Adam Zivo is a Toronto-based writer.
The Liberals claim that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has consistently voted against abortion and that, if elected, he would restrict a woman’s right to choose. This is nothing more than a cynical lie which we have seen recycled many times before. Every election, the Liberals fearmonger about a secret anti-choice agenda that never materializes, because apparently importing American culture wars matters more than honest politics.
The issue roared back to life earlier this month when, out of nowhere, Liberal Leader Mark Carney claimed that Poilievre would be willing to use the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to ban abortion. “It’s not an accusation, it’s a fact. It’s a fact,” insisted Carney to a reporter.
What a strange thing to say. For 21 years and counting, the Conservatives’ official policy has been to not support any legislation regulating abortion. Although pro-life parliamentarians have been permitted to vote with their conscience on these matters, they have done so without party support and have long been an inconsequential fringe in the legislative process.
Notably, the Conservatives could have easily limited abortion access between 2011 and 2015, when they had a majority government. But they did not, because doing so would have contradicted their principles.
These pro-choice principles were affirmed, once again, in the Conservatives’ 2023 policy declaration, which clearly stated that the party “will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.” We know that this sincerely reflects wider party preferences because, unlike election platforms, policy declarations are drafted through a grassroots process where, every two years, delegates from across the country convene to debate and vote upon the party’s guiding values.
Poilievre's personal stance has also been unambiguous: “There will be no laws or other restrictions imposed on a woman’s right to decide to do with her body as she wishes,” he said while campaigning this month. “And that is something that I am guaranteeing to you and to all Canadians.” These views are reflected in his election platform, which commits to upholding the status quo.
This debate is closed. That is crystal clear. Nonetheless, the Liberals and their proxies compulsively fabricate anti-abortion conspiracies. It is one of their favourite boogeymen, it seems.
Just earlier this week, I found myself on the radio with a Liberal strategist who, apparently citing a viral article by CultMtl, told listeners that Poilievre had repeatedly voted to restrict access to abortion. In reality, these votes were predominantly focused on protecting pregnant women from violence and coercion.
Establishing special protections for pregnant women has historically been a contentious issue because, while most Canadians accept that harming a fetus against a mother’s will is evil, it is not always clear how to codify that moral impulse into law without conferring legal personhood upon the unborn, something which could potentially interfere with abortion rights.
The Conservatives tried to solve this riddle in 2008 via Bill C-484, which would have permitted separate homicide charges to be laid against offenders who kill a fetus while committing an offence against its mother. That bill explicitly acknowledged that fetuses are not human beings, and exempted legal abortions from its purview alongside any acts or omissions by the harmed fetus’ mother.
But critics argued that invoking homicide charges could eventually grant fetuses legal personhood and set the stage for future abortion restrictions, regardless if the bill acknowledged that fetuses are not people. As an alternative, they recommended conceptualizing a fetus’ death as a harm inflicted upon its mother — such an approach could protect pregnant women while bypassing personhood concerns.
Opponents disagreed with this interpretation though, and polling data gathered by Angus Reid Strategies suggested that 70 per cent of Canadians (and 74 per cent of women) approved of the bill. Almost every Conservative MP, plus a third of the Liberal caucus, ultimately voted in support of it — but the bill died when parliament was dissolved for an election later that year.
The debate was revived in 2016 when Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall forwarded Bill C-225 (also known as “Molly’s Law”), which copied most of the 2008 proposal. Rather than use homicide charges, though, Wagantall proposed creating a new offence for killing or injuring a fetus while committing another crime. Yet, this bill also died after only the Conservatives supported it.
Wagantall then tried again in 2023 with Bill C-311, which would have imposed harsher sentencing on offenders who abuse or harm pregnant women. The bill made no specific references to fetuses, just as had been originally recommended by pro-choice activists, but it nonetheless failed to pass when every party aside from the Conservatives voted against it.
In addition to this saga, the Conservatives forwarded Bill C-510 in 2011, which would have given women more control over their bodies by criminalizing coerced abortions. The move was inspired by a Winnipeg woman who was murdered by her boyfriend after she refused to terminate their unborn child, but even this failed to pass — only two thirds of Conservative MPs voted in support, along with a fifth of their Liberal colleagues.
Poilievre voted for all of these bills, but do any of them amount to voting against a woman’s right to choose, as some Liberals claim? No, of course not. Making that logical leap requires conspiratorial thinking, especially in light of the Conservatives’ longstanding respect for abortion rights. While the Liberals may be desperate to scare voters, their partisan misrepresentations here are unethical and poisonous to Canada’s political climate.
Adam Zivo is a Toronto-based writer..
