The right to life.

I remember when this was the slogan chanted by abortion criminalizers. This was a specific notion, as defined by religious or pseudo-scientific dogma that fuelled their fury – and yes, I say fury because of my first-hand experience at a demonstration where I was verbally abused by zealots who screamed baby-killer at me, conveniently ignoring the reality of my 18 month old daughter, snuggled up on my back.

It’s interesting how they haven’t used that phrase much in the last 20 years, since the Supreme Court decision ruled that the “right to life” was not a principle owned by fetus fanatics. Justice Bertha Wilson, considering Section 251 (4) of the Criminal Code (originally intended to be a stop valve measure for prosecuting incompetent butchers who exploited the fears of vulnerable women facing an unintended pregnancy), focused on the core of the reality, with respect to giving life: “Section 251 is more deeply flawed than just subjecting women to considerable emotional stress and unnecessary physical risk. It asserts that the woman’s capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state. This is a direct interference with the woman’s physical ‘person.’”

A women has the right to choose to give life or not. To carry a pregnancy to term or not. To participate fully in the gestation process or to end it. These issues are neither frivolous nor superficial, whether faced as an urgent situation requiring a decision, or an abstract concept demanding resolution.

A wise, knowledgeable woman considered the question, over 20 years ago. And she chose her words carefully, using the instruments of her law training and experience. Bertha Wilson played a crucial role in dismantling that criminal code section, using the tools that she had ‘mastered’. Quite the accomplishment, that.