In-vitro embryos safe from sex-based death, but unborn babies aren’t: MP

A Conservative Member of Parliament seeking to prohibit abortions done on the basis of the sex of the unborn child is being accused of opening a back door for more further abortion restrictions in Canada.

But Cathay Wagantall says while those who disagree with Bill C-233 might paint the issue as a polarizing one, she believes it has far more support in law and from Canadians than opponents believe. For starters, a prohibition on sex selection already exists for in-vitro embryos.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act (enacted in 2004) says that “for the purpose of creating a human being” it is prohibited to “perform any procedure or provide, prescribe, or administer any thing that would ensure or increase the probability that an embryo will be of a particular sex, or that would identify the sex of an in-vitro embryo, except to prevent, diagnose, or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease.”

“Obviously that should then transfer to protecting baby girls in the womb who are being aborted simply because of their sex,” said Wagantall at an online pro-life event April 19.

Yet there are no protections for a child, conceived naturally or through assisted reproductive technology, from discrimination on the basis of sex in the womb.

Wagantall said she put forward her private member’s bill to promote equality between the sexes at the earliest stages of life.

“Sex selective abortion is a persistent and overlooked form of gender inequality deserving urgent attention and a concerted legislative response.”

She added she has support of most Canadians. A 2019 poll found 84 per cent of respondents said it should be illegal to abort a child if the family does not want a baby of a certain sex. Her bill has received support from the Vedic Hindu Cultural Society of B.C. and United Sikhs, rebutting the charge that a bill against gendercide is somehow racist.

“The practice of sex selective abortion takes place in Canada and it is our duty as parliamentarians to do something.”

Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for advocacy group We Need a Law (which supports Wagantall’s bill), said it is “illogical” to support women’s rights and oppose a bill that protects unborn females.

“If we are serious about equality between sexes, that needs to start at the earliest stages of life.”