Abortion law would be backward step The Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to rule on fetal rights in its March 9 deci- sion is being interpreted by some as a call to Ottawa to draft a new abortion law. The court decision contained two essen- tial elements. It said the guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to the fetus, upholding the previous rulings of two Saskatchewan courts. This closes the book on Joe Borowski’s 10-year legal crusade to confer full human rights on the fetus, an effort which had pre- occupied the pro-choice movement, since a positive decision would have outlawed abortion. It also said it could not respond to a citizen’s request to clarify abstract ques- tions.: This is not an unimportant legal precedent. The court is saying it will inter- pret existing laws, not dictate legislation for Parliament. True, the decision means the Mulroney government will no longer be able to hide behind the courts when questioned on abortion, but it is not a call for a new law. Such an interpretation begs the issue of why abortion should remain the one med- ical procedure to receive the scrutiny of the House of Commons. Pro-choice activists who had feared the worst as they awaited the ruling were vis- ibly relieved. Although the court was not expected to back Borowski, there were Kerry McCuaig : concerns that it might strengthen the recommendations contained in its Janu- ary 1988 decision which struck down Criminal Code provisions on abortion, but gave Parliament leave, if it so desired, to place gestational limits on the proce- dure. But does there need to be a law govern- ing abortion? Proponents of a law present a range of arguments. The court dispensed with the opinion of the radical fringe which maintains human life begins at con- ception and therefore abortion is murder. Profile studies on the proponents of this view find they are largely motivated by a religious fundamentalist outlook which is as contradictory as it is arch-conservative. While championing the life of the fetus, they equally support capital punishment, and the buildup of nuclear arms. NEWS ANALYSIS The Canadian Law Reform Commis- sion, a largely male, quasi-governmental advisory body, proposed earlier this month that abortion be initiated by the patient during the first 22 weeks of preg- | nancy after which an abortion would be permitted only if the woman’s life or health were endangered. That would be a new departrure for Canada — there has never been a gesta- tional limit on abortion in Canadian law. Less than one per cent of abortions are performed after the 22nd week, and then, because so few hospitals will perform second trimester abortions, only for emer- gency medical reasons. Restrictions at this stage would also place an additional burden on that small number of women who elect to have an abortion because the fetus they are carry- ing has congenital defects. Determining tests cannot be performed until the woman is already in her second stage of pregnancy, and then limited hospital beds often postpone the operation further. Others argue that abortion needs to be regulated to eliminate unqualified practi- tioners, or to improve access to abortion services which are delivered in a very spotty and unequal manner across the country. However, such laws already exist under their appropriate sections. It is illegal for anyone but a licenced medical doctor to practice medicine. To ensure access, the federal government has only to enforce the provisions of the Canada Health Act. The act also empowers the government to withhold transfer payments to those provinces which do not provide necessary medical services on a universal basis. This would allow Ottawa to challenge those hospitals which do not provide the proce- dure, or provinces which refuse to pay for abortions performed i in clinics. The fact remains that there has been no abortion law for the past 15 months, and no logic can be found to justify one. Any contentions that such a law is necessary is tinged with contempt for women and their ability to make difficult, but necessary, decisions in their own interests. More child care space, welfare body urges 16 Ye Nasiten!“@buned on Welfare kes critized the federal government _ for its child care strategy and urged it _ todispense with its plan for tax credits _ ‘ _and use the money to increase the % sero thecuny vivant : ulroney government’s strategy of — _ fax credits will result in less day care a _ Spaces than currently exist. : The council report, entitled Child : - Care: A Better Alternative, urges $1.5 ; _ billion be invested over the next seven ‘ _ years into capital grants to bring the _ number of new spaces in line with . It condemns Ottawa’s recent move _ 3 to cap the amount of money itis wil. - _ ling to transfer to the provinces for — _ child care, and in a boost to the child — care lobby demands, comes out : _ Strongly against government funding for commercial care. ~The report also calls for changes to maternity benefits under unemploy- ment insurance including: the elimi- _ nation of the two week waiting