Crafters of Canada’s Clone-and-Kill Legislation Promote their Deceptive Bill to US Bioethics Council
WASHINGTON, December 8, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A delegation of representatives from Canada’s Ministry of Health met in Washington with the US President’s Council on Bioethics Friday to give a presentation on Canada’s Assisted Human Reproductive Technologies Act.
Ian Shugart, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health and Glen Rivard, the general counsel of Health Canada, spoke extensively on the circumstances surrounding the bill’s passage last March, on the bill’s contents and the government rationale behind it.
The bill was extensively analyzed by pro-life groups, most prominently by Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), who found it to be among the most deadly threats to human life passed in Canada since the 1969 Omnibus Bill allowed abortion. CLC, along with a consortium of pro-life groups from around the country, fought a close, but ultimately losing battle against the bill for two years.
Shugart and Rivard were quick to perpetuate the myth that Canadian law now prohibits cloning for reproductive or therapeutic purposes. “I won’t go into great detail on all of (the prohibitions), but clearly human cloning is prohibited. All forms of human cloning and for any purpose is prohibited under this legislation,” Rivard told the Council.
However, the devil is in the details and a close examination of the Canadian legislation finds at least one place where cloning - although not called such under the bill’s faulty definitions - is permitted as long as the resulting embryo is killed instead of being brought to term. Various groups and experts warned the Campaign Life Coalition leadership early on that the progress of the Canadian legislation was being observed carefully by the international community. With carefully worded loopholes and manipulation of inaccurate definitions, the Canadian government was able to pass a bill that convinced Canadians that their darkest, science fiction fears were averted, while passing a law that allows researchers one of the most permissive legal environments in the world. Now the deceptions are being carried into other countries. Ian Shugart, told the Council one thing with which no pro-life Canadian could disagree. He said, “Some provisions of this bill were enormously important for the nature of human life and of reproduction and of society.” But the government’s conclusion and the conclusion that pro-life Canadians came to about the outcome of the legislation are in sharp contrast.
Rivard echoed the suggestion made by many - including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in its presentation to the Senate - when it’s spokesman said, “there’s sufficient consensus developed that, although not perfect in anyone’s eyes, this was a much better state of affairs than what existed.”
Canadian pro-life leaders beg to differ.
To read the presentation: http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/dec04/dec03.doc To read the complete analysis of the legislation’s deceptive language and flaws: https://www.lifesitenews.com/features/stemcellembryo/c13finalcritique.pdf hw