbies in Ottawa for Unborn Babies," The Toronto Star, 2 November 1973, sec. B, p. 7. 155. Clara Thomas Archives, 1 :7, "FESTIVAL OF LIFE."; "3 Day Weekend: Pro Life Festival Draws 3000 to Ottawa," The Uncertified Human December 1973, 1. 156. Ibid., 1 :6, Ian Gentles, Gwen Landolt, Elmar Kremer and Theo Pillo to the Board of Directors of Alliance for Life, 20 May, 1974, 4.

56 was planned. CFL' s Executive Director, Marnie de Kerchove Varent, did the majority of political organizing to prepare for the Festival. CFL' s instructions to lobby participants, indicates what demeanour its members were encouraged to adopt when approaching those in political power, or the broader public. A list of "hints" provided for interviewing an MP for the purpose of gauging their position on the issue, and hopefully recruiting their help for the cause, included the instruction to maintain a non-judgemental and respectful attitude in order to win their support.157 Sample questions provided by CFL were intended to stimulate a wide range of answers. Queries addressed an MPs opinion on the present law, as well as whether or not he or she was in favour of greater legal protection for unborn children, and the likelihood of their acting to satisfy the demands of their constituents or their conscience.158 Prior to the Festival, participants were encouraged to give their MPs a brief prepared by CFL, which contained rebuttals to common pro-choice arguments, such as the justification for viability being a criterion for legal personhood, and the availability of legal abortion as a mitigating factor for decreasing the prevalence of illegal procedures. The brief included supporting references from academic literature, including the British Medical Journal.159 CFL was evidently pleased with the turnout. Its first newsletter reported in January 1974, that representatives from 140 constituencies had participated during the two day lobbying effort.160 The Uncertified Human also

157. Ibid., 1:7, "Hints on Interviewing you Member of Parliament," undated, 1. 158. Ibid., 1:7, Coalition for Life National Newsletter no. 1, January 1974, 3. 159. Ibid., 1:7, A Brief for the Defense of Unborn Children, November 1973, 2-4. 160. Ibid., 1:7, Coalition for Life National Newsletter no. 1, January 1974, 2; See also "Ex-Liberal Leader Lobbies in Ottawa for Unborn Babies," 77ie Toronto Star, sec. B, p. 7.

57 considered the lobby a success, noting the presence of 3000 pro-life activists from around the country, 250 of whom were CFL lobbyists.161 CFL later indicated to its members that the first step towards enacting political and legal change was to join a riding association and noted that its advantage lay in getting more involved in the political process.162 There was thus a concerted effort to encourage political activism by instructing members on the most direct means of political action, which may not have been considered by them previously. In this context, CFL had no partisan preference. Martha Crean spelled out a pragmatic approach to party politics. Members of the organization supported a range of political parties and came from a variety of political backgrounds. Although its primary concern was to stop abortion, members were encouraged to support MPs from any party in any one of their pet projects so long as it did not conflict with their own moral principles. Politically expedient relationships were not ruled out. One might, for example, support gun control legislation proposed by a particular politician, with the understanding that one's backing of that piece of legislation would garner support for pro-life laws in the future. Politics

161 . "3 Day Weekend: Pro Life Festival Draws 3000 to Ottawa," The Uncertified Human, 1 . Above all, members were strongly encouraged to be directly involved in the political process. Another way in which CFL acted on its mandate of political engagement was in preparing for provincial and federal elections. Preparations for a possible federal election in 1974 involved identifying candidates' opinions on the issue within every riding and working for the election of a pro-life candidate, "...with the greatest chance of winning the election." (Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 1:7, Coalition for Life National Newsletter no. 1 , January 1974, 1 .) These polls were to be compiled and distributed in ridings throughout Canada. In more ethnic areas, translations were encouraged, and parish priests were recommended as "...good sources of help..." for locating reliable translators. (Ibid., 3.) 162. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 1:7, Coalition for Life National Newsletter no. 2, February 1974, 3. 163. William Mishler's, "Political Participation and Democracy" In Canadian Politics in the 1980s, eds. Michael S. Whittington and Glen Williams (Toronto: Methuen, 1981) highlights some of the main features of Canadian political activism from the early nineteen-seventies to the early nineteen- eighties. His main contention is that Canadian citizens may tend to be unaware of the ways in which they may become politically engaged. The lines between the different streams of pro-life activism are blurred in this context, since the political arm evidently served an educational function, though one which was targeted within. This may not be seen as a separate feature of Coalition for Life's work, since their public image as informed and educated pro-lifers was considered to be of high importance. 58 were thus pursued with the understanding, in the words of Crean, that it was a "game." To make it feasible or desirable for politicians to be pro-life, CFL considered it part of this work to avoid any severe public criticism of MPs by the organization. Beyond political horse trading, CFL encouraged members from every party to join its ranks, indicating that multi-partisan solutions and alliances were sought and encouraged in spite of any given party's support for abortion. Candidates who were even "partially pro-life" were supported in their federal or provincial election campaigns. This partisan malleability was maintained until recently, though currently "partial" sympathy for the cause is considered a politically disqualifying stance by the only remaining political pro-life group in Canada.166 Having established a basic strategy for political engagement, CFL undertook a national lobbying effort of immense proportions, which was planned to coincide with the presentation of a petition boasting one million signatories, which CFL organized in conjunction with AFL. The Petition of One Million, an initiative led by AFL, followed a smaller petition of over 300,000 presented to Prime Minister Trudeau on May 9, 1973. The petition, which eventually garnered over one million signatures, (1,027,000 in total)167 was presented to Trudeau on May 29, 1975. AFL was provoked to organize the petition when a Quebec jury's decision inferred that Section 45 of the Criminal Code, which exempted anyone from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation safely and with regard to the patient's health at the time, could potentially be used to override section 251 of the Criminal Code, which outlined the conditions under which an

164. Crean, interview with author. 165. Gentles, interview with author. 166. Hughes, interview with author, 8 June 2009. 167 . "Petition of One Million Presented," The Uncertified Human, July 1975, 1. See also, "1 Million Ask MPs to Check Abortions," The Toronto Star, 30 May 1975, sec. A, p. 1.

59 1 fTQ abortion could have been performed legally. The petition affirmed Parliament's role in protecting human life, and stated that as human life began at conception it was a patent injustice for the government to permit the widespread practice of abortion. The petition thus called on Parliament to enact legislation to provide full legal protection for the unborn.169

CFL' s main reason for conducting a key lobbying effort associated with AFL' s Committee of One Million was to counteract the supposedly negative criticism against the Minister of Justice, Otto Lang, who had earlier revealed his support of the pro-life cause. Lang was believed to be the target for censure in the media by numerous newspaper editorials in previous months, and it was claimed that letters to the editor criticising Lang were given disproportionate emphasis. A large national lobby was intended to ensure Parliament's awareness of the "strong and widespread" support that Lang had for his views, and that this broad support would prevent his being singled out for criticism. CFL' s goal was to send two people from as many ridings in Canada as possible to attend the lobbying blitz.170 To this end, Varent concentrated on galvanizing the national members of the Committee of One Million by conducting a gruelling cross-country tour as the official spokeswoman for the Committee. Among the locations she visited from January 18 to March 8, were Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton, Halifax, Sydney, Charlottetown,

168. Private Archives of Dr. Heather Morris, "Statement on Committee of One Million by Dr. Heather S. Morris, President, Alliance for Life," 27 November, 1973, 1. 169. Ibid., 2. 170. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 1:7, Coalition for Life National Newsletter no. 4, October 1974, 5. See also, "Lang Receives Massive Petition, Says Abortion Inquiry Under Study," The Globe and Mail, 30 May 1975, sec. A, p. 8. The article had quoted him as saying that Therapeutic Abortion Committees needed to understand the 1969 amendments to the abortion law as, "...a narrow exception to the general law..." The pro-life movement had taken these and other statements as proof of his sympathy for the cause.

60 Winnipeg, Regina, Yorktown, Moose Jaw, Humboldt, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Courtney, Victoria, Clearbrook, Salmon Arm, Kelowna, Penticon, and Nelson.171 Catherine Cromey, the Executive Director of AFL, was responsible for planning Varent's daily itinerary, and mailed a press kit in advance of her arrival to all her selected destinations.172 Shortly after returning to Toronto, Varent mailed a letter of encouragement to all national pro-life groups, to continue their efforts, and to indicate that its planned lobbying would include interviews with MPs similar to previous attempts to gain their assistance for the cause. The interviews would serve to introduce AFL' s brief also being given to Trudeau on that day.

Following the petition's presentation to Trudeau, The Uncertified Human reported a successful lobbying effort, in that participating lobby delegates had met with 200 out of 265 MPs.173 This effort gained notoriety in the mainstream press, with The Toronto Star reporting that approximately four hundred lobbyists met with Members of Parliament, while The Globe and Mail mentioned the presentation of a "mammoth petition" but did not indicate the presence of any lobbyists.174 Despite its "mammoth" size the petition had little discernable effect on influencing Parliament to enact new

legislation regarding abortion. Although unsuccessful, CFL' s initial efforts at political leadership and organization were remarkable, and they were followed by changing goals as political circumstances changed. On November 18, 1976, CFL launched another lobbying effort.

m. Ibid., 1 :7, Coalition for Life National Newsletter no. 5, April, 1975, 2. m. Ibid., 2:7, Catherine Cromey to Gwen Landolt, 5 May , 1975, 2. 173. "Petition of One Million Presented," The Uncertified Human, 1. 174. " 1 Million Ask MPs to Check Abortions," The Toronto Star, sec. A, p. 1 ;"Lang Receives Massive Petition, Says Abortion Inquiry Under Study," The Globe and Mail, sec. A, p. 8. 175. Cuneo, 12.

61 This time, however, MPs were asked a significantly different set of questions. Lobbyists were instructed to ask whether or not the MP would support the position "...that the child conceived but not yet born should be given the same protection provided by law for any other human being." They were also to ask MPs if they would oppose the broadening of the abortion law, support conscience protection for physicians who refused to perform or assist in the procedure, vote according to their conscience in the event that their caucus imposed party discipline, or if they would oppose federal funding for groups or agencies which counselled abortion or provided abortion referral.176 Lobbyists were also to distribute CFL' s own, "Statement of Concern" on the abortion issue, which argued that "...abortion is not the solution to the enormous problems faced by thousands of women with unwanted pregnancies."177 In CFL' view, problem pregnancies were caused by the inadequacy of maternal benefits, the shortage of daycare, and the stigma of illegitimacy, none of which were addressed by the abortion solution: As a society, we do not reach out a helping hand, but rather offer abortion.. .We don't help women with difficulties and we compound their problems by offering and encouraging abortion. In essence, we say that we want them to go away. We are willing that they kill their children so 178 long as they don't bother us.

These arguments mirror those of Birthright, and the stated philosophy of The Uncertified Human. The brief had little discernable effect on the situation, but is worthy of mention because it illustrates the multifaceted understanding of the abortion issue by pro-life activists, in that they sought greater social support for pregnant women, and considered abortion part of a broader social problem.

176. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 2:9, Press Release, 10 November, 1976, 1 . 177. Ibid., 2:9, Statement of Concern to Members of Parliament, 18 November, 1976, 1.