period - for benefits; the continuation of benef- its during a strike; and provisions that _ would allow women to combine © maternity and sick leave under the _ * te eh hocmy telat 6 « Pacific Tribune, March 27, 1989 Any pretense by University of Westerp Ontario professor Philippe Rushton that his studies of genetic superiority among races is a neutral academic exercise was unmasked last week by media revelations that he intended to address a white supremacist meeting. Rushton cancelled his address only after learning he was under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police hate literature squad. The Toronto gathering was sponsored by the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, know as C-Far. The spokesperson for the organi- zation and the chair of the meeting was Paul Fromm, a co-founder of the racist Edmund Burke Society. Also present were Ronald Gostick of the ultra-right Canadian League of Rights and Don Andrews, a high-profile neo-Nazi. Andrews told the meeting Rushton was committed to addressing the group and was interested in doing some writing for its pub- lications. Rushton’s racist connections, including the pro-nazi Pioneer Fund which bankrolls his “research,” and his writings in other racist newsletters, leave no doubt about who Rushton is and what his intentions are. Yet the officialdom of academia, includ- ing his employer, the University of Western Ontario, his faculty association, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Asso- ciations, along with other academic repre- sentatives, have chosen to shield Rushton from legitimate community anger under the guise of academic freedom Others, however, argue that citing aca- demic freedom to protect a fraud and a racist is demeaning primarily to the victims of racism, but also to academia and to science. Leading geneticists have noted that not only is there no scientific evidence to support Rushton’s conclusions but that it is also impossible for science to judge what is and isn’t superior. In a statement issued last month, the Ontario executive of the Communist Party called for prompt action against Rushton, emphasizing that the racist nature of his work made him “ unworthy of membership in the academic commnity.” ~ RUSHTON The full statement follows: “The University of Western Ontario and the Canadian academic community must take immediate action to dissociate them- selves from the racist, anti-scientific garbage that UWO psychology professor Philippe Rushton has dedicated himself to promot- ing. He has proven himself unworthy of membership in the academic community, using, to quote another psychologist, ‘bad science serving a bad cause.’ His methodol- ogy alone is so tainted as-to disqualify him. The UWO must protect its own integrity and that of all Canadian academia, as well as its reputation in the eyes of Canadians and the world. “There are well-established procedures for dismissal of tenured staff. The UWO must activate them at once, bringing | Cancelled speech unmasks Rushton charges against Rushton for his anti- scientific and racist activities. Anything less would discredit a university. “Canada’s world of learning should not be burdened by this scandal, which by: potentially poisoning the lives of popula tions, would recall the horror of CIA- brainwashing experiments done in Canada which ruined the lives of the people used as guinea pigs. “Press accounts have revealed not only the shoddiness of Rushton’s so-called ‘science’ but also its repudiation by the forum where he spoke. “The press also revealed the motives behind his systematic racist campaign which he seeks to palm off as ‘science.’ “Speaking on his work, Rushton told the Toronto Star, Jan. 28: ‘I think government should be aware of the genetic differences between the races, take them into account if - planning. The government may have to be more interventionist in dealing with these differences.’ “Ts he trying to tell the education author ties what opportunities should be provided to pupils of different racial backgrounds? IS — he suggesting government apply immigra- — tion laws to protect caucasians from thosé who are ‘naturally superior?’ Is his intention — to reinforce the anti-Black racism so sadly evident by poverty, in the judicial system, if ~ immigration policies and now emphasiz by recent police killings? 5 “Aware of the shock with which Canadi : ans are receiving this assault on science an? — democracy, Ontario Premier David Pete! son has called for the dismissal of Rushton: — “We remind Premier Peterson that he — has it within his power to struggle against . racism by bringing in legislation to creat@ — independent police review bodies with judi cial powers to make police forces in Ontari0 _ more publicly accountable for their actionS — to make mandatory affirmative action 1 _ hiring and promotion a reality. “We call upon him to act now; Rushton’s — internationally publicized racism shows / that Ontario must take decisive and promp! — action against all such manifestations. “Any less of a response is unacceptable — Racism is a crime against humanity.”