Motion in Parliament demands risks of abortion to be investigated. (News in Brief: Canada).

Ottawa--A motion by Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz received one hour of debate in the House of Commons on May 12 before being put to the bottom of the order paper for a vote at a later date. The vote, touted as the "first pro-life vote in the Canadian Parliament in 12 years", asks the government to determine whether abortions are medically necessary and to determine the health risks from the procedure.

Pro-abortion activist MPs rallied against the motion. While several MPs delivered speeches in support of the motion, NDP MP Libby Davies objected strenuously, saying that Henry Morgentaler (Canada's most notorious abortionist) was "a real hero". BQ MP Diane Bourgeois attacked Breitkreuz personally saying she had enough of his pro-life motions and boasting that her party was responsible for defeating many such motions in the past.

When he introduced this motion last month, Breikreuz explained, "If passed by the House of Commons, my motion would require the Standing Committee on Health to fully examine this question of whether or not an abortion is a 'medically necessary' procedure in accordance with the definition in the Canada Health Act. If the Health Committee's study reveals that most abortions are not a 'medically necessary' procedure, then taxpayers should not be paying for them." He continued, "Doctors take an oath to 'DO NO HARM'. The government should take the same oath. We know abortions are deadly for the baby, but everyone needs to know the health risks for the mother. Every woman and her family should know what these health risks are before they reach a decision to have an abortion."

Breitkruez's motion M-83 states: That the Standing Committee on Health fully examine, study, and report to Parliament on (a) whether or not abortions are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability in accordance with the Canada Health Act; and (b) the health risks for women undergoing abortions. compared to women carrying their babies to full term. (Lifesite May 12, 2003)

Comment:

The point of M-83 is to force an end to the false idea that abortion is a medical necessity and the consequent federal government demand that provincial insurance plans, therefore, must cover abortions. Abortions, of course, are never a medical necessity. They are done for non- medical reasons.