62 In 1977 CFL and AFL allowed for overlapping executives, and by June 1978 the mailing list of both groups could draw support from ten local and provincial groups in Alberta, thirty-one in British Columbia, four in Manitoba, two in New Brunswick, two in Newfoundland, one in the Northwest Territories, three in Nova Scotia, forty-three in

Ontario, one in Prince Edward Island, three in Quebec, ten in Saskatchewan, and one in the Yukon.179 The increase in the level of organization and membership, along with an evolving ideology, concealed an underlying tension between two increasingly separate streams that developed during the course of events previously elucidated. Growing disaffection with the efficiency of CFL' s organization and fundraising efforts became obvious by the late 1970s. The Coalition was unable to recover from the negative perception of its composition and activities amongst pro-life activists, and disbanded in the mid-1980s. In remembering CFL, several prominent activists criticized it for being too "ecumenical" an organization.180 Various people apparently became tired of the group's insistence on "putting water into wine," and the perceived benefits of its "better half a loaf than no loaf strategy.181 CFL was criticized as being composed of "airy-fairy

1 on academics," good at writing articles and researching issues, but with no practical bent. Several documents corroborate that these impressions of CFL were held by certain members, who included these reasons, as well as others for their dissatisfaction with the group.

9. Ibid., 2:8, Pro-Life Groups Mailing List, June, 1978. °. Interviews with Alphonse de VaIk and Gwen Landolt. '. Alphonse de VaIk, interview with author, 12 June 2009. 2. Paul Formby, interview author, 14 July 2009.

63 In September 1977, Fr. Gallagher wrote a letter to Dr. John Hartley, then President of CFL, stating concerns which ultimately led to his support for Paul Formby's initiation of a separate political campaign. Fr. Gallagher, a former member at large on CFL's board of directors, supported Formby's work outside of the auspices of CFL in order to mount a more effective political campaign for an upcoming Ontario provincial election, which eventually resulted in Bill Davis forming a Conservative minority government. Formby, a former union organizer in the Yukon, later became head of a new union formed after the disbanding of the United Steelworkers of America. He continued to work in that capacity against the asbestos industry, until shortly before he became a seminarian under the Basilians. He became involved with pro-life work after being approached by Fr. Ian Boyd, another board member of CFL, to spearhead some CFL political initiatives in view of his Union leadership experience. In his letter, Fr. Gallagher ascribed some of CFL's failures to not being able to "...evolve a financial arrangement which is in any way satisfactory." He wrote that "Coalition for Life has not been very successful in organizing areas of the country for political action." His conclusion that this stemmed from academic aloofness is reiterated in the same letter in the statements: "Coalition lacked organizational skills and it lacked the ability to put ideas into action. There were all sorts of plans which came to nothing. We seemed to be mainly talkers and thinkers but not actors." Included in Fr. Gallagher's list of plans that failed to come to fruition, were the development of sub-committees for specific works, committees to "organize" Toronto, and building alliances with other groups. Fr. Gallagher further stated that "...this personal impression is not mine only..." reminding Dr. Hartley that CFL had already lost the confidence of several pro-life groups 183. Formby, interview with author, 14 July 2009. 64 and was in danger of losing more, which would inevitably affect its financial support. Father Gallagher claimed that loss of confidence in CFL was exacerbated by the fact that the Executive was seen as a "...self appointed group trying to dictate to the rest of the country."184 Dr. Hartley's reply acknowledged some shortcomings in the organization. He agreed to allow Formby to undertake political work but only under the direction of the executive because the work he would be engaged in involved implementing national projects which Dr. Hartley conceded "...belong to the 'regular' work of Coalition, although I admit that they could be done more regularly." It was feared that if Formby worked separately from CFL - however much his work was intended to assist the efforts

I OC of the group - cooperating with this initiative might further divide the movement. Thus with the conditional blessing of the President, Formby began his work as a coordinator and liaison on behalf of CFL' s local groups.186 However, even before the criticisms that led to Formby' s hiring, the CFL Executive was already engaged in planning to lobby the Ontario legislature starting on October 27, 1977. Intensive lobbying in Ontario was deemed necessary because more than half of all abortions in Canada were understood to have occurred in that province. Ontario's legislature may also have been chosen as a target for lobbying due to CFL' s frustration with Trudeau' s refusal to listen to the pro-life lobby at the national level despite several years of effort. The immediate goal of the brief to be presented to the province was to convince Bill Davis' conservative government to establish legislative

184. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 2:9, Fr. Jack Gallagher to John Hartley, 28 September, 1977, 2-3. 185. Ibid., 2:9, John Hartley to Fr. Jack Gallagher, 5 October, 1977, 2-3. 186. Formby, interview with author. 187. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 2:9, "For Immediate Release," undated, 1.

65 guidelines to limit abortion. Four specific areas were addressed - chosen in part because of the Badgley Report, the 1977 outcome of a three member committee headed by Robin Badgely established by Parliament in 1975 to assess the extent to which the abortion law was operating equitably throughout the country. Recommendations were made for remedying the issues regarding the functioning of the abortion law as indicated by the report. The first, which proved most controversial, dealt with perceived abuses to the law through the loose definition of the word "health". The recommendation intended to limit abortions by suggesting specific medical parameters within which abortion would be permissible for health reasons, thus making the "health" clause more limited in scope.

The other three recommendations concerned the practices of Therapeutic Abortion Committees themselves, as well as the perceived pressure on medical personnel to perform abortions regardless of conscientious objections, and the need for social assistance in instances of unplanned pregnancies. It was recommended that the provincial minister of health review one percent of all approved applications for abortion every six months to ensure proper procedure was followed, redefining the word "creed" based on a recent report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and providing social assistance programs for women facing problem pregnancies, respectively. The first recommendation originally contained proposed guidelines for the "legitimate" performance of "therapeutic" abortion which included "serious physical" and "serious mental" illnesses such as heart conditions, cancer of the cervix, kidney disease, previously diagnosed mental illness or major mental illness. However, due to

188. Ibid., 2. 189. Ibid.

66 significant objections in pro-life circles against any guidelines which would appear to morally legitimize abortion as a solution to a problem pregnancy, an attempt was made to revise the brief to make it more palatable to the pro-life membership.190 Regardless of the revision attempt, by this point, criticism of CFL' s executive based on the first recommendation had created such a poisonous situation that some members felt harassed to the point of resignation. Margaret Turner, then Executive Director of CFL, tendered her resignation to be effective November 30, 1977. She addressed her resignation to the members of the board, to whom she had lamented becoming a scapegoat for all the abuse directed towards the executive. She indicated her inability to continue as executive director due to excessive stress caused by incessant harassment for the policies of the executive committee.191 Her resignation was accepted at the executive meeting on October 27, 1977 which took place at Dr. Hartley's office at St. Michael's College in Toronto.192 During the meeting, though the necessity of a revision was acknowledged, Gentles argued that the brief should remain intact in essence, and to this end, the board decided that Gentles was to undertake the revision in consultation with the vice-president of AFL. Once completed, the revision was to be reviewed in consultation with a representative of the Catholic Chancery Office, namely Fr. Angus Macdougall, and the Secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops "...to ensure that there will be no objections from the concerned quarters." Only after that consultation, was the revised brief to be

190. Ibid., 2:9, "A Statement by The Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area on the Coalition for Life Brief to the Members of the Ontario Legislature," 14, November, 1977, 1. m. Ibid., 2:9, Margaret Turner to All Member of the Executive Committee, 22 October, 1977, 1. 192: Ibid., 2:9, Minutes of Executive Committee, 27 October, 1977, 2.

67 distributed to Ontario CFL board members and other lobbyists for comment before the final revision of the document. 193

A cover letter accompanying the revision urged readers to "Please keep in mind that this brief is addressed to the members of a legislature which does not have the power to alter the existing federal law." Drs. Hartley and Gentles, president and vice-president respectively, also reminded recipients in the cover letter that "We all agree that the federal law is iniquitous and that the word 'health' should at the very least be deleted from Section 251 (4C) of the Criminal Code...However, the most we can accomplish at the provincial level is the strictest possible interpretation of an unsatisfactory law." As well, Hartley and Gentles intimated that the brief was prepared with the consultation of the vice-president of AFL, and with the support of the Catholic clergy previously mentioned. The attached revised version suggested guidelines to permit abortion only in cases where "...the continuation of the pregnancy would constitute a grave threat to the life, or physical or mental health of the mother." It included in this framework severe psychosis and schizophrenia. Also, it stipulated that the government discontinue OHIP payments for abortions that did not qualify under the rubric of the recommendation. All these attempts to cushion potential negative responses failed to stop a barrage of criticism against the CFL executive from members and associated groups throughout the province. Several objectors argued that CFL was better off not specifying any particular illnesses in the recommendation, as that would tacitly approve of abortions done for reasons not listed. For example, Beverly Maloney asked in a letter to CFL "Do

m. Ibid. 194 . Ibid., 2:9, John Hartley and Ian Gentles to All Registered Lobbyists and Presidents of All Pro- Life Groups in Ontario, 3 November, 1977, 1 . . Ibid., 2:9, "A Statement by The Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area on the Coalition for Life Brief to the Members of the Ontario Legislature," 14 November, 1977, 3.

68 the names of the medical conditions have to be mentioned in recommendation 1?" The same concern was raised by others on technical grounds insofar as "...general practitioners are not trained to diagnose mental disorders," also "The terms 'severe psychosis' and 'schizophrenia' could not solve the dilemma. The lines between mild and severe psychosis are not that well defined."197 Objectors thus feared that the brief would create more problems than it solved by allowing for medical loopholes in interpreting the law. Other members such as Catherine Bolger, threatened to protest to the point of

1 0S leaving the organization unless the brief was rescinded or revised further. Similarly, Doris Brockhouse, argued that "Unless Recommendation 1 is changed as we have proposed then we have no choice but to sever our connections with Coalition." Harme Boersma of Woodstock Right-to-Life, suggested an entirely different thrust to the first recommendation, which focussed on removing OHIP payments for abortions sought for "economic reasons".200 Others did not mention the first recommendation at all, instead focussing on recommendation two concerning the provincial health minister's review of Therapeutic Abortion Committee applications, specifying that it would be preferable to have the office review only the applications pertaining to the guidelines elucidated in the first recommendation. The most significant of these concerns - likely related to other objections - indicated worry that promoting this viewpoint was a compromise of the pro-life position, and would only weaken the movement. This was the fear of Pat Osborn, the Huron

Ibid., 2:9, Beverley Maloney to Margaret Turner, received by Coalition for Life on 14 1977. Ibid., 2:9, Daniel Klassen to Ian Gentles, 8 November, 1977, 1. Ibid., 2:9, Catherine Bolger to John Hartley and Ian Gentles, 12 November, 1977. Ibid., 2:9, Doris Brockhouse to John Hartley, 10 November, 1977, 1. Ibid., 2:9, Harme Boersma to the Coalition for Life Executive, 10 November, 1977, 3. Ibid., 2:9, Margaret Thueman to John Hartley and Ian Gentles, 7 November, 1977.

