Is Canada Set to Legalize Post-Birth Abortion?

When Canada passed their "Medical Assistance in Dying" (MAiD) law, a lot of people thought that they were perched on the edge of a very slippery slope indeed. The MAiD law provides for doctor-assisted suicide for certain classes of patients, such as those with painful terminal diseases. But critics of the law, pointing to that slippery slope, warned that MAiD would be perverted, would be expanded, would eventually be foisted upon people who can't ask for it.

They were right. Now people are claiming that MAiD may well be extended to include infants. Yes, really.

Canadian doctors are considering euthanizing newborns under certain circumstances as a form of “healthcare.” When Dr. Louis Roy advocated for this in 2022, it sparked widespread outrage and the proposal appeared to be dead. It wasn’t. When the Daily Mail pressed the CMQ last year, it confirmed it still endorses the recommendation. It recently stated that euthanasia for babies with “severe deformations” or “extreme pain” may be medically justified. Public outrage, as usual, has faded in the shadow of Canada’s euthanasia bureaucracy.
Infant euthanasia isn’t yet law, but given the expansion of Canada’s euthanasia laws, it soon could be. In 2016, Canada legalized “Medical Assistance in Dying,” or MAiD, for terminally ill adults. Five years later, its Parliament lifted the requirement that a patient’s death be “reasonably foreseeable.” By 2022, lawmakers were discussing euthanasia for minors and in psychiatric cases, and next year MAiD for mental illness will become legal.

Note that - they are talking about euthanasia for mental illness, for people that may be perfectly healthy, physically. Is this Canada's way of getting rid of the troublesome? Who will define who is mentally ill to the point where they should be killed? Many people with serious mental illnesses aren't capable of informed consent - so who decides for them whether they live or die?

This whole thing is fraught, and it's going to get worse. Here's the onion:

The CMQ insists that MAiD is a medical matter. Ending life, it argues, can itself be a form of care. That phrasing is chilling. It suggests a shift towards a sinister utilitarian paternalism, where bureaucrats judge whether a life is worth living – and if it isn’t, then the “caring” thing to do is to terminate it. Babies, of course, have no say in this matter. Others must infer their suffering and interpret their interests. And so a law once presented as care for consenting adults at the end of life could now lead to involuntary euthanasia for babies at the start of life.

Babies, of course, cannot give consent.

Powerful Super Bowl Ad Will Have the Pro-Abortion Crowd Throwing Their Shoes at the Television

This hits very close to home for me. Our youngest daughter was born almost three months early. She had to be fed intravenously, as her suck reflex wasn't yet developed. She was on 100 percent oxygen for her first three months. She was in an incubator in the Intensive Care/Neonatal for half that time. When she was born, the doctor mentioned that her chances were slim, and that we may want to consider not naming her until if and when her prospects were better. We named her immediately: Rebecca. She struggled, but she was and is a fighter, and now she's a couple of months shy of 30, bright, beautiful, and just as she was then, tough. The only lingering evidence of her early trials are her eyes, damaged by the high-oxygen environment in the incubator, requiring her to deal with Coke-bottle-bottom glasses.

What might a Canadian doctor, operating under these presumptions of the MAiD law, have decided? What might they have pushed us to decide?

Look, I support self-determination. Many years ago, we lost a friend to a devastating bone cancer, which required him to be on a morphine pump for the last months of his life, and I can tell you, he was in agony - his son told me later that our friend was in so much pain that he had to bite his lip to keep from screaming. I can see how someone in that condition, suffering with that, may well want to check out early, just to end the pain. His quality of life, at that point, was essentially zero.

But that's an extreme case. We shouldn't make policy for extreme cases. Canada is now showing us why that's so.

Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.

Help RedState continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.