Abortion restrictions continue 20 years after ruling

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC

Andrea Mrozek, of the blog ProWomanProLife, speaking on Canada AM on Monday, Jan. 28, 2008.


Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, speaking on Canada AM on Monday, Jan. 28, 2008.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/abortion_080128/20080128?hub=Canada

Twenty years ago today, Canada made a landmark judgment when our highest court struck down Criminal Code restrictions on abortion.

The 5-2 ruling in the case of R. v Morgentaler overturned the law that had required the consent of three doctors for any abortion and limited the procedure to full-service hospitals rather than free-standing clinics.

The court ruled that those restrictions violated the Charter of Rights' guarantee of "right to life, liberty, and the security of the person."

The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney tried to rewrite the law. It proposed legislation that would require the consent of just one doctor, would allow abortions in non-hospital clinics and widened the medical grounds for the procedure.

The bill passed the Commons but failed in the Senate in a tie vote. Since then, no government -- Liberal or Conservative -- has attempted to revive the abortion issue. That's left it in a sort of legal limbo: technically legal and yet not guaranteed.

Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, says the ruling was "huge" for Canadian women.

"No longer did women have to sacrifice their lives and health in order to end an unwanted pregnancy," she told Canada AM Monday.

"It has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women in Canada," she says, noting that in countries today where abortion is illegal, 70,000 women lose their life to unsafe abortions.

Saporta believes though that the battle for the right to abortion continues on another front: the fight for access what is supposedly no longer illegal. Many Canadian women, particularly some in the Maritimes, face the problem of finding someone who can provide them with an abortion.

"Access is most restricted in New Brunswick, where, in order to obtain a publicly-funded abortion, women have to have it done in a hospital, by an ob/gyn, and have a referral from two physicians -- which is contrary to the Supreme Court decision," she says.

There are also no abortion providers in Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan.

"And abortion is the only time-sensitive, medically necessary procedure that isn't included in the inter-provincial billing. So women living out of their home province have to either pay out-of-pocket or return to their home province for an abortion."

As well, surveys indicate that fewer than 20 per cent of hospitals actually perform abortion, and there are only 22 private clinics, mostly in major cities.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the man who persevered through four jury trials and a 10-month jail term on his way to the high court, is now 83 and in semi-retirement. But he is still challenging the New Brunswick policy in court.

Andrea Mrozek, who runs a blog called ProWomanProLife believes the Morgentaler decision was a sad day in Canadian history. She says there is a "misconception" that abortion is a woman's right; instead, she believes it "doesn't serve women well."

Nevertheless, she is not interested in fighting to make abortion illegal again, as many other anti-abortionists would like to do. Instead, she hopes that women will stop choosing it.

"We're not interested in addressing legislation," she told Canada AM. "This country has been without a law for 20 years. We believe that people in this country want a law to restrict it in some situations -- late-term abortion for example -- is one area where there's agreement.

"But we want to talk to women about what abortion is: it's taking the life of your unborn child. And we think there are more compassionate options," she adds. "Just look at the 'Juno' phenomenon. That movie just shows that there's life after an unplanned pregnancy. There is a way."

Yeah, ok.... so a movie is proof for real life situations?

But regardless, opinions?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
A movie is proof of changing mindsets within society. A movie can help strip away some of the stigma for families, so that a child or young woman can go to her parents for advice on what to do, without fear of 'ruining' the family, or being shamed by them. Too many abortions are sought out of fear. It's a big risk to take with your body if there's a better alternative for the situation.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
I don't care about the movie one way or the other.

I do care about the lack of access to abortion. People have the perception that it's such an easy thing to get when in reality geography plays a big role. Inequality in healthcare geographically is contrary to the Canada health act.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
In a country the size of Canada, it's become obvious that geographical equality in health care access is next to impossible. We don't have the tax base to provide the infrastructure. And we don't have the population base to supply the doctors.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
In a country the size of Canada, it's become obvious that geographical equality in health care access is next to impossible. We don't have the tax base to provide the infrastructure. And we don't have the population base to supply the doctors.