69 County lobby coordinator, who felt that the first recommendation was "...compromising our principles, and would result in loss of our credibility." Her suggestion was that CFL avoid elucidating any guidelines under which a therapeutic abortion may be performed, but rather to "...leave the onus for guidelines on the Government, and then if these guidelines are not acceptable to us, we can then fight that next step." Furthermore, the health guidelines proposed by CFL were seen as "...conferring the 'right to abort' on women with the illnesses listed under Recommendation #1," or so argued the President of Haiton Pro-Life on behalf of the board, which had other areas of concern, but none as pressing as those regarding the first recommendation, which they considered to be "...naive to the extreme...Your recommendation I is a major concession in matters of principle. It would be better for the Coalition to do nothing than to present such a recommendation."203 Mary Evan agreed, arguing that "We cannot set aside our ultimate goal even for a moment.. .If the government 'designs' the set of strict guidelines, we can still fight (we can't fight our own guidelines!)"204 Also, the Right-to-Life Association of Toronto and Area believed that "This statement could be misconstrued as indicating that the pro-life movement in Ontario would accept abortions for the reasons outlined." The thrust of these arguments was that in matters pertaining to the abortion law directly, incrementalism encountered a severe moral limitation.206 In the future, where there was an "imperfect" law proposed by the government - the only reasonable course of action for the movement was to avoid direct involvement in the legislative process. This

202 . Ibid., 2:9, Pat Osborn to John Hartley, 8 November, 1977, 1 . 203. Ibid., 2:9, Bette Hamon to John Hartley, 10 November, 1977, 1-3. 204. Ibid., 2:9, Mary Evan to John Hartley, 9 November, 1977, 2. 205. Ibid., 2:9, "A Statement by The Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area on the Coalition for Life Brief to the Members of the Ontario Legislature," 14, November, 1977, 3. 206. Anonymous source, interview with author.

70 would absolve the movement of any complicity in creating an undesirable law which would tacitly condone the deaths of unborn children; a stream of thought, most prominent in the late 1980s within the Campaign Life Coalition. John Hartley took these concerns seriously and used this input to revise the final draft.207 The first recommendation of the brief finally presented to the government was

entirely different from the original:

A) Coalition for the Protection of Human Life recommends that any application submitted to a therapeutic abortion committee must demonstrate (i) that the patient has a serious physical or major mental illness. AND (ii) that abortion is a medically indicated treatment for that illness. In cases of serious physical or major mental illness good medical practice dictates that the opinion of a specialist in the appropriate field be obtained to confirm the diagnosis and advise treatment. B) We recommend that the specialist's report be a required part of every application for an induced abortion. From this entire process it is clear that in spite of the accusations levelled against it, the executive committee of CFL was in fact attentive to the concerns of the grassroots

elements in the movement. Executive members were also sensitive to accusations that

they were compromising the principles of the movement, and clearly incorporated the ideas of grassroots members even when they argued that it was politically inexpedient to

do so.

The image of CFL was however, severely tarnished among its membership and never recovered. However much CFL' s executive tried to remedy the situation, it was unsuccessful. In 1978, John Hartley wrote a letter to the board of directors asking for suggestions on reforming the Executive committee in a way which would allay allegations of "...a lack of communication between the Executive and pro-life people, an

207'. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 2:9, "Lobby Kit," 3. 208. Ibid., 3:6, A Brief to the Ontario Legislature, 1 December, 1977, 4.

71 unwillingness on the part of the executive to listen to the grassroots, even an intellectual arrogance of an ivory-tower academic elite." The letter noted the urgency of this initiative, as there was an alternate organization in the process of being formed. The new group, Campaign Life (CL), was established in Winnipeg on May 25, 1978 securing support from affiliated CFL groups in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, mainly among those groups which lost confidence in the CFL Executive. Paul Formby, one of the founders of CL, believed that CFL had completely lost sight of its mandate and the function of the pro-life movement. It was not the role of the movement to make recommendations which, in his opinion, tacitly approved of abortions.210 It was thus the case that "...various groups who were sick of putting water into wine, so to speak, decided to form Campaign Life," and it was believed that the new organization propounded the "orthodox view" of the pro-life ethos.21 ' According to several pro-life activists in remembering that time in their history, tensions were further exacerbated because CFL members characterized this alternative to incrementalism as purist, simple-minded and non-compromising. Moreover, those who formed CL resented the assumption that they were splitting the movement. Paul Formby stated that "Apart from the ideological problems, you have to look at the facts. A small influential group of academics seemed to have the ear of influential bishops in Ontario. Immediately, everyone who wasn't cooperating with this ostracised Executive were

21 ? considered divisive, splitting the movement."

209'. Ibid., 3:6, John Hartley to the Members of the Board of Directors, 8 March, 1978, 2. 210. Formby, interview with author. 211 . de VaIk, interview with author, 12 June 2009. 2'2. Formby, interview with author. m. Ibid.

72 The first newsletter of CL in July 1978, articulated a different approach from that of CFL in its strategy for an upcoming federal election. The centrepiece of this strategy, as well as many other election campaigns over several years, including asking every candidate two questions: 1) If you are elected, will you work towards amending the Criminal Code to recognize the civil rights of children conceived but not yet born and to provide them with the same legal protection as anyone else? 2) If elected, will you work towards stopping government funding to any agency that directly or indirectly counsels women to have abortions or engages in abortion referrals?2 4

An answer of "yes" to both of these questions would mark a candidate as pro-life; an answer of "no" to one or both would indicate the opposite. Michael Cuneo argues that this approach hindered the efforts of the pro-life movement in subsequent years, as CL arguably placed unrealistic demands on politicians in adopting its specific articulation of the pro-life stance, and hence "...it became increasingly more difficult for Canadian politicians to qualify as 'bona fide' pro-lifers."215 CL' s approach to political activism further solidified the fissure between pragmatists and purists over incrementalist strategies. The reason why the charge made against CL of being uncompromising was, and is, so hurtful, is precisely because it implies that it is unwilling to pursue incremental strategies in opposing abortion. 216 According to CL, it considers the second question outlined above to be part of an incremental approach. Jim Hughes, who later became president of the organization and currently acts in that capacity, defended Campaign Life's incremental approach, arguing that the organization has always supported

214. "Campaign Life Canada Formed," Campaign Life News, July 1978, 1. 215. Cuneo, 55. 216. Anonymous source, interview with author.

73 incrementalism from its earliest days. In his view, evidence of an incremental approach is shown by the fact that it has not only worked towards a prohibition on funding for abortion referral agencies in Canada, but in developing countries as well. CFL members however, argue that their own incrementalism is evident in their support for, among other things, gestational limits on abortion. ' CL' s approach to incrementalism is held in derision amongst some movement activists because it could be more easily characterized as inelegant, ineffective, and uncompromising, and because it applies incrementalism to measures which can only have an indirect effect on the practice of abortion. CFL' s approach on the other hand may more properly be labelled "gradualism," though this is not a term widely used in pro-life circles. It seems that the crux of the debate over the pro-life ethic revolves around this disagreement over an acceptable application of incrementalism. Both "pragmatists" and "purists" clearly recognize the importance of this approach for the advancement of their cause, the final goal of which is to gain full legal recognition of the unborn as persons under the law. However, applying this approach directly to the legal status of abortion has been criticised as a "sell-out" of pro-life principles, and a compromise on the most basic end goal of the movement. CFL viewed these measures a means to that end as shown by its cover letter explaining the first recommendation in its proposed 1977 brief to the Ontario Parliament.

217. Jim Hughes, interview with author, 8 June 2009. 218. Interviews with Crean, Gentles, and O'Leary.

74 Perhaps CL' s ire against CFL for its political gradualism stems from CL' s inherent distrust of politicians.219 Its first newsletter issued a description of the "pragmatic politician," for understanding them was deemed essential for the success of pro-life work in the country. It indicated that most (95%) tended to adopt a "middle-of- the-road" or "pragmatic" position on the abortion issue, which was intended to antagonize the smallest number of voters. CL condemned the pragmatic approach because the "...'moderate' position is one which tolerates a situation of virtual abortion-

on-demand in Canada." Therefore, any politician who was undecided, wished to remain silent on the issue for politically expedient reasons, or answered 'yes' to only one of CL' s questions, was in its view justifiably exposed as a politician who was not only against the pro-life cause, but was making an untenable situation worse. Because a pragmatic position was "disqualifying" of any politician who held it, regardless of an MPs position on any other matter,220 meant that CL' s strategy inherently opposed coalition building, thus differing from CFL' s understanding that any politician who was not actively against the movement was at least a potential supporter. CL asserted itself aggressively in its campaign for support and readily took credit for any perceived successes. After the first federal by-elections in which it orchestrated a political campaign, it was able to point out that not only would candidates answer the two "pro-life" questions when pressed, but that pro-lifers could make a six percent difference when electing a pro-life candidate. Moreover, CL determined at that time that "Only committed people vote on the issue."221 The meaning of "pro-life" in a political context according to CL included positive support for both full restoration of abortion

219'. Hughes, interview with author, 8 June 2009. 220 . "Abortion as an Election Issue," Campaign Life News, July 1978, 3. 221 . "Pro-Life Parliament for 79," Campaign Life News, January 1979, 10.

75 laws and the elimination of funding for abortion referral agencies, and any deviation from these norms was perceived as an uncommitted, even malevolent response, to life issues.

CL reasserted similar strategies throughout its existence. For example, in an analysis of private members bills before parliament in 1979, CL publicly criticized the efforts of MPs Hal Herbert, Thérèse Killens, Maurice A. Dionne, Ursula Appoloni, and

Robert Daudlin for proposing changes to the Criminal Code, whereby section 251 (4) (c) was to be amended to remove the word "health" as an appropriate grounds for abortion, while also clarifying in section 25 1 (6) the "life" clause to mean physical or acute mental danger. CL clearly recognized this as an attempt on the part of these MPs to limit the number of abortions, however, it nonetheless argued that this would be ineffective as the language of these bills would lead to further abuse because "This bill allows for the retention of the exception of 'the life of the mother' . We can ask whether or not the bill, if passed in Parliament would lead to as broad an interpretation of the word 'life' as the present law allows now for the word 'health'." These concerns were repeated when examining Robin Richardson's bill, which CL felt was the "...only bill that would lead to real legal protection for unborn children..." due to the fact that it proposed the elimination of Therapeutic Abortion Committees. CL decided that even though it could be assumed that any law on abortion could be abused, any recognition of an exception for the preservation of the life of the mother was unwarranted.224 CL' s unwillingness to limit and direct the practices of Therapeutic Abortion Committees, preferring rather their elimination, was also its reason for

222 . Appendix A. 223. Campaign Life, "New Developments in Ottawa," November 1978, 2-4. 224. Ibid., 4.

76 disagreeing with Bill Yurko, and John Reimer' s bills. It was perhaps the existence of these proposed pieces of legislation which led CL to change its focus, and with it, its two questions to politicians. These became more specific, being targeted specifically against the 1969 amendments to the abortion law, and federal government funding towards the

Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada.

