As nurses and scholars of health policy, we worry that Trump’s victory will embolden the anti-abortion movement in Canada, and pave way for policies that are detrimental to both women and other marginalized communities.
Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 6 is deeply concerning to Canadian observers who fear the impact of his policies on Canada’s political landscape, especially regarding reproductive rights.
Over the years, Trump has gained a reputation for his oft-false and extreme stances: anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+ and pro-Christian nationalist. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to commend himself for putting “the pro-life movement in a strong negotiating position over the Radicals who want to kill babies even into the 9th month, and beyond.” In recent months, Trump has sidestepped questions about his intentions to veto a national abortion ban, instead stating that “he wouldn’t have to.” This evasive stance has only fuelled concerns that his administration could impose even stricter national abortion policies.
In a post-Roe landscape, with a surge in global anti-women and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, we argue that Canada faces a direct and increasing threat to reproductive rights, particularly the access to safe, legal abortion.
During an interview on CBC, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh emphasized his concerns, warning that Canada’s Conservatives have attempted to roll back abortion access. In a recent Globe and Mail report on the NDP’s efforts to counteract creeping anti-abortion sentiment, several readers dismissed the leader’s concerns as mere “fear-mongering” and a ploy to secure votes in the coming election.
Although abortion is decriminalized in Canada, it remains deeply vulnerable to political shifts as there are no legislative protections in the constitution enshrining it as a right. Moreover, since its partial decriminalization in 1969 and full decriminalization in 1988, there have been numerous attempts to undermine or restrict abortion access. For instance, in 1991, the Mulroney government introduced Bill C-43, which sought to sentence doctors to two years in jail for providing abortions where a woman’s health was not at risk. While the bill ultimately failed in the Senate, attempts to restrict abortion persisted.
The early 2000s (especially around 2008) and the mid-2010s saw a resurgence in efforts to criminalize abortion, which led to the introduction of two key bills, Bill C-484 and Bill C-225, introduced by pro-life Conservative MPs. These bills, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act (Bill C-484) in 2008 and the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Bill C-225) in 2015, were framed as compassionate responses to the demands of families of pregnant victims, seeking greater legal recognition for fetuses harmed in violent crimes. However, critics argue that these bills were drafted with an ulterior motive: to subtly reopen the abortion debate.
Critics argue that these bills were drafted with an ulterior motive: to subtly reopen the abortion debate.
Interestingly, the language of these bills was shaped by the U.S. fetal homicide laws, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (2004). Ostensibly designed to protect pregnant women from violence, these laws have been used to criminalize women for actions perceived as harmful to their fetuses. Anti-abortion lawmakers at the time in South Carolina even aimed to leverage these laws to challenge Roe v. Wade.
More recently in Canada, Bill C-311,Violence Against Pregnant Women Act, similar to Bill C-484, was introduced in 2023 by a member of the Conservative party, and was subsequently rejected. Similarly, Conservative Alberta MP Arnold Vierson has not only aggressively championed anti-abortion and homophobic rhetoric, but also launched a 2024 petition claiming that more than 98 per cent of abortions are for social or personal convenience.
These repeated attempts to undermine abortion rights, disguised as efforts to protect pregnant women, expose the fragility of reproductive freedoms in Canada. To dismiss the NDP leader’s concerns, then, is to blithely ignore a looming threat.
As Canada prepares for its elections, Trump’s victory casts a shadow of concern over potential political and ideological ripple effects. As nurses and scholars of health policy, we worry that Trump’s victory will embolden the far right in Canada, boost Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s chances of winning and pave the way for policies that are detrimental to both women and other marginalized communities.
The Conservatives are currently leading in the poll, and while Poilievre might avoid the overtly extreme rhetoric often associated with Trump, his ideological views align closely with those of Trump. From a shared skepticism toward established institutions to bold emphasis on populist and nationalist rhetoric, the parallels between Trump and Poilievre’s political ideologies run deep. It is, indeed, these patterns that remain unsettling.
The threat to abortion access in Canada is not a distant or abstract concern; it is a pressing reality. The United States, as the epicentre of global foreign policy, exerts an undeniable influence in the global community, making it even more imperative for Canadians to remain vigilant.
It is incumbent on us to engage with and defend reproductive rights, because of and despite what is happening in the United States. Protecting reproductive freedoms is a shared responsibility, and failure to do so can have deleterious and long-lasting health and socioeconomic consequences. We must act now to enshrine abortion access and ensure that the promise of reproductive and bodily autonomy remains unbroken for generations to come.
