Canada: Undercover videos on late-term abortion are causing chaos among Liberals, activists

The report opens with the admission that a letter by former Liberal MP Dr. Carolyn Bennett, published in 2013, was inaccurate. Bennett had claimed that: “The assertion that late-term abortions can be performed ‘for any reason, or no reason at all,’ is just not true.” But as the NP noted: “In fact, there need not be a medical reason for later gestational age abortion in Canada, according to Abortion Care Canada, formerly the National Abortion Federation of Canada.”

In fact, the NP was careful to quote several prominent abortion activists—but despite their outrage at Alissa Golob’s investigation, they confirm her findings. TK Pritchard of Abortion Canada admitted to NP that “there does not have to be a medical concern that is named” to procure a late-term abortion—which is precisely the point Golob was making in her undercover videos. When Pritchard was asked directly whether there has to be a “fetal or maternal health risk,” she responded: “No.”

Frederique Chabot, executive director of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, insisted that the videos were “heavily edited, deceptive, heavily narrated.” She then went on to admit that: “In Canada, we have nothing that criminalizes abortion care at any point in the pregnancy. There is no criminal law that says, ‘At this random time, this is when abortion will not be provided.’” She could have just said: “Golob is right.”

ER: We’re leaving in this link —

READ: Abortion staffer in undercover video admits Canadian women can kill late-term babies for any reason

In fact, the narrative that late-term abortions are never perpetrated on healthy, viable babies—something the pro-life movement has been saying for decades—is now completely, and publicly, collapsing. As the National Post noted:

Federal officials appear to have backed away from Bennett’s never-without-a-medical reason assertion. The government’s website states that late-term abortions ‘usually occur’ because of medical risks.

[…]

With no legal boundaries on abortion in Canada, there are also no legal restrictions on gestational age limits — how far along in the pregnancy is too far. Legally, a woman could have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

Golob’s undercover investigation has placed abortion activists and pro-abortion politicians in the awkward position of contradicting each other publicly. Liberal MP Dr. Doug Eyolfson responded to the NP’s report on X with the statement: “‘Late term abortion’ is a false flag. The only abortions are performed late in a pregnancy are in emergency situations (like septic pregnancy) where the fetus is not viable and the mother and fetus would die if the procedure was not performed. The NP article is misinformation.” (ER: Comments under this tweet are interesting.)

In fact, if Eyolfson had actually read the article, he would have discovered that Canadian abortion activists have affirmed Golob’s central finding. He is either misinformed, or lying. Incidentally, he was also accusing the abortion clinic workers who spoke to Golob of lying. His comment is interesting because it reveals that he is aware of how horrific the idea of aborting healthy late-term babies is to most Canadians, and thus his instinct was to immediately deny that it is taking place.

What Eyolfson will not do is actually condemn this barbarism now that he is (surely) aware that it is, in fact, happening, as confirmed not only by Golob’s undercover videos, but by the abortion activists who spoke with the National Post. Instead, he pivoted to quibbling with the language being used—a sick but revealing Orwellian tactic that allows him to avoid addressing the fact that babies who could survive outside the womb are being killed in Canada. That is indisputable.

The chaotic, rage-fueled, deceitful response of abortion activists to Golob’s undercover investigation triggered a follow-up column by pro-choice NP columnist Chris Selley, who accurately described the meltdown:

The National Post’s weekend story about the realities of late-term abortions in Canada — namely that they’re available, although many OBGYNs won’t perform them; and that women needn’t provide any medical reason for requesting such a procedure — produced some very interesting responses. Many could be filed under S for ‘spittle-flecked denial.’

Golob’s investigation, he noted, should not have surprised anyone, and “it’s interesting that so many abortion-rights campaigners clearly think it’s so controversial that they want to disbelieve their ears and eyes.” He added: “If I didn’t know better, I would almost think those advocates aren’t entirely comfortable with the practice they’re defending.”

That is precisely it. The reason abortion activists are so desperate to keep the debate closed is that they are fully aware that to have the abortion debate would force them to defend the indefensible. This debate, reignited by this undercover investigation, must be pushed further. Politicians like Doug Eyolfson must be forced reveal their ghoulish views to the Canadian public—and then defend them. They’ve gotten away with this for far too long.

***

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative

Source

Featured image source, ultrasound baby: https://archive.is/20251122114508/https:/nationalpost.com/news/canada/late-term-abortions-canada

 

************