CFL continued trying to use its influence to support incremental measures such as MPP John Sweeney's proposed Hospital Abortion Procedures Act. The CFL Executive also sent out a letter to all Ontario members urging them to write their provincial ministers expressing their support for the measure. In addition to this, the September 1978 issue of The Uncertified Human published a Martha Crean article describing the bill and explaining CFL' s support. In addition to requiring informed consent before an abortion procedure, the bill sought to refine the definition of life and health, and to protect the consciences of medical practitioners who refused to perform abortions, while proposing that abortion records be examined by the Ministry of Health every six months. Crean felt that the brilliance of the bill was its recommendation that, in the case of an undesired pregnancy, the procedure would be permitted in addition to life and health exceptions, on the condition that "...if the baby is sufficiently strong to possibly survive then the method of abortion used must not endanger that baby's life, unless the mother's life is in danger. Additionally, a second physician must be in attendance to give immediate medical care to the aborted living baby." Crean made it clear that the optics were such that CFL and pro- lifers generally, were genuinely concerned about the life of the unborn, and were not

. Paul Dodds, Open Letter, 5 January 1980. 77 against the termination of pregnancy as such, as long as it did no harm to the unborn. Crean recalled that in spite of this, she was personally criticized by fellow pro-lifers,

997 notably those in the Knights of Columbus, as being a compromising sell-out. The Right-to-Life Association of Toronto and Area, and CL criticised the bill, which criticism the CFL Executive believed to be "...politically naive and essentially

998 counterproductive to the passage of prolife legislation." For the remainder of its existence, CFL continued developing new strategies and attempting to function alongside CL, though often the two groups found themselves at odds. There was mounting concern on CFL's executive board over CL's unwillingness to cooperate. Following up on a motion passed at an executive meeting, John Hartley inquired as to the progress made by the executive in approaching the steering committee of CL regarding coordination of action. Although individual members of CL were willing to meet with representatives from CFL, the steering committee of CL "...refused

99Q every request to meet with Coalition for Life or with Coalition and Alliance together." These problems became more significant when the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops (OCCB) insisted on cooperation between the two groups. In a letter sent to Martha Crean, the General Secretary of the OCCB, AJ. Macdougal, SJ. , informed her that the Ontario Bishops agreed to withhold funding from all three national pro-life groups "...until some kind of reconciliation and united stand can be achieved." The same letter elaborated that "The bishops want to be fair to all concerned, but they are

226 . Martha Crean, "Ontario Bill to Regulate Abortion," The Uncertified Human, September 1978, 10. 221 . Crean, interview with author. 228. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 3:6, Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 21 July, 1978, 1. 225'. Ibid., Minutes of the Meeting of the members of Coalition for Life, 25 November, 1978, 1-2. 78 apprehensive about the divisiveness and disarray affecting the pro-life movement in Ontario. They must rely on the goodwill of the pro-life organizations themselves to sort

9^0 out the present difficulties and create a more harmonious approach." In keeping with the OCCB' s request, CFL attempted to make amends with CL. The Executive of CFL sent an invitation to CL to join them in its lobbying campaign planned for April 1980. CL not only ignored the invitation, but two weeks later, announced plans for its own separate organized lobbying effort. As was indicated in the official minutes, the Executive of CFL found CL' s refusal disheartening and stated that "...we are sorry that joint action was refused by Campaign Life, especially since they and we do not differ in our commitment to winning complete legal protection of the unborn against abortion."231 The two groups' belief in their unity of purpose clearly was not shared.

Despite the state of affairs between CL and CFL, CFL continued to develop broad methods of identifying potentially pro-life political candidates. In preparation for the Ontario provincial election in 1981, CFL asked candidates a range of questions which included mention of informed consent, conscience rights, opposition to abortion clinics,

9"?9 social services priority for the disabled, and government funding for abortions. CFL had been content to recognize the existence of a competing organization, and even attempted to maintain cordial relations. However, CL' s public fallout with the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto, Gerald Emmet Carter, over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, led the CFL Executive to publicly distance itself from the group. The leaders and legal counsel of CL had taken issue with the proposed Charter, a centrepiece of

23°. Ibid., 3:6, AJ. Macdougall SJ. to Martha Crean, 27 June, 1978. 231. Ibid., 3:4, Hints on Interviewing your Member of Parliament, May 1980, 3. 232. Ibid., 3:6, Coalition for the Protection of Human Life to Ontario Voters, 18 February, 1981, 3.

79 Trudeau's ambition of constitutional reform. On January 8, 1981, a brief was issued by, among others, Kathleen Toth, the national President of CL, as well as Gwen Landolt, the organization's legal counsel, to the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. The brief expressed reservations about the Supreme Court's legislative supremacy and suggested that "In the alternative, if the Charter of Rights should be entrenched in spite of our protests, it must provide in specific language that the right to life of everyone from conception to natural death be protected." It lamented that in spite of this recommendation, the proposed amendments to the Charter subsequently submitted by Minister of Justice Jean Chretien, did not include any of CL' s suggestions. It was thus urged that supporters of CL write Prime Minister Trudeau, Minister of Justice Chretien, the local MP and especially the local newspaper "...so that others will be aware of the dangers inherent in the entrenched Charter of Rights."234 These fears were based on the fact that, in contrast to the Bill of Rights, the Charter's constitutional entrenchment could be used to strike down the existing abortion law because it contained provisions which allowed for a judicial override of Parliamentary legislation. These issues were exacerbated for some elements within the pro-life movement due to the fact that without any explicit constitutional protection for the unborn, the Charter could be read to favour abortion on demand. Indeed, it was believed that the Charter of Rights was in fact "...a Charter of Wrongs,"235 "...a Charter of Injustice for the Unborn child,"236 and even a "Charter to

233. Campaign Life, "The Life of the Unborn Child, the Charter of Rights and Abortion Clinics," January, 1981, 1-2. 234. Ibid., 5. 235 . Formby, interview with author. 236. Campaign Life, April, 1981. 80 Kill Unborn Children."237 Excluding the unborn child from the language of the Charter did not make it neutral on the question of abortion. It was believed that "If the Inuit or any group or class of people were excluded from the Charter all Christians and people of conscience would feel obliged to oppose it."238 The Charter itself guaranteed "Abortion on demand" because it maintained loopholes which would "...allow the Supreme Court to strike down any legislation designed to protect the unborn." It was also believed that the Charter would ultimately result in the loss of parental authority due to its abolition of discrimination based on age, therefore prohibiting any province from establishing parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortion. As none of these provisions were contained within the proposed framework of the Charter, it was feared that the Charter would favour those with expressly enumerated rights. 4 Later, CL enunciated further issues with the Charter which included "...no provision for the security of the family and absolutely no mention of God." CL was thus engaged in a prolonged public campaign against the Charter, and made attempts to mobilize supporters against this proposed change in the legislative and judicial framework in Canada. During the course of its campaign against the Charter, CL managed to gain the disapproval of Cardinal Carter, who did not overtly oppose the Charter. Jim Hughes, the President of the Toronto branch of CL at the time, then publicly denounced Cardinal Carter. On April 6, 1981, the Toronto Sun quoted Hughes as saying "The Catholic

231 . "Charter to Kill Unborn Children," Campaign Life News September 1981, 1. 238. Campaign Life, "Three Reasons to Oppose the Charter," September 1981, 1. 239. Ibid., 1. 240. These issues were examined in some detail by Kallen, Evelyn in "The Meech Lake Accord: Entrenching a Pecking Order of Minority Rights." Canadian Public Policy 14, (Sept., 1988). She argues that there are numerous issues with the Charter, including the existence of a hierarchy of rights which offers more security to those groups which have positive and specified protections as opposed to negative and unspecified ones. She also argues that it also disproportionally favours groups with defined, as opposed to undefined rights. 241 . "What did we Accomplish?" Campaign Life News, March-April 1982, 2. 81 Church is still behind us, Cardinal Carter apparently isn't." The article also quoted

Cardinal Carter's statement made in the national Catholic Register on April 4, 1981, which reiterated his commitment to the pro-life cause, but stated that the methods and strategy of CL were inappropriate and warranted a ban on the distribution of its literature in Catholic parishes in the diocese. Paul Formby, Campaign Life's national coordinator, was interviewed by The Globe and Mail in the wake of the controversy, and described his wish that Carter simply remain neutral instead of having "...come out in opposition to what we are doing to oppose the Charter." The Toronto Sun later suspected that

Cardinal Carter refused support to CL due to the group's participation in an anti- homosexual rights rally in Toronto, a trend which particularly irked Crean who never understood CL' s association of homosexuality with abortion, and desired all segments of the population to adopt the pro-life stance because "When they're pro-life, I'm not picking and choosing here. You're going to have gays and straights in this world. I believe they all should be born... I want gays to be pro-life, I want lesbians to be pro-life, I want 'em all to be pro-life!"244 Denyse O'Leary even recalled that at least one contributor to The Uncertified Human revealed herself to be homosexual. The Uncertified Human reported on this fallout between CL and the Cardinal in some detail, and also denounced the efforts of the group as excessive. In May of 1981, it described CL as a "radical" political action group which "...also co-operated in the recent provincial election campaign with Moderate Majority, a moral re-armament group, whereas Coalition for Life prefers to avoid sex and morality issues in general and focus

242. Jan Lounder, "Carter's Flock Bickering," The Toronto Sun, 6 April 1981, sec. A, p. 5. 243. Nora McCabe, "Cut Ties to Anti-Abortion Group, Carter Tells Priests," The Globe and Mail, 3 April 1981, sec. ?,?.1. 244. Crean, interview with author. 245:. O'Leary, interview with author. 82 on life issues and social service issues." It resented the public denunciation of Carter by CL, and updated its readers on the group's unwitting undercutting of the authority of the Cardinal by criticising him publicly; escalating, into a national public "furore", what would have otherwise been an essentially local squabble.246 In writing about the Charter, it made clear in this publication that it was not the case that most pro-lifers "...believe that the politicians are lying or secretly trying to impose abortion on demand; it is rather quite simply that the politicians have no basis for making the promises they are making that this will not happen."247 CFL opposed the Charter on some grounds, yet maintained a different strategy for pursuing its aims, the outline of which further illustrates the fundamental differences in philosophical and political approaches taken by the different organizations. In April 1981, CFL issued a press release which denounced the approach taken by CL, though it indicated that it too opposed entrenchment of the Charter unless it articulated rights for the unborn. In support of Cardinal Carter and other members of the Canadian hierarchy CFL argued that "Canada's Catholic bishops have wisely refused to be stampeded by the hysterical excesses of some recent attacks on the proposed Charter of Rights...hysteria

94.8 can only diminish our credibility with rational and responsible Canadians. In addition to its concern with optics, CFL had substantial misgivings about the Charter, including concern that it would not be neutral on the issue of abortion and would give constitutional credibility to the practice. Moreover, it argued that the Charter would do nothing to prevent abortion on demand in communities where it was a "de facto

'. "Toronto Archdiocese Ousts Campaign Life," The Uncertified Human, May 1981, 6. . Ibid., 14. ;. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 3:6, Press Release, April 1981, 1 .

83 reality." The first section of the Charter contained a blatant loophole in protection of human rights in that it allowed Parliament to impose "reasonable limits" on human rights and freedoms without a clear definition of "reasonable." CFL noted a similar misgiving mentioned in a Globe and Mail editorial which also characterized the proposed Charter as one beset with substantial loopholes. CFL thus submitted its own proposal to the Charter committee. The Uncertified Human reported that these efforts were undertaken in order to work within the proposal, and that the organization was in fact "...so well received by the Committee that, in an unusual move, the group was voted an extra half hour's time, over the originally scheduled hour. The lunch adjournment had to be postponed."251 The ten page brief, including footnotes, offered objections to the proposed Charter on the grounds previously stated, and argued that Section 15 could likely expand the availability of abortion clinics in Canada. However, unlike CL, it argued that little evidence existed for the assertion that Section 15 would result in a situation whereby the granting of absolute rights to women would entail that any laws asserting the illegality of abortion in any context would be diminishing women's rights, and would therefore be rendered unconstitutional .252

Dr. Henry Morgentaler eventually did challenge the judicial system on the basis of the Charter, and the Supreme Court struck down all existing prohibitions against the practice on the basis that they were unconstitutional, although there is no specific

*\ Ibid.,pg,l. 250. "A Charter of Loopholes," The Globe and Mail, 27 March 27 1981, sec. A, p. 6. 251 . "Charter of Rights: Will Government Leave Issues to Parliament?" The Uncertified Human, March 1981,6. 252. Clara Thomas Archives, Ibid., 3:6, A Statement on Abortion and the Proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2 April, 1981, 4.

