July 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In his July 2006 Interim newspaper article, “How to Chip away at abortion”,
Interim editor Paul Tuns explains at length the logic and crucial continuing need of what are now called pro-life incremental strategies and which are often misunderstood by pro-life North Americans.
Tuns presents these step-by-step law changes, such as banning partial-birth abortions and requiring parental consent for abortion of a minor, as being “incremental” tactics necessary for paving the way for an eventual prohibition of all abortions. The United States pro-life movement has successfully fought for a series a these legislative changes in recent years that have gradually chipped away at the abortion on demand monolith of Roe v. Wade.
Incremental legislative victories are said to have helped a great deal to reduce the number of U.S. abortions by about 17 percent. However, many pro-life North Americans have not understood the strategies with the result that some have strenuously opposed them as being a compromise of principles.
George Weigel, at a Campaign Life Coalition clergy luncheon in May, 2006 in Toronto, noted that incremental victories are indeed pro-life victories and their importance should not be discounted. Weigel emphasized the usefulness of studying an Americans United for Life document, Defending Life 2006: Proven Strategies for a Pro-Life America, for grasping the importance of this development.
“The assumption among many U.S. pro-lifers”, says Tuns, “is that change (in a favourable direction) will continue through these incremental steps - changing the hearts and minds of Americans by demonstrating that the abortion licence is not unlimited.”
The article goes on to explain what Incremental Steps Make Sense and are permissible, from a pro-life perspective, in Canada.
Permissible incremental strategies are said to be “effective restrictions on abortion that affirm the value of life, teach the public that abortion is not an inconsequential procedure and limit the evil of abortion by reducing the number of them committed”.
Mary Ellen Douglas, Campaign Life Coalition’s national coordinator, defines incrementalism as “moving towards a larger goal without admitting that abortion is ever morally permissible”.
Campaign Life Coalition Ottawa lobbyist Aiden Reid adds that “permissible restrictions include outlawing certain procedures, protecting survivors of abortion and laws that require abortion-seeking women to notify family members or become informed about the decision they are making.”
Tuns finally adds that “The pro-life measure being proposed should not have the effect of severely hindering future politicians from acting to further restrict abortion or ultimately achieving the more perfect goal of prohibiting abortion if political conditions change.”
The following items that fit the criteria are discussed in the article:
- banning partial-birth abortion
- prohibiting dilation and extraction (D&E) abortions
- informed consent or women’s right-to-know laws
- 24 hour waiting periods
- mandating that minors seeking abortions notify their parents or receive their consent
- implementing strict limits on free-standing abortion facilities
- placing limits on abortion funding
- passing a Born Alive Infant Protection Act
** See the full Interim newspaper article**
How to Chip away at abortion
http://www.theinterim.com/2006/july/08howtochip.html