In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, removing restrictions surrounding abortion across the country.
Since then, the right to abortion has become supported by most Canadians, which has led to a rise in conversation around lack of access to reproductive healthcare. There are only 11 abortion clinics across Ontario—most of which are in the Greater Toronto Area—and Ottawa has just one.
Historically, Carleton University’s Students’ Association (CUSA) has made its stance clear in support of the right to choose, but not without controversy.
In July, CUSA council passed a comprehensive motion labelling the organization as “pro-reproductive rights and justice,” with the goal of addressing systemic barriers surrounding reproductive healthcare access on campus.
The policy was written by vice-president (student issues) Faris Riazudden after consultation with the university’s Equity and Inclusive Communities department, the Student Experience Office, the university Ombudsperson, online Planned Parenthood resources, CUSA’s policy analyst and CUSA service centres.
The policy’s scope
The policy acknowledges systemic barriers around abortion in Canada such as socio-economic status and proximity to abortion services. It also acknowledges how reproductive oppression impacts Black, Indigenous and people of colour and disabled people disproportionately.
“We wanted a motion that could stand the test of time,” Riazudden said.
In practice, the policy assigns an ambitious task to CUSA’s community engagement committee (CEC). Vice-president (community engagement) Hallee Kejick, councillors Gauri Bhardwaj, Kassidy Hammond, Muhammad Maahir and Madena Sherzad, Joelle Lui and Womxn’s Centre administrative coordinator Aminah Derman are now responsible for determining how existing reproductive healthcare services in Ottawa might impact Carleton students and identifying where gaps exist.
Alexis Shotwell, professor of sociology and anthropology, cross-appointed to philosophy and the Pauline Jewett Institute of Women’s and Gender Studies at Carleton University, said this policy is a great first step. She said the decision signals CUSA’s support for reproductive autonomy, which includes far more than just access to abortion.
“That broader category of reproductive autonomy is not just a health situation, it’s a social situation,” she said. “[It’s] completely important for organizations like CUSA to stand with.”
Shotwell said she believes this motion will lead to conversations about abortion inaccessibility throughout the country. She added it’s important for CUSA to listen to students about what their needs are and how they’re being met by the university.
“CUSA can be a part of this ecosystem of young people and student voices who are helping determine how we … provide meaningful healthcare to everyone,” she said.
The CEC must also work to establish partnerships with organizations in support of affirming and expanding reproductive justice efforts and resources, in order to secure better healthcare services for Carleton students, according to the motion.
One organization CUSA is looking to work with is Planned Parenthood Ottawa (PPO). PPO provides sexual and reproductive healthcare to community members. It also provides peer-based counselling services focused on sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy options, contraception, as well as pregnancy loss support and post-abortion support.
Bridget Dueck, options counselling coordinator at PPO, said she was impressed with the lengths CUSA’s motion went to. Dueck was part of a movement at the University of Ottawa that passed a similar motion in 2019.
Another focus at PPO is access and education, according to executive director Jaisie Walker. PPO has a team that educates the community on issues surrounding sexual health and gender-based violence, they said.
“There’s actually nobody [else] in the community that offers peer-based pro-choice supports for the general population,” they said.
This makes PPO a valuable resource for CUSA, but it’s not their only option. Other support organizations in Ottawa include MAX Ottawa, the Morgentaler Clinic and the Ottawa Abortion Doula Collective.
CUSA’s history with the abortion debate
Originally, vice-president (finance) Gabe Paraskevopulos introduced a motion to establish CUSA as a pro-choice organization, effectively avoiding cooperation with any anti-abortion groups. The motion came in response to the overturn of Roe v. Wade in the United States.
After heavy deliberation, the motion was indefinitely postponed and council passed the alternative motion brought forth by Riazudden. A month later, CUSA passed an executive order stating that “executive members shall not … bring forth motions outside the scope of their respective portfolios.”
When the original motion was proposed, some councillors feared alienating anti-abortion students without making any meaningful changes. Riazudden said the experts he consulted told him the original motion was not as extensive as its successor; it did not include practical steps such as partnering with community organizations, provide a Canadian context, or recognize systemic barriers to reproductive healthcare.
CUSA’s history of pro-choice affiliation affirmed these fears, as the original motion was strikingly similar to previous CUSA policies that identified the organization as pro-choice and banned anti-abortion clubs, leading to controversy.
In 2010, the Ottawa Police Service arrested five anti-abortion student protestors on campus for trespassing. They were participating in the “genocide awareness project,” an anti-abortion exhibit commonly displayed on campuses across North America featuring graphic images of aborted fetuses. Ruth Lobo, Carleton Lifeline president at the time, was among those arrested.
Lobo attributed the heightened tensions at the time to CUSA’s hostility towards the group in the years leading up to their arrest.