84 language in the Charter to make this inevitable and the Court's divided ruling is evidence of this fact. Only Justice Wilson reasoned that abortion was a constitutional right up until the second trimester. The two dissenting Justices, Mclntyre and LaForest,

considered the Charter to be neutral on the issue, and their decisions reflected this position. Justices Dickson, Lamer, Beetz, and Estey voted down the law on the basis that

it violated procedural fairness articulated in section seven, stating that Therapeutic Abortion Committees caused an undue burden on women seeking abortions. Their Honours did indicate however that a revised law might be acceptable. Parliament was

left the duty of enacting a new abortion law.

Longstanding disputes over the nature of incrementalism re-emerged in the context of the pro-life movement's internal debate over Bill C-43 from 1989-1991. In the period intervening between the debate over the Charter and the introduction of Bill C- 43, CFL had ceased to exist, becoming absorbed by CL, which thereafter adopted part of the former group's name, becoming Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). There are differing opinions as to how and why this happened. Formby remembers that Jim Hughes - who became president of CLC after the two separate organizations unified - on his own initiative sought to amalgamate the two executives. He recalls that after Hughes had become president of the Ontario branch of CL, he quickly built up its support base and organized movement activists effectively, making him a natural candidate to spearhead the amalgamation of the two groups which

were both traditionally very active in southern Ontario.

. Knopf, Morton and Russell, 516. . Formby, interview with author. 85 Landolt merits the survival of CL as simply due to the fact that it was more politically savvy, and was engaged in the issue with more drive, energy and focus. CL was supposedly the group which was unafraid to combat abortion, and she appreciated the fact that it was "foursquare" against the Charter. As CFL was "lower key," "not as involved," and consisted mainly of full time professionals on the Executive, they had more to lose and were less "fearless." Thus, CFL lost many followers to the more visible and committed CL.255

Fr. Alphonse de VaIk, who began to work with CL in the mid-1980s, claims that CFL merely dissolved itself, as the executive was already fully subscribing to the views and strategies of CL and simply joined because there was no longer any difference between the two groups. He noted that most of the people who were more inclined to compromise just left because they considered a vast majority of movement activists to be too "hard-nosed." "They were the weak brothers in the movement," who finally gave up and "...out of disgust said, 'Do it your way.'"256 Jim Hughes recalls that CFL joined CL on its own volition because his group had the political momentum and grassroots support necessary for a viable movement. Its "no compromise" attitude was generally more appealing to constituents anyway, and so AFL acted as a mediator to bring the two sides together. Like Fr. de VaIk, Hughes remembers that there was "...little difference between the two organizations at that point." Talks began in the fall of 1985, with two representatives from each organization meeting to

. Landolt, interview with author. '. de VaIk, interview with author.

86 discuss the terms of the merger. The process was completed in the spring of 1986, and the new organization adopted the name Campaign Life Coalition. Gentles, a long time member of CFL remembers things differently. Many in the movement had already denounced those who subscribed to gradualism, and CL actively opposed the efforts of CFL. The group declined after the implementation of the Charter because CL actively subverted CFL, by among other things, apparently apprehending its membership list and writing to all its members arguing that CL represented the authentic pro-life movement. Moreover, members of CFL became discouraged by ongoing factional infighting and merely left the group, essentially allowing CL the opportunity to take over since "The Campaign Life people were totally dedicated, and they seemed to have a lot of time to devote to this." The amalgamation of the two groups was not a willing merger in Gentles' recollection, but a hostile take-over which resulted in the adoption of a new name for CL because "It wasn't a merger, no. It was them basically pushing us out."258 Crean also recalls the amalgamation between the two groups as a take-over of CFL by CL under surmounting pressure from the bishops to mend the longstanding dispute.259 Meanwhile, The Uncertified Human stopped publication at the time CFL was disintegrating, due to the fact that as O'Leary recalls "Campaign Life eventually destroyed both The Uncertified Human and Coalition for Life, because they took the money...They basically stole our support base," while many grassroots supporters began to prefer the type of pro-life news being presented in Campaign Life's publication, The Interim. She remembered that many who shared her perspective on life issues, including

257'. Hughes, interview with author. 258. Gentles, interview with author. 259. Crean, interview with author.

87 support for incrementalism or gradualism, were subject to targeted abuse in the form of harassing phone calls made by other pro-lifers. 9 fin In spite of these differing accounts, it is clear that many pro-life activists in CFL came to feel unwelcome within the movement. The departure of many longstanding members of the Executive committee of CFL may very well have left little to no opposition regarding the group's appropriation by CL, or that there were simply enough "purist" elements remaining within CFL to request that CL absorb the organization. In either case, many people who left what was at that time the "mainstream" movement led by AFL and CLC, continued to remain active "pro-lifers," and contributed in some ways to the public debate over Bill C-43. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney established a caucus committee of pro-life and pro-choice MPs in order to develop a compromise on the issue in the wake of the final Morgentaler decision. The outcome of this committee's efforts was Bill C-43, introduced into the House of Commons on November 28, 1989. Bill C-43 would have replaced the abortion sections in the Criminal Code to prohibit abortion unless it was intended to preserve the life or health of the mother, providing punishment with a prison sentence of up to two years for a doctor who contravened the law. The decision regarding whether the abortion was medically justifiable was to be determined without recourse to a Therapeutic Abortion Committee.261 CLC immediately took issue with the proposed legislation in its entirety and in the same month of its introduction for debate, released a news publication with the large headline "Defeat the Abortion Bill." Bill C-43 was denounced as a "...proposal to kill

260. O'Leary, interview with author. 261. Appendix B 88 unborn children," which would create abortion on demand. The justification for these claims was based on CLCs explication of the bill and what it would allow, namely, that only one doctor would need to approve of an abortion "...even the abortionist who will carry out the procedure!" Furthermore, as the bill did little to describe which abortions were necessary for life and health "...this gives any abortion-minded doctor the grounds he needs to approve every abortion request which is made to him." The bill was also opposed on the grounds that enforcement of the law would be impossible, that abortions could be performed by persons who were not doctors, and free-standing abortion clinics would be legal. The key objection determining CLCs course of action regarding Bill C- 43 was its hypothesis that approving this measure would prevent a better law from being passed. Indeed, it was believed that "As long as there is no law on the books, the MPs know that they must deal with the issue. There is a much better chance to pass full legal protection for unborn children in the future if this pro-abortion proposal is defeated now." It thus urged its supporters to contact their MPs encouraging them to vote against Bill C-43.262

It seems most of CLCs energies between 1989 and 1991 were absorbed by the fight to defeat Bill C-43. Its November 1989 newsletter, signed by Jim Hughes, issued a rough strategy for the coming period which directly addressed ways to defeat the bill. It justified this stance by the logic that "...this legislation is so bad that the simplest strategy is to have it defeated."263 It recognized that competing arguments against its position amongst other pro-lifers were being formulated, though it treated these arguments with derision and contempt:

262. "Defeat the Abortion Bill," Protect the Unborn, November 1989, 1-2. 263. Jim Hughes, Campaign Life Coalition Newsletter, November 1989, 1. 89 It is still being argued that any law - even this one - is better than no law at all. Hogwash! Legislators, in conscience, may not 'hold their noses' and vote for a law which allows the killing of even one of our innocent preborn brothers and sisters. An example would seem to be in order: Suppose that legislation to allow the killing of some Jews, or some blacks, or some handicapped persons were introduced into the House on the assumption that the widespread slaughter of those groups would somehow be averted. We would find the suggestion abhorrent and would publicly repudiate those MPs who would advocate it. Why, then, would any pro-lifer - or, specifically, any pro-life MP - be prepared to accept a law which would legalize this outrageous slaughter of the preborn? 64

CLC had prepared, and intended to distribute in church bulletins and other distribution points, 350,000 pamphlets as a preliminary initiative.265 Several subsequent newsletters requested money specifically for the campaign against Bill C-43 because of the heavy costs associated with the publication of this large number of pamphlets. CLC preferred not to have any law on the abortion issue for what was thought would be a short period of time, rather than supporting the passage of an imperfect law: It is better, therefore, to aim for the prohibition of abortion - even if this may fail temporarily. Constant education and political activity will keep the issue alive and will bring eventual victory. Reason, science and goodwill are on the side of pro-life. Constant struggle is preferable to accepting a law full of loopholes. It directly expressed this preference to the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-43 in January 1990.267 In a March, 1990 publication, CLC expressed its distaste with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops' presentation to the committee, as it did not

lw. Ibid., 1. 265. Ibid. 266 . Campaign Life Coalition, "What Kind of Law?," 1989. 267'. Campaign Life Coalition, "Excerpts from a brief to the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C- 43," February 1990.

90 wholly denounce the bill, but rather, expressed several reservations about it and offered ideas for its revision.

CLCs opposition was so intense because it believed the bill represented the crux of the entire pro-life struggle. After the bill passed the House of Commons in May 1990, CLC stepped up its efforts before it could pass ratification in the Senate, "We're still here! We have lost another pro-life battle. We have not lost the war! So, if you are inclined to give up the struggle my response is an emphatic DONT! Bill C-43 is not legislation yet!"269 Furthermore, CLC news issued a headline in December 1990 which declared: "Save the baby and kill the Bill."270 CLC supporters were to contact members of the Senate to express disapproval as the best course of action still available to them. Bill C-43 failed to pass the Senate due to a tie vote of 43-43 among 86 members present, of a 104 member Senate.

With the defeat of the Bill, which CLC claimed as a victory, subsequent donation drives focussed on the importance of now working toward full legal protection for the unborn. Plans for the future involved continuation of lobbying efforts, as well as major billboard and mass mailing campaigns "...in order to get around the stranglehold that the pro-abortionists have on the media."272 As of the time of this writing, Parliament has not passed any federal legislation regarding the legality or illegality of abortion, and there is currently no law on the matter.

268. Vitality Staff, "Abortion Bill C-43: Parliament's Committee Hearings," Vitality, March 1990, 1. 269 . Jim Hughes, Open Letter, June 1990, 1. 270. "Save the Baby and Kill the Bill," Campaign Life Coalition News, December 1990, 2. 271 . Campaign Life Coalition, Monthly Report, January 1991, 1. 272. Campaign Life Coalition, "Thank you for your generous donation to Campaign Life Coalition," undated.

