By: Michael Morris, SFU Student
Whether it’s blocking contraceptives, stigmatizing or removing abortion, those who are the most impacted by the right’s attack on sexual health are often left out of the conversation, and decisions are made for them. The right wing’s attack on sexual health is not exactly overt, but it is rooted in old Evangelical Christian values about the morality of sex. While there is nothing inherently wrong about religious values, right wing politicians want to enforce their interpretations of faith onto others while completely neglecting that their actions are discriminatory, controlling, and have serious negative implications. They have shifted from outright shaming of what they deem “impure” as an attempt to distance themselves from the blatant ideological roots of conservatism, and instead resort to being as vague as possible to further their agenda.
An early North American example of the right wing’s attack on sexual health was the Comstock Act of 1873. The act is named after Anthony Comstock, “a devout Christian” man who pushed an anti-sex agenda in America during the 1870s. He began by supplying the police with information on what he deemed as obscene or immoral, including sex work, pornography, and contraceptives. He drafted his own law outlining the “obscenity” of contraceptives for Congress, and they passed it in 1873 — a law that is still brought up by the US Supreme Court today. So much for a party “free from ideology.”
The right’s attack on sexual health is not only a problem in America, but one that presents itself in Canada as well. Abortion is not regulated by a law, but part of the Canadian Healthcare Act, which ensures that access to abortion is a human right. However, this does not mean that Canadian right wing politicians are obligated to care about sexual health or bodily autonomy; in fact, they are unclear about their sexual health agenda here.
“They have shifted from outright public shaming of what they deem as impure as an attempt to distance themselves from the blatant ideological roots of the party, and instead resort to being as vague as possible to further their agenda.”
During May of 2024 Pierre Poilievre was criticized by Leah Gazan, an NDP member of parliament, for voting “against free birth control for nine million Canadians.” This willingness to police contraceptives is hidden from Poilievre’s agenda. While he tirades about making Canada a free country, he seems to have some inconsistent stances when it comes to controlling sexual health and bodily autonomy. He’s suggested that he is pro-choice, but his actions are contradictory. In 2012, Poilievre voted in favour of motion 312, which The Abortion Rights Coalition described to be anti-choice, as it would redefine the term “human being,” roping fetuses into the definition. This type of redefinition has been consistently used to justify controlling abortion. Poilievre, despite apparently being insistent on individual freedoms, also claimed that “pro-life Canadians are welcome in [the Conservative] party,” a group which actively tries to take away an individual’s right to choose. Poilievre’s actions raise some serious alarm about the access to sexual health freedoms.
Albertan premier Danielle Smith has also raised some serious concerns when it comes to accessing safe abortions in the province. In September 2024, the premier expressed interest in moving some of Alberta’s healthcare away from the responsibility of the provincial government. This would instead allow private companies with their own terms of service, like Covenant Health, to take over. Covenant Health is a Catholic health provider and notably does not perform abortions, provide emergency contraceptives, or gender affirming care. Rural communities could specifically be impacted by this, as Smith claims “we just need different operators in the smaller communities so that we can get back to delivering that level of care.” While abortion is a human right in Canada, provinces are allowed to outsource healthcare to faith based organizations even if their values reject certain life-saving procedures.
Through vague stances and subtle interests in shifting policies, the Conservative party manages to dodge an explicitly “pro-choice party” label while pretending to care about the health of constituents. The Conservatives will not advertise their disregard for sexual health, instead they will claim they have people’s interests in mind as they slowly begin to block access to adequate sexual health care. While not every Conservative member or voter may necessarily be against proper sexual health, it is important to note this rhetoric runs rampant within the party. There should be no room for political leaders to project their own personal values, especially if it is rooted in faith, onto an entire population filled with diverse people with different needs. Do not be fooled; if the party cared about such a crucial right, especially the disproportionate amount of women it affects, they wouldn’t hide behind unclear positions and feel the need to avoid the issue.
