Poor Rachael Harder. Denied the position of chair of the House Status of Women committee last Tuesday by those nasty and intolerant Liberals and New Democrats. And just because she is opposed to abortion. If they had genuinely believed in feminism and equality they would have welcomed this young woman to such a position.

That, at least, has been the position of a surprising number of columnists and commentators in the past few days. The reality, of course, is that Harder was used by Tory leader Andrew Scheer, who wants to appeal to his socially conservative base, and surely knew what would happen when someone who is opposed to a woman’s right to choose was chosen to chair a body committed to, among other things, a woman’s right to choose.

But leaving the banalities of party politics aside, what does it mean to be anti-abortion in modern Canada, and what do Rachael Harder’s supporters believe and want? The truth is that the anti-abortion movement in this country, and in most of the Western world, knows it has lost the intellectual, emotional, and political battle, so has rather cleverly chosen to try other approaches.

Instead of being honest about its ambitions it uses euphemisms and disguise. We now hear talk of gender-selected abortions, or unborn children killed when their mother dies during an assault.

Do not be misled. The intention of the anti-abortion movement is the complete removal of reproductive rights, and the criminalization of medical staff daring to perform terminations. Most activists claim they wouldn’t penalize women who have abortions but, with all due respect, I don’t believe them. I know them just a little too well.

In cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, for example, they are generally uncompromising. Those people who are unsure about abortion but want these exceptions are dismissed as appeasers and “not really pro-life.” Indeed, one of the star names on the movement’s speaking circuit is Rebecca Kiessling, whose busy website is headed “Conceived in Rape.”

In 2015 a 10-year-old Paraguayan girl was denied an abortion after being raped by her stepfather. I wrote about this for a Catholic newspaper in Western Canada called The Prairie Messenger. I said, “A terrified little girl victimized by those around her and forced by a government to give birth to the child of her rapist. That is not justice, that is not life, that is not right. God must be weeping.”

A concerted campaign was launched and, credit where it’s due, I was fired. Lifesite, the most influential pro-life media platform in Canada and a major supporter of Rachael Harder, wrote that they were “glad that the Prairie Messenger will no longer be a mouthpiece for Coren’s misplaced notions of compassion and love.” But, they continued, “Staff should issue a public apology for running the piece.” When the Christian right speaks of freedom of speech it generally means freedom for it and not other people.

Most of us have reservations about abortion — it’s a medical procedure at a time of crisis, not cosmetic surgery! But in a reasonable society, based on science and experience, we can agree on certain consensus themes in response to a divisive issue. Universal and modern sex education at schools, open availability of contraceptives, equality of women, and eradication of poverty would lead to a massive decline in the demand for abortion. Problem is, the anti-abortion movement is generally opposed to the first two, ambivalent about the third, and indifferent to the fourth. Their aim is absolute, punitive, and fundamentalist.

This has nothing to do with the admittedly worrying idea of abortion based on the gender of the unborn child, nor about secular democracy. It’s a theocratic impulse, an attempt to impose religion on the state, and to prohibit abortion, not out of concern for life but an obsession with birth. It regards sex as a means to procreation rather than an act of pleasure or, one hopes, love. As an anti-abortion leader once said to me, “Blessed are the fertile.” And as for what happens to the child after birth, that doesn’t seem to matter.

The entire Rachael Harder incident wasn’t a symbol of progressive intolerance, but a reminder of why certain hard-won rights cannot be taken for granted, especially in our current political age.

Michael Coren is a Toronto writer.