91 In recalling their opposition to Bill C-43, those who were affiliated with CLC did not waver in their antagonism to the measure twenty years after the fact, though there is evidence that the movement was not unified in its resistance. Angela Costigan - a pro- life lawyer who has argued cases before the Supreme Court as a pro-lifer, including R v. Sullivan as well as others involving Joseph Borowski, had most often worked on behalf of the pro-life movement by defending Operation Rescue activists who were arrested for trespassing. She remembered CLCs opposition to the bill as being based on its inability to prevent any abortions from taking place. She recognized two contradictory streams of thought regarding the Bill, namely one which argued that it was an acceptable law in the interim because it placed some restriction on abortion in the Criminal Code, while the other saw no genuine protection at all for the unborn in the Bill. She now believes that the limitation expected by proponents of the former stream of thought would have been so faint, that it amounted to no limitation at all.273 These divergent streams of thought become evident in interviews conducted with movement activists. Jim Hughes referred to Bill C-43 as a "pile of crap" because it would do nothing to change the situation. He noted the Canadian clergy's support for the bill, and claimed that in most cases, they "...usually wound up on the wrong side." He argued that this may have been due to their lack of knowledge about the issues, and voiced frustration with their involvement insofar as "It's when you find that the churches are working against you that you find great difficulty. If they just shut-up at times and not take a position when they don't know enough about the position, you know, that would have been much better."274 The presumption in this case, is that if the bishops

273. Angela Costigan, interview with author, 16 June 2009. 274. Hughes, interview with author. 92 consulted with CLC before considering strategy, they would have agreed with the group's aims. Clerical disagreement over strategies espoused by CLC causes scandal only because of the tendency noted earlier to view the pro-life position as defined by proponents of CLCs strategy as the only valid option. Deviation from this philosophy was branded as a lack of support, or ignorance. Fr. Alphonse de VaIk went one step further than Jim Hughes in stating that the bill would have made the situation even worse for the unborn because, as he understood the proposed law, it would have given doctors permission to perform abortions in their offices. He remembered the struggle against Bill C-43 as "...us against Canada as well as the bishops."275 He presented The Interim'?, statement to the Senate Committee on Bill C- 43 which stated in part that the bill was unacceptable because it "...re-legalizes abortion in principle, making it an inherently evil law.276 This foray into moral authority regarding the tenets of political theology was no doubt a further source of tension between the Canadian clergy and the mainstream movement. Nonetheless, Fr. de VaIk remains adamant that CLC was right to oppose the bill:

We saved the honour of Canada. We saved the honour of the Church and the pro-lifers. We are the ones who prevented them from accepting a false law. So that's how it is. We defeated that one effort. We have no law, but I mean, that's not our fault. Of course others will say well, 'you're too hardnosed' and so on, 'You should have done water into wine,' well, we're not going to do water into wine. This is after all the Catholic point of view, you don't do water into wine when you deal with God's commands. You don't just change things to make it more convenient for you. We are proud we held, even against the wrong advice of the Canadian Conference of Bishops.27

'. de VaIk, interview with author. '. Alphonse de VaIk, "The Final Word on C-43," The Interim, February 1991. . de VaIk, interview with author.

93 The claim to moral authority on the part of CLCs proponents revealed a further cause for underlying tension among Catholic pro-lifers, in that the Catholic belief system places authority for interpreting the theological dimensions of civic engagement in the hands of the bishops. When and if they interpreted a response to these issues in such a way that opposed the judgement of CLC leadership, they were considered disloyal to Catholicism at worst or uninformed at best. Fr. de VaIk attributed the problem in part to failure to seek advice from those in the know, "We're in it every day, and so I don't blame bishops, individual bishops. I mean, they didn't have time to think about these

978 things, and what they should have done earlier, they should have asked for advice." Landolt, legal counsel for CLC at the time, while also the President of R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, described her opposition to the measure, saying, "It didn't protect the unborn in any fashion...So we took the position that we opposed it because there was no protection for the unborn, but it did have the advantage of putting it into the Criminal Code."279 She did however, second guess her original opposition to the measure: Should we have backed that abortion legislation in 1991? I don't know, um, perhaps we should have. ..I can't definitively say we did the right thing, we did what we thought was right at the time. The thing is, what do we do now about bringing a new legislation, when realistically I don't think we're going to get full protection for the unborn tomorrow. So do we start getting protection for the last trimester, you know, and work our way down? Is that a compromise? That's a decision that another generation will have to make. But somehow, we've got to get in the Criminal Code, some protection, some way. 280

This was precisely the position that former members of CFL, and some members of the Canadian clergy were advocating. Martha Crean remembered it as an imperfect

'. Landolt, interview with author.

94 bill, but that "If there's nothing on the books, you can't make it stretch...When it came down to it, it was either ?' or 'Nothing,' we said, 'We'll take A' and Campaign Life said, 'We'll take nothing. If it's not perfect, we won't take it at all.'" She argues that the measure would have done something to save some lives, and could have perhaps given

98 1 Parliament more leverage to limit the incidence of abortion. Gentles agreed that the proposed law was inadequate, but "Those of us that supported it said, 'You're right, it doesn't do anything, but it makes the point that abortion is not legal and is still a crime.'"282 Thus, the symbolic value of the law would

have had an effect over and above its concrete value. This differs from Crean' s

perspective, which assumed that the law could be built upon and expanded, therefore, having an actual value in and of itself. O'Leary also remembered CLCs resolution to scuttle Bill C-43, and stated that some members of the former CFL, including herself, became active in supporting the bill through working with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an umbrella organization of evangelical denominations and agencies which had officially taken a position in support of the bill.283 Dr. Brian Stiller, President of the Fellowship at the time, particularly recalled his frustration at CLCs mandate to undermine his organization's efforts. He went so far as to say that the entire ethos of the pro-life venture was "...fundamentally injured by the activities of Campaign Life, especially around C-43..." His organization worked closely with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the development of appropriate strategies for supporting the bill. Dr. Stiller said that his support was justified by the idea that "...it built a track on which increasingly over time we believed,

281 . Crean, interview with author. 282. Gentles, interview with author. 283. O'Leary, interview with author.

95 by way of public education, by various judicial rulings, that increasingly the unborn would be protected. It had a good beginning, and we felt that you could build on that."

He argued that the biggest tragedy of CLCs opposition to the bill was that in effect, it became unwitting "bed partners" with pro-choice advocates. As a result, he was not optimistic about the possible future success of the pro-life movement in Canada.

Another organization which supported Bill C-43 was the medical group, Canadian Physicians for Life (CPL). CPL, however, proposed that the language of the bill be clarified in its description of health and life exceptions. It was for advocating this point of view that Dr. Will Johnston, long standing President of the organization, was personally denounced as a "...traitor to the pro-life movement" by Jim Hughes via the telephone in the legislative committee room just moments before CPL' s statement was to be presented to the Senate. In his recollection of the moment, Dr. Johnston expressed his

-JOC perplexity and dismay for "I have no idea how he tracked us down." Dr. Johnston's dissatisfaction with the work and philosophy of CLC, mirrored those of some other movement activists:

It was obvious to me that the best we could expect would be to hold the line by maintaining the position of abortion as something which required notice in the Criminal Code...Campaign Life people, and Jim Hughes being a primary example, had no clue of what to do politically, and they lobbied strenuously against C-43. By throwing their lot with the pro- choice people, they managed to get it defeated by a tie vote in the Senate.^86

He attributed this behaviour to a "purist" pro-life position, and described his own situation as being like that of a person who finds himself in a situation where a ship

284. Brian Stiller, interview with author, 13 July 2009. 285. Will Johnston, interview with author, 16 July 2009. 286. Johnston, interview with author, 16 July 2009.

96 carrying one hundred persons has been capsized at a harbour. There is access to only one life boat which can rescue fifty people. Upon finding it too heavy to launch alone, one asks Jim Hughes, or others who think as he does, to help, but they vehemently object on the grounds that any attempt to save only fifty people, makes one morally culpable of the death of the others one could not save. Dr. Johnston unsympathetically characterized this attitude as "Stupidity, short-sightedness, and I would say personal spiritual hubris of the 'purists' in the pro-life movement who obstruct others who are trying to make incremental progress." Moreover, Dr. Johnston recalls that "They tried to dissuade us and to change our minds, and they described various people we were dealing with who were of like mind on C-43 as not really pro-life." In June 2006, Huron-Bruce MP, Paul Steckle introduced Bill C-338 into the House of Commons which, if passed, would have prohibited all abortions after twenty weeks gestation, though not those intended to preserve the life or "...to prevent severe, pathological, physical morbidity of the woman." Several pro-life organizations welcomed it as an appropriate piece of proposed legislation to curb the incidence of abortion. Priests for Life Canada (PFLC) issued a press release quoting its National Director, Fr. Jim Whalen, as saying "Bill C-338, should it pass, will limit the damage that is caused to Canadian society by abortion and will be a 'step in the right direction' in an effort to defend the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, as the Catholic Church clearly professes."289 In this case, a clerical organization dedicated entirely to the pro-life issue could hardly be accused of being ignorant or uninformed by other movement activists, though there was scandal on

287. Ibid. 288. Paul Steckle, Press Kit: Bill C-338 An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, 21 June 2006, 4. 289. Priests for Life Canada, Press Release, 27 June 2006.

97 an international level in some pro-life circles concerning the group's support for Bill C- 338.290

In addition to PFLCs support, CPL, the Catholic Women's League, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Life Canada, and the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, an organization co-sponsored by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus, all issued statements in support of the bill as an, imperfect, albeit necessary measure in a country with no law regulating abortion in any form.291 However, in July, 2006, The Interim suggested that "...there are some concerns about the wisdom of advocating such limits on abortion. CLC said in a press release that it encourages MPs 'to consider Mr. Steckle's example by proposing legislation' that would actually restrict abortion." In other words, the bill's only value was in encouraging other MPs to propose morally acceptable legislation, but C-338 itself was unacceptable. CLCs National Organizer, Mary Ellen Douglas, in an interview with The Interim for the same article tacitly disapproved of Bill C-338 arguing that support for gestational limits on abortion was undesirable "... because of negative experience [sic] in other countries of such an approach and the proven track record of other measures." The article also stated the differences between acceptable incrementalism and "compromise," Douglas defined incrementalism as moving towards a larger goal without admitting that abortion was ever

. Jim Hughes, interview with author, 22 September 2009. 291 . Canadian Physicians for Life, Press Release, 21 June 2006. ; Catholic Women's league, Letter to Paul Steckle, 16 August 2006.; R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Press Release, 21 June 2006.; Life Canada, Press Release, 21 June 2006.; The Catholic Organization for Life and Family, Press Release, 27 June 2006.

98 morally permissible, whereas compromise essentially accepted the legitimacy of some abortions and thus sacrificed some unborn babies.

Her stance in the interview is perplexing, as Douglas was later quoted in CLCs national news lauding Steckle's courage. Commenting on this apparent discrepancy, Jim Hughes stated that "We said we were happy that Steckle was doing something, but we said that we weren't going to support a gestational approach." Thus, the position of CLC ultimately congratulated Steckle in bringing forth the proposed initiative, but did not support its actual? content.294 Similar tensions as occurred in the early 1990s may have emerged in the context of the more recent bill proposed by Steckle. After all, similar arguments were readily articulated against C-338. Jakki Jeffs, as the Executive Director of Alliance for Life Ontario (the Ontario provincial umbrella group had adopted the name of the defunct national predecessor), wrote an article in the Life Canada newsletter voicing opposition to the bill due to the fact that "...Bill C338 implicitly implies that - while certain abortions are prohibited - some abortions can be legally performed. Is this an acceptable incremental approach, whereby we temporarily abandon our unborn children under twenty-weeks?"295 Hughes stated that CLC was also prepared to fully and actively oppose Bill C-338 had it come to a debate in Parliament.296 In contrast to Munson's work on pro-life activity in the United States, the Canadian movement differs in the sense that those working within various streams tend

292. "How to Chip Away at Abortion," The Interim July 2006, http://www.theinterim.com/2006/iuly/08howtochip.htiTil. 293. "Pro-Life Bill Introduced in Parliament," Campaign Life Coalition News, August 2006, http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/national news/2006/news 0806.html. 294. Hughes, interview with author, 22 September 2009. 295. Jakki Jeffs, "Compromising the Principle of Personhood," Life Canada News, undated, http://www.lifecanada.org/html/newsletter/Vol5/no4/CompromisingthePrincipleofPersonhood.html 2%. Hughes, interview with author.