“At every single one of our events, we were denied funding, denied access, denied space,” she said.
A month later, CUSA revoked the club’s status and funding. In 2012, CUSA changed course and allowed the club to re-apply for certification. But that did little to mend the broken relationship between CUSA and anti-abortion protestors.
While CUSA has had a “neutral” stance on abortion from 2012 until now, anti-abortion groups on campus say they have felt no desire to even attempt to gain funding or certification from CUSA since then.
Izzy Tate, a fourth-year commerce student at Carleton and president of Carleton Life Network, the successor of Carleton Lifeline, told the Charlatan the group has no plans to apply for CUSA certification or funding.
“Applying for CUSA funds could complicate things, in the sense that we’re bound by CUSA rules,” she said. “That can put the future of the club in jeopardy overall.”
Although CUSA currently has no official policy on certifying or funding anti-abortion groups on campus, some of its executives have made it clear in the last few months they would not approve club applications from anti-abortion groups on campus.
During council’s July 25 meeting when CUSA established itself as a pro-reproductive rights and justice organization, vice-president (student life) Anshika Srivastava said a policy on allowing anti-abortion groups to apply for funding was too easily reversible.
Instead, she referred to CUSA’s Clubs Oversight Commission (CCO), which is in charge of giving CUSA clubs funding, and acts as a barrier to anti-abortion groups’ access to the organization’s funds.
“Just because someone can apply for funding, doesn’t mean that we’ll certify them [or] fund them,” she said.
Speaking to the Charlatan, Riazudden amplified this message, suggesting it was an unspoken rule within CUSA that anti-abortion clubs do not get certified.
“Any club that isn’t inclusive of the safe(r) space policies is automatically not given [certification],” he said. “If a pro-life club applies, they’re not going to get funded.”
Lack of feedback from students
Some councillors and students were unhappy with CUSA’s reluctance to have this rule written out. Liam Clarke, a CUSA councillor and a third-year political science student, said he believed CUSA should have made its position known right away.
“I don’t believe anyone who is pro-life should have a space on a campus that wants to be in support of women’s rights,” he said.
Alessia Pinelli, a third-year law and English student at Carleton, agreed that CUSA should have taken an immediate stance and then followed up on it, but she did not agree with banning anti-abortion groups completely.
Both Clarke and Pinelli said they believed the policy was important but doubted its effectiveness unless paired with advocacy on a legal level.
“You have to focus on the federal and provincial laws that are currently in place or not because that will directly impact how students get support,” Pinelli said.
Riazudden responded to these concerns with confidence in an interview with the Charlatan. As vice-president (student issues), a major part of his role is to advocate on students’ behalf. He said CUSA will be connecting with municipal, provincial and federal leaders during its advocacy week initiative in the winter term to discuss this matter, among other things.
Pinelli also questioned the amount of student consultation that went into making the policy. While CUSA hosted a town hall days before the motion was passed, only between six and 12 people showed up to the town hall and only a few discussed the motion.
Riazudden said CUSA has struggled with student participation, especially in filling its committees and subcommittees—the only way CUSA can contact students about these issues is through social media or on-campus, which has not been particularly busy in the last few years due to COVID-19.
The university does not give CUSA access to student emails and the organization is unable to contact every affected student to inform them of what they are doing.
When asked if that would have been a useful resource for CUSA to gather student feedback, Riazudden said, “100 per cent.”
Taking the first steps
For now, CUSA’s CEC has to meet and decide on what its first steps will be. Kejick said scheduling conflicts have prevented the committee from meeting so far.
Riazudden, on the other hand, will be focusing on reproductive rights advocacy and adjusting CUSA’s current initiatives to account for the new policy.
Kejick said the committee will look to identify which organizations they want to partner with and receive student input when they meet. CUSA will use its service centres to try and gather more student feedback, she added.
Although she recognized the major responsibility she has moving forward, Kejick said she’s not too worried about it.
“I think it would be normal to feel a bit of pressure,” she said. “I’m glad I’m in the position I’m in.”
Nevertheless, she reiterated that she was not alone and that CUSA is structurally built to engage in this type of work. After all, the student organization has historically been a staunch advocate for reproductive autonomy.
As for partnerships with community organizations, both Dueck and Walker said they were excited to connect with CUSA and collaborate.
“Identifying the needs of the community is the essential first step in building a good working partnership,” Dueck said.
“I hope they reach out to us,” Walker added.
Kejick said she hoped to see the policy built upon with future CUSA councils to ensure people’s rights are always advocated for.
“I want people to feel as though their voices were heard,” she said. “And feel as though CUSA gave them the chance to choose what’s best for themselves.”
Featured graphic by Angel Xing.
