Article content continued

There is, it is true, a lot of posturing at work here. But it is also true that many Liberals (and New Democrats) sincerely believe this: that any woman who does not believe in absolute unrestricted abortion on demand does not truly believe in women’s rights, and as such is unfit for such a post. They are entitled to think that. What marks them apart is their absolute unwillingness to extend the same courtesy to their opponents — or even to recognize that their opponents do not see things that way.

Photo by Jean Levac / Postmedia

Pro-lifers do not get up in the morning thinking “how can I reduce women’s rights today?” So far as they are prepared to let the state intervene in what would otherwise be entirely a personal matter, it is in the profound belief that another set of rights are engaged: those of the fetus she is carrying. They may be wrong about that. Or they may be right, but not to the point that the mother’s rights can be overridden. But whether they are right or they are wrong, it is not a belief that is so far off the map as to warrant this kind of demonization.

Why not? Is it impossible that it could be, even in principle? I’ve seen people argue that nominating Harder for chair of status of women is like giving a Holocaust denier responsibility for promoting religious tolerance. Well now. What would be the signs that pro-lifers had sunk into a similarly marginal, if not depraved state?

Perhaps it would, if the matter were settled law — though other fights, such as for assisted suicide, persisted in the face of legal defeat. But it isn’t: the Supreme Court, in its famous 1988 Morgentaler decision, did not say that no abortion law could be constitutional — only that the one in front of them was not. Indeed, the court was at pains to suggest the kind of law that would pass scrutiny, notably a “gestational” approach, with restrictions applying only in the later stages of a pregnancy. Justice Bertha Wilson, the feminist icon, led the way.