99 to view one another with distrust and derision, and can publicly distance themselves from other elements in the movement for optical purposes and political expediency. The movement's heterogeneity is a contributing factor to the political arm's recent ineffectiveness and relative absence in Canadian political culture. Indeed, Cuneo argues that these divisions reflect the myriad ways in which pro- lifers have assessed the situation regarding abortion in Canada. These groups are influenced by their world-views which he lists in ideological compartments as containing Civil Rights activists, Family Heritage activists, and Revivalist Catholic activists. He argues that the Civil Rights activists were the dominant group in the initial phase of pro- life activity. As many members began viewing the abortion issue as part of a broader social and cultural shift, the latter two groups gained predominance. The shift in emphasis to a broader-based approach to abortion and other life issues may have ironically lost the movement any possible resonance it may have had throughout the broader culture in crucial years. Though the factional disputes led to one predominant norm of pro-life discourse which tended to engage the abortion issue on very narrow terms, this did not produce uniformity among all movement activists, and some of the historic differences noted in this paper between various activists may well have emerged in a more recent context.

291 . Cuneo, 85.

100 Conclusion

Preceding studies have analyzed the movement using helpful interpretive frameworks. Many of them organize their analyses into useful compartmentalized categories in order to account for activists' behaviour and belief systems. Two of these commonly purport to explain the movement's motivations as supposedly religious and conservative, although they are both inherently problematic. Accounts of the movement's socially conservative motivations are being called into question by recent studies, notably in Jon Sheilds', The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, which argues that, as the movement questions the status quo, it can no

298 longer be characterized as the conservative element in the abortion controversy. Moreover, in a Canadian context, this interpretive framework poses a more immediate dilemma in that there is no major party which has adopted a "pro-life" stance as the Republican Party has done in the United States. Many movement organizers who have been interviewed for this study identify very strongly with the Conservative Party of Canada, in spite of having previously been supporters of the Liberal Party, however, they remain inherently suspicious of the Conservative's sympathy for their cause, while many are single issue voters - meaning that they consider a candidate's pro-life/pro-family or pro-choice position to be the only measure for voting decisions. Political diversity is in fact one of the notable features of the early development of the movement's political arm. Ian Gentles described himself as a former "peacenik" in support of the NDP, and has intermittently supported Liberal pro-life candidates, but

298. Jon A. Shields, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, (Toronto: Princeton University Press, 2009), 100.

101 he has recently changed his political support to that of the Conservative Party and claims "I was a radical pacifist socialist, I am now a Conservative, a conservative pro-lifer." Though he is far from satisfied with the party, his assumption is that if it won a majority government, it would be more inclined to allow pro-life members to speak openly about the issue.299 John Rist as well, was more sympathetic towards the aims of the political left, and supported the Labour Party in Britain before he immigrated to Canada. Thereafter, he supported the NDP when he became established in Toronto. His growing disappointment with the party arose when he perceived a shift within the NDP away from issues promoting "socialism" or "distributive justice," opting instead for "liberalizing policies."300 Catholic members were also considered by some to be "reflexively Liberal" in spite of the party's role in liberalizing abortion legislation. More commonly, the movement has been characterized as religious, specifically,

Protestant or Catholic. There is much evidence to indicate that many early movement organizers and heads of many organizations were Catholic professionals, though several notable exceptions include Heather Morris, Ian Gentles and Denyse O'Leary. Some interviewees noted that their religion's position on the issue was merely the impetus

which drove them to understand the issue and study it in greater depth independently; few to none noted it as the only reason for embracing the position. L.L. deVeber, indicated that he was not practicing his faith when first confronted with the issue in medical school, and formed defences of the position in entirely secular terms. Similarly, John-Henry Westen was spurred on in his work because he considers himself to be a committed civil rights activist. As a person of mixed ethnicity, he was discriminated

299'. Gentles, interview with author. 300. John Rist, interview with author, 22 July 2009. 301 . O'Leary, interview with author. 102 against in the Parkdale region of Toronto where he grew up, and considers himself opposed to all forms of discrimination, including those involving ethnicity, "size," or "age."302 Many pro-lifers who adhered to a religious belief at some point decided not to use religious themes or imagery to engage the broader public. Also, some active members, such as Wayne Macmillan, or Tony Oomen described themselves as having no religious belief. Tony Oomen, who was raised Catholic now adheres to an atheistic belief system. Some organizations inhibited communication of these variant elements to the public as part of the pro-life position. Moreover, as previous studies such as Cuneo' s have shown, many religious adherents, especially Catholics who subscribed to the pro-life position, viewed their clerics as hostile or disloyal towards the movement. Some Anglican members have also been disappointed with their church's less than stalwart defence of pro-life principles. Also, Catholic organizations such as the Knights of Columbus have overtly refused to support other Catholic members of the movement due to the perceived willingness to "compromise" pro-life values. Varying degrees of support for the cause existed within the Protestant community. Brian Stiller recalled that his was one of the only Protestant denominations which actively campaigned against abortion, and even then, it was difficult to galvanize members of individual congregations to engage in civil activism. Even in this context, Stiller became discouraged in his efforts after encountering Campaign Life Coalition's determination to scuttle Bill C-43.

302. Westen, interview with author, 18 June 2009. 303. Stiller, interview with author, 13 July 2009.

103 Furthermore, there was little to no evidence for religiously based conflicts within the movement, unless one considered the divide between some lay Catholic activists and the clergy. The Jewish, Catholic and Protestant members of the movement have not tended to differ substantially or divisively in their understanding of the importance of the cause, and indeed, there was evidence suggesting a greater prevalence of internal tensions within these faith groups regarding the importance of the issue, and the extent to which it must constitute the central issue of their respective religious cultures in Canada. If the movement was in fact an inherently "religious" one, denominational and religious divides over its meaning and focus would arguably be one of its most pervasive features. Thus, it cannot be stated with any accuracy that the movement was primarily confessionally motivated. To do so would ignore the extent to which many, though not all, organizations have tended to avoid any proselytism or religious references to the broader public in arguing the pro-life position. Moreover, it would ignore the support the movement has received from atheistic members. Any argument seeking to maintain the movement's religiosity must also indicate which religion the movement belongs to, as arguments in favour of the position have been advanced and articulated from secular, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant perspectives. New approaches are needed to gain a more accurate understanding of dimensions of pro-life activism and discourse which have been overlooked to date. Of primary importance amongst pro-lifers are questions of loyalty and dedication to the cause, which may be gauged by positions favouring one or another strategy for legislative or judicial change, or for engaging the public. To some degree, these questions may be framed in socially conservative or religious terms, in the sense that in some circles, homosexuality is considered incompatible with an authentic

104 pro-life stand, and prayer is touted publicly as the primary remedy for the widespread acceptance and practice of abortion and other related life and family issues.

These social and strategy divides also took place in the United States, though many cultural and political speculations may be made to account for the fact that the main divide which characterizes the movement between pragmatists and purists has not seemed to affect the potency of the movement in that country. Although Roe v. Wade has not been repealed, abortion is still a political issue, and the pro-life movement in the United States can point to several successes, such as individual states' changes to the legal and judicial framework which arguably limit instances of abortion. The greater success enjoyed by pro-lifers in the United States may be to some degree due to the population difference in these countries. As there are substantially more people in the United States, competing organizations might not as readily experience a shortage of philanthropic supporters. In a Canadian context, however, the issue is largely politically and culturally absent in part because, as this paper has attempted to demonstrate, fractious splits and factional infighting, coinciding with a limited resource base and cold relations with the Catholic hierarchy have been some of the contributing causes of the movement's relative political and cultural ineffectiveness.

105 Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Paul Tuns. "A History of the Interim." The Interim, April, 2008. "How to Chip Away at Abortion." The Interim, July, 2006.

"Pro-Life Bill Introduced in Parliament." Campaign Life Coalition News, August, 2006. "Save the Baby and Kill the Bill." Campaign Life Coalition News, December, 1990.

"Defeat the Abortion Bill." Protect the Unborn, November, 1989.

"What did we Accomplish?" Campaign Life News, March-April, 1982. "Charter of Rights: Will Government Leave Issues to Parliament?" The Uncertified Human, March, 1981.

"Charter to Kill Unborn Children." Campaign Life News, September, 1981.

"A Charter of Loopholes." The Globe and Mail, March 27, 1981, sec. A. "Toronto Archdiocese Ousts Campaign Life." The Uncertified Human, May, 1981. "Pro-Life Parliament for 79." Campaign Life News, January, 1979. "Office Moves to Winnipeg - Alliance for Life Gets New Executive Director." The Uncertified Human, December, 1979.

"Abortion as an Election Issue." Campaign Life News, July, 1978. "Campaign Life." The Uncertified Human, August, 1978.

"OUR NAME." The Uncertified Human, August, 1978. "Campaign Life Canada Formed." Campaign Life News, July, 1978. "Coalition for Life." The Uncertified Human, August, 1978.

"The New Youth." The Uncertified Human, May, 1975.

106 "Youth Membership Wanted." The Uncertified Human, May, 1975.

"1 Million Ask MPs to Check Abortions." The Toronto Star, May 30, 1975, sec. A. "Petition of One Million Presented." The Uncertified Human, July, 1975.

"Canada: Doctors for Life." The Uncertified Human, August, 1975. "Why this Newspaper?" The Uncertified Human, June, 1973.

"Ex-Liberal Leader Lobbies in Ottawa for Unborn Babies." The Toronto Star, Nov 2, 1973, sec. B. "3 Day Weekend: Pro Life Festival Draws 3000 to Ottawa." The Uncertified Human, December, 1973. Alphonse de VaIk. "The Final Word on C-43." The Interim, February, 1991. Birthright International. A Quick Reference Guide to the Birthright Charter and Directives Relating to the Charter. Toronto: 2007.

Campaign Life. "Open Letter," 1981. ------. The Life of the Unborn Child, the Charter ofRights and Abortion Clinics 1981.

------. The Abortion Situation in Canada 1980.

------. Three Reasons to Oppose the Charter 1981.

------. New Developments in Ottawa 1978. Campaign Life Coalition. Monthly Report 1991. ------. What Kind ofLaw? 1989.

------. Thank You for Your Generous Donation to Campaign Life Coalition. Canadian Physicians for Life, Press Release, 21 June, 2006. Catholic Women's League, Letter to Paul Steckle, 16 August, 2006. Denyse Handler. "Carter, the Charter and Campaign Life: Taking Up Arms Against a Sea of Troubles." The Uncertified Human, June, 1981.

Heather S. Morris. "Death before Birth." Modern Medicine of Canada 21, no. 2 (February, 1976).

107 Jan Lounder. "Carter's Flock Bickering" The Toronto Sun, April 6, 1981. Jakki Jeffs, "Compromising the Principle of Personhood," Life Canada News, undated, http://www.lifecanada.org/html/newsletter/Vol5/no4/CompromisingthePrincipleofPerson hood.html

Jessica Pegis. "Feminist for Life." The Uncertified Human, June, 1973.

Jim Hughes. "Open Letter," 1990.

------. 1989.

Life Canada, Press Release, 21 June, 2006.

Martha Crean. "A Radical View of Life." The Uncertified Human, June, 1973.

------. "Ontario Bill to Regulate Abortion." The Uncertified Human, September, 1978.

McCabe, Nora. "Cut Ties to Anti-Abortion Group, Carter Tells Priests." The Globe and Mail, April 3, 1981, sec. A Paul Dodds. "Open Letter," 1980. Paul Steckle, Press Kit: Bill C-338 An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, 21 June 2006

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Press Release, 21 June, 2006.

