Of smoke holes and the sanctity of life

As you my faithful reader (YMFR) know, I was a municipal politician for 21 years, specifically a public school board trustee. While much of our attention was taken up with matters of budgets, infrastructure, straightening out the Ministry of Education, and so on, from time to time we would turn our attention to issues of social consequence.

Some of these issues were complex, bringing with them various human rights such as privacy rights (e.g., locker searches) or the need to know (e.g., AIDS). Religious freedoms were sometimes a factor; e.g., the wearing of the kirpan (a ceremonial steel dagger symbolizing determination to defend the truth), the sexuality curriculum, or 1st Nations spirituality.

The difficulty with many complex and nuanced issues is that legislation and school board policy provide fairly blunt instruments for properly (or should I say, improperly) dealing with them. A policy, or especially a law, that is uncreatively interpreted or applied in a heavy handed manner, can actually do more harm than good. Things become even worse if some forms of political correctness bring their uncritical pressure to bear.

An example of the latter is smoking. I am a life-long non-smoker and hate the habit. I watched my mother die over a three-year period from lung cancer (she was never a smoker herself), a common life-ending experience for smokers. On the other hand I have had relatives and good friends who did (or still do) smoke, and I have seen the extent to which nicotine can get its claws into an otherwise rational person, making it seemingly impossible to quit despite what the smoker's brains are telling her.

It has become very "in," at least in political circles, to be extremely hard on smoking and on smokers. In my early days on the school board we banned smoking in the staff rooms. One or two disgruntled puffers actually took early retirement rather than give up the habit. Student smoking was limited to an out-of-the-way smoke hole either in the school building or on the grounds. Education regarding the effects of smoking was emphasized in school. I happily voted for these measures. And there is no question that smoking did drop somewhat.

But as more scientific evidence came out, and other levels of government took a more aggressive approach, so did our school board. If a student was spotted carrying smoking materials, these were seized. Smoke holes were banned. School air became fresh, fresh, fresh.

Did this solve the smoking problem once and for all? Hardly. As I mentioned, no one decides to smoke for rational reasons. Everyone knows the potentially deleterious effects and the incredibly addictive nature of nicotine. One can't escape the posters illustrating all of the harmful chemicals that are part of a cigarette. But many young people persist in taking it up for reasons that have nothing to do with rational thought.

So rather than cure anything, we just pushed it away--in this case onto the sides of busy roads, into neighbouring yards, down at the street corners, into areas of increased student vulnerability. We also fueled the irrationality of it all, giving the young addicts the sense of being mavericks bucking the system.

Of course as local politicians we were applauded for doing the right thing. We could feel really good about fulfilling our duty to society as progressive thinkers. That we had done nothing for the people who needed it most (young smokers) was not a troubling thought to my colleagues.

All of this went through my mind as I read recent comments by (so-called) pro-choice writers celebrating the Morgentaler decision of 1988 that eliminated any abortion law in Canada. The only things missing in the adulation were a crown for the old boy or demands that he become Governor-General.

Amidst the hoopla, however, was the concern expressed that we had just begun. Open season was not enough. Greater access to abortion services was now key. Consider, for instance, the opinion of one Andre Picard in the Jan. 24, 2008 issue of the Globe and Mail:

THE MORGENTALER DECISION: TWENTY YEARS LATER Choice? What choice? Two decades after the landmark ruling on abortion rights, poor access and a lack of treatment alternatives still hamper a woman's ability to choose

On Saturday night in Toronto and at a number of events across the country in coming days, women will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the momentous Morgentaler decision. And celebrate they should, all the while remembering that much remains to be done to ensure that reproductive choice exists in this country.

While the highest court ruled that the state has no place in the uteruses of the nation, the state does have a role in the provision of medically necessary health services, of which abortion is one.

Yet our health system - from the politicians who oversee it to the policy makers and administrators through to the physicians and nurses who should provide non-judgmental care in public institutions - has largely failed women who seek abortions. The failings are many and varied, but revolve principally around lack of access to timely care.

It would be very difficult, at least in the circles where I spend much of my time (academic and political) to fight this view. To suggest that greater access and open season are, at best, short-term band-aids that provide no long-term solutions, would be tantamount to uttering blasphemies (or whatever the secular equivalent is).

But I see a clear parallel here between our smoking ban and the results of the Morgentaler decision. Neither decision solved key problems.

What issues cause problem pregnancies in the first place?
1. Poverty.
2. Relentless family pressure.
3. Fear of abuse or desertion.
4. Rape or incest.
5. Medical concerns (these latter two represent about 5% of abortions).
6. Feelings of hopelessness.
7. Age.
8. Lack of support to see the pregnancy through.
9. And others.

Now what does access to abortion do to cure poverty? To turn a husband from an abuser and a boyfriend from a deserter into a supportive male? To make employers celebrate rather than penalize pregnancy? To improve daycare? To create societal infrastructure that gives pregnant women and girls the support they need? To help people become more disciplined sexually? To get women and girls out of harmfully dependent relationships?

Nothing. Nada. Rien. Squat. Yet one vocal (so-called) pro-choice advocate decried crisis pregnancy centres as nothing but disguised attempts to end abortion.

So what are we celebrating? Society finally addressing the many ills that turn pregnancies into crises? Quite the opposite. We are celebrating the ending of human life as a short-term and wholly inadequate alternative to celebrating, cherishing and sanctifying life.

Abortion cheapens life, plain and simple. It is another token of a society bankrupt of ideas or the will to do the hard work of making life better.

Abortion is unjust. Women are its victims.