(LifeSiteNews) — On July 28, a Quebec Superior Court ruled that although the pro-life group Quebec Life Coalition had sufficiently demonstrated that a 2016 “bubble zone” law eliminating freedom of speech and the right to gather within fifty meters of abortion clinics infringed on their civil liberties, the law was nonetheless “necessary.”
“Evidence shows that a buffer zone is necessary around clinics to ensure privacy in a medical setting and the safety of all those who work or receive care,” Justice Lysane Cree stated in her judgement. “The risks associated with not having a buffer zone outside clinics have been amply demonstrated.”
The “ample” evidence cited in the judgement, however, does not document harassment or even protesting per se. Cree cited “sidewalk counselors” carrying signs with messages such as “Pregnant and scared? We can help you” or “Pray for the end of abortion” (a standard sign used by 40 Days for Life participants), or photos of a child in the womb.
“I can’t see how harassment fits into the picture,” Brian Jenkins, vice-president of Quebec Life Coalition and a regular sidewalk counselor told the CBC. “We want to be supportive. We want to be helpful.” Indeed, in a 2018 paper titled “Why Women Have Abortions,” Joyce Arthur of The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada admitted that: “Many women state they ‘have no real choice’ as they do not have the financial resources to support themselves and a child.”
READ: Quebec judge upholds abortion ‘bubble zones’ despite admitting they violate constitutional rights
In that context, barring Canadians from offering alternatives to women who feel they “have no real choice” seems to be a legal cruelty—as does formally banning any scientifically accurate imagery of what the child in the womb actually looks like. As Jenkins told the CBC, the ruling is “a blow for women’s rights”—specifically, the right “to be informed.” To claim that women have the right to abortion but no right to know who they are aborting is a fiction necessary to prop up the idea that feticide constitutes “healthcare.”
Pearl Eliadis, an associate professor at the Max Bell School of Public Policy who teaches civil liberties at McGill University’s Faculty of Law, told the CBC that: “People can say what they want to say, but that next step, right, when it comes to actually impeding access to health-care services, that takes it to a whole other level” and that Superior Court was “quite right to shut it down.” She stated: “The opening lines of the legislation in question talk about the importance of access. When somebody bars that access, it’s a problem. And so that’s how the courts weigh the two sets of rights.”
But even the judge, however, did not cite instances of pro-lifers “impeding access” or “barring access”; the signs detailed in the judgement refer to Canadians offering women alternatives, which generally include a wide range of free services as well as financial aid. Eliadis essentially makes her case for the court weighing “two sets of rights” by creating a straw man and then claiming that the pro-lifers are doing something that not even the court accused them of doing. To an abortion activist, perhaps offering help constitutes “harassment.” But it certainly cannot be characterized as “barring access.”
The Clinique Morgentaler, a Montreal abortion clinic, also ran with this narrative, stating in a press release responding to the ruling: “We sincerely hope that anti-abortion protesters will respect this ruling, which confirms women’s right and freedom to choose to access abortion clinics without any constraints.” What constraints are being referred to here? What they are actually emphasizing is the “right and freedom” to enter an abortion clinic without being offered help, information, or the opportunity for second thoughts.