Summerhill, Louise. The Story ofBirthright: An Alternative to Abortion. Mississauga: Birthright International, 2006. The Catholic Organization for Life and Family, Press Release, 27 June, 2006. Vitality Staff. "Abortion Bill C-43: Parliament's Committee Hearings." Vitality, March, 1990.

York University Libraries, Clara Thomas Archives and Special Collections, Ian Gentles fonds, F0106.

Secondary Sources:

108 Black, Naiomi, Paula Bourne, Gail Cuthbert Brant, Beth Light, Wendy Mitchinson, and Alison Prentice. Canadian Women: A History. Second ed. Toronto: Harcourt Brace, 1996.

Blanchard, Dallas A. The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Rise of the Religious Right: From Polite to Fiery Protest. Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, 1994.

Bothwell, Robert, Ian Drummond, and John English. Canada since 1945: Power, Politics, and Provincialism. Revised ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989.

Buckner, Philip, ed. Canada and the End ofEmpire. Toronto: UBC Press, 2005.

Cassidy, Keith. "Interpreting the Pro-Life Movement: Recurrent Themes and Recent Trends." Life and Learning IX, (1999).

Critchlow, Donald T. Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Cuneo, Michael W. Catholics Against the Church: Anti-Abortion Protest in Toronto, 1969-1985. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989.

Davis, Nanette J. From Crime to Choice: The Transformation ofAbortion in America. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Fahrni, Magdalena and Robert Allen Rutherdale, eds. Creating Postwar Canada : Community, Diversity, and Dissent, 1945-75. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008.

Faludi, Susan. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York: Crown Publishers, 1991.

Finkel, Alvin. Our Lives: Canada After 1945. Toronto: J. Lorimer, 1997. Flanagan, Thomas. "The Staying Power of the Legislative Status Quo: Collective Choice in Canada's Parliament After 'Morgentaler'." Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science 30, no. 1(1997): 31-53.

Frisch, Michael. A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.

Ginsburg, Faye D. Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community. Berkley: University of California Press, 1989.

109 Gorney, Cynthia. Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Haussman, Melissa. "What does Gender have to do with Abortion Law?" Canadian Women's Movement-Parliamentary Interactions on Reform Attempts, 1969-91." International Journal of Canadian Studies 21, no. Spring (2000).

Hendershott, Anne. The Politics ofAbortion. New York: Encounter Books, 2006.

Jacoby, Kerry N. Souls, Bodies, Spirits: The Drive to Abolish Abortion since 1973. Westport: Praeger, 1998.

Kallen, Evelyn. "The Meech Lake Accord: Entrenching a Pecking Order of Minority Rights." Canadian Public Policy 14, (Sept., 1988).

Karine Richer, "Abortion in Canada: Twenty Years After R. v. Morgentaler" Library of Parliament: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0822- e.htm (24 September, 2008) Kay, Barry J., Ronald D. Lambert, Steven D. Brown, and James E. Curtis. "Single-Issue Interest Groups and the Canadian Electorate: The Case of Abortion in 1988." Journal of Canadian Studies 26, no. 2 (1991).

Keith Banting and Richard Simeon eds. And no One Cheered: Federalism, Democracy and the Constitution Act, Toronto: Methuen, 1983.

Kelly, James R. "Common Ground for Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Joining Forces to Challenge New Jersey Family Cap." America 180, no. 2 (23 January, 1999): 8-13.

------. "Sociology and Public Theology: A Case Study of Pro-Choice/Prolife Common Ground." Sociology ofReligion 60, no. 2 (Summer, 1999): 99-124.

------. "Why Republican and New Democrat Welfare Changes Need Legal Abortion." America 173, (6 January, 1996): 7-8.

------. "Beyond Compromise: Casey, Common Ground, and the Pro-Life Movement." In Abortion Politics in American States, edited by Mary Segers and Timothy A. Byrnes, 205-24. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.

------. "Truth, Not Truce: 'Common Ground' on Abortion, a Movement within both Movements." Virginia Review ofSociology 2, (1995): 213-41.

110 — . "A Dispatch from the Abortion Wars: Reflections on 'Common Ground'." America 171, (17 September, 1994): 8-13.

—. "Seeking a Sociologically Correct Name for Abortion Opponents." In Abortion Politics in the United States and Canada, edited by Ted G. Jelen and Marthe A. Chandler, 14-40. Westport: Praeger, 1994.

— . "Pro-Life and Pro-Choice After Reagan-Bush." America (30 January, 1993): 11- 15.

—. "Abortion Politics: The Last Decades, the Next Three Decades and the 1992 Elections." America 167, (11 July, 1992): 8-12.

—. "Abortion: What Americans really Think and the Catholic Challenge." America (2 November, 1991): 310-16.

—. "Beyond Slogans: An Abortion Ethic for Women and the Unborn." The Christian Century 107, (21 February, 1990): 184-86.

—. "The Koop Report and the Better Politics of Abortion." America 162, (2 June, 1990): 542-46.

— . "A Political Challenge to the Pro-Life Movement." Commonweal (23 November, 1990): 692-96.

—. "Ecumenism and Abortion: A Case Study of Pluralism, Privatization and the Public Conscience." Review ofReligious Research 30, no. 3 (March, 1989): 225-35.

—. "Toward Complexity: The Right to Life Movement." Research in the Study of Religionno. 1 (1989): 83-107.

—. "The Vanishing Middle in Abortion Politics." The Christian Century (August, 1988): 708-11.

—. "AIDS and the Death Penalty as Consistency Tests for the Prolife Movement." America (26 September, 1987): 151-55.

—. "Turning Liberals into Fascists: A Case Study in the Distortion of the Right to Life Movement." Fidelity (July/August, 1987): 17-22.

Ill ------. "Beyond the Stereotypes: Interviews with Right-to-Life Pioneers." Commonweal (20 November, 1981): 654-59.

Knopf, Rainer, Ted Morton, and Peter H. Russell. Federalism and the Charter: Leading Constitutional Decisions. Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989.

Luker, Kristin. Abortion and the Politics ofMotherhood. Berkley: University of California Press, 1984.

Maxwell, Carol J. C. Pro-Life Activists in America: Meaning, Motivation, and Direct Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Merton, Andrew H. Enemies of Choice: The Right to Life Movement and its Threat to Abortion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981.

Mohr, James C. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution ofNational Policy, 1800-1900. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Morton, F. L. Morgentaler v. Borowski: Abortion, the Charter, and the Courts. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1992.

Munson, Zaid W. The Making ofPro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Paige, Connie. The Right to Lifers: Who they are, How they Operate, Where they Get their Money. New York: Summit Books, 1983.

Reagan, Leslie J. When Abortion was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Risen, James and Judy L. Thomas. Wrath ofAngels: The American Abortion War. New York: Basic Books, 1998.

Ritchie, Donald. Doing Oral History. Toronto: Twane Publishers, 1995.

Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson eds. The Oral History Reader, New York: Routledge, 1998.

Saletan, William. Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Berkley: University of California Press, 2003.

112 Shields, Jon A. The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right. Toronto: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Staggenborg, Suzanne. The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Studiar, Donley T. and Raymond Tatalovich. "Abortion Policy Implementation in Canada and the United States." The American Review of Canadian Studies 25, no. 2/3 (Summer/Fall, 1995): 203.

Tatalovich, Raymond. The Politics ofAbortion in the United States and Canada: A Comparative Study. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1997.

Weir, Lorna. "Left Popular Politics in Canadian Feminist Abortion Organizing, 1982- 1991." Feminist Studies 20, no. 2 (1994).

List of Interviews:

Berney, Mary Broughton, Paul Byfield, Joanne Costigan, Angela Crean, Martha Desilets, Anne de VaIk, Alphonse deVeber, L.L. Doherty, Delores Formby, Paul Gentles, Ian Hughes, Jim Jeffs, Jakki Johnston, Will Kremer, Elmar Kremer, Martha Landolt, Gwendolyn MacMillan, Wayne Morris, Heather Murray, Rachael O'Leary, Denyse Oomen, Tony Rist, John Roddis, Malcolm

113 Roddis, Monica Ryan, Peter Schadenberg, Alex Smith, Janet Stiller, Brian Westen, John-Henry

114 Appendix A: Section 251 of the Criminal Code

251. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life. (2) Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

(3) In this section, "means" includes (a) the administration of a drug or other noxious thing, (b) the use of an instrument, and (c) manipulation of any kind. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to (a) a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person, or (b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means described in paragraph (a) for the purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage, if, before the use of those means, the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited or approved hospital, by a majority of the members of the committee and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of such female person has been reviewed, (c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and (d) has caused a copy of such certificate to be given to the qualified medical practitioner.

(5) The Minister of Health of a province may by order (a) require a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital in that province, or any member thereof, to furnish to him a copy of any certificate described in paragraph (4)(c) issued, by that committee, together with such other information relating to the circumstances surrounding the issue of that certificate as he may require, or (b) require a medical practitioner who, in that province, has procured the miscarriage of any female person named in a certificate described in paragraph (4)(c), to furnish to him a copy of that certificate, together with such other information relating to the procuring of the miscarriage as he may require. (6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) and this subsection "accredited hospital" means a hospital accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation in which diagnostic services and medical, surgical and obstetrical treatment

115 are provided; "approved hospital" means a hospital in a province approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister of Health of that province; "board" means the board of governors, management or directors, or the trustees, commission or other person or group of persons having the control and management of an accredited or approved hospital; "Minister of Health" means (a) in the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, the Minister of Health, (a.l) in the Province of Alberta, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, (¿>) in the Province of British Columbia, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, (c) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, the Minister of Public Health, and (J) in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, the Minister of National Health and Welfare; "qualified medical practitioner" means a person entitled to engage in the practice of medicine under the laws of the province in which the hospital referred to in subsection (4) is situated; "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner, appointed by the board of that hospital for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital. (7) Nothing in subsection (4) shall be construed as making unnecessary the obtaining of any authorization or consent that is or may be required, otherwise than under this Act, before any means are used for the purpose of carrying out an intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person.

Section 251 of the Criminal Code (later found under ss. 287 and 288)

304. Karine Richer, "Abortion in Canada: Twenty Years After R. v. Morgentaler," Library of Parliament: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0822-e.htm (24 September, 2008)

116 Appendix B: Bill C-43

287. (1) Every person who induces an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, unless the abortion is induced by or under the direction of a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened. (2) For the purposes of this section, "health" includes, for greater certainty, physical, mental and psychological health; "medical practitioner," in respect of an abortion induced in a province, means a person who is entitled to practice medicine under the laws of that province; "opinion" means an opinion formed using generally accepted standards of the medical profession. (3) For the purposes of this section and section 228, inducing an abortion does not include using a drug, device or other means on a female person that is likely to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum. 288. Everyone who unlawfully supplies or procures a drug or other noxious thing or an instrument or thing, knowing that it is intended to be used or employed to induce an abortion on a female person, is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Bill C-43305

305. Tatalovich, The Politics ofAbortion in the United States and Canada, 88.

117 Appendix C: Visual Display of Pro-life Groups

The Uncertified Human, 1973

Coalition for Campaign The Interim, Life, 1971 Life, 1978 1983

Alliance for Life, 1968 Campaign Life LifeSiteNews, Coalition, 1986 1997

Birthright, 1968 Canadian Physicians for Life, 1975

Canadian Youth Pro-Life Life Cycle Books, 1973 Organization, 1975

R.E.A.L. Women, Euthanasia 1983 Prevention Coalition. 1999 Life Canada, 2000

118