That's true for some areas of medicine for sure (it's one of the reasons I have always had to live in a larger city to find work). Abortion isn't exactly an expensive or complicated procedure though. I don't think it's the money.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Well, personally, I think you probably guessed that it's not the sort of thing I think a doctor should be compelled to do, and I think many doctors refuse for a host of reasons... safety concerns, religious/moral reasons, or just misinformation even.

Thus, yes, size matters because without the infrastructure or money to attract doctors, you lower the odds that you will get doctors who are willing to perform the procedure.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
There are all sorts of inequities in practice concerning the Canada Health Act and reproductive medicine, and it's much easier to abort than it is to conceive when medical science is required. It's also much cheaper.

The primary objective of the Act is "to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."

In most provinces abortions, vasectomies, hysterectomies, and gender reassignment surgeries are covered, from diagnosis to treatment. Infertility is covered for diagnosis but not treatment. If people don't think a person's mental well-being is not at risk when they can't reproduce then they don't understand the effects. But some infertile people will deplete their entire net worth paying out of pocket for health care treatments, compunding the mental health issue. And some have to travel thousands of miles to stay in hotels for weeks during the process.

If geography is the only element of concern for abortion rights then they have it pretty easy compared to what others go through.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I can't even begin to tell you how it saddens me to see women fighting to abort while other fight to get babies.

*sigh*
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I can't even begin to tell you how it saddens me to see women fighting to abort while other fight to get babies.

*sigh*
It's amazing Karrie. Someone can spend 10-20k on one round of IVF and not be assured to succeed, yet a group like this complains that someone has to get on an airplane for free treatment with assured success. It's time for womens rights lobbyists to stand up for something other than abortion. It really angers me that they don't have the inclination or guts to.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
It's amazing Karrie. Someone can spend 10-20k on one round of IVF and not be assured to succeed, yet a group like this complains that someone has to get on an airplane for free treatment with assured success. It's time for womens rights lobbyists to stand up for something other than abortion. It really angers me that they don't have the inclination or guts to.


Exactly... because it's not about women's rights... no way. Abortion isn't a women's rights issue as I see it. The right to be treated like you caught a life ending disease? The right to have your fertility put at risk to 'cure' it? Dealing with pregnancy so that it means the end of a life, the moms or the baby's, has nothing to do with women's rights at all, and everything to do with a money driven society bent on draining every last cent out of a working population that it possibly can, and stigmatizing women for a mutual whoops.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Yes, I agree, I wouldn't want women to lose the right to choose, but a definite change
has to come for those who are infertile, it's not fair.
I haven't had the opportunity to see this problem up close and personal, but I'm glad to
learn.
Some 'devil's advocates', would probably say, why don't you just 'adopt', but I take the
same stand as I do with that same statement being told to women who are going to
abort,' just put your baby up for adoption,' riduculous.

It is first priority for most, to want 'their own' children, as it is most difficult for most
women to give away their 'new born', rather than have a 'early' abortion.

It's all a 'human' issue, which brings on much 'stress' for either situation. As much assistance as is possible should be given to all parties.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
adopting isn't always a useful alternative; giving a baby up for adoption isn't always the best choice. An abortion at a private clinic is what, $750???? Tell me how it's unfair to have to pay $750 bucks for an abortion if you need it. As far as I'm concerned, having abortions available for that price makes them accessable. Many of these people are simply looking for something to complain about. That's only about a years worth of a cell phone, for chrissakes.I think most of this complaining is invented hardships.And before you all jump on your high *%&*%king horses, I know all about abortions, and ivf, and adoption. So don't pull out the lecture sheets.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I agree Taloolla. It's an apples and oranges comparison to put abortion and ivf in the same box as adoption. Many infertile people do adopt, but it too isn't cheap or easy. Nor does it heal those who are biologically driven to procreate but can't. Don't get me wrong, adoption is fantastic and should alwasy be considered and promoted but it isn't a medical treatment.

Gender reassignment surgery is often covered by medical. I suppose we could all say "just wear womens clothes and consider yourself healed". That probably helps but it doesn't fix the problem.

I could rant about the lack of coverage for infertility until I'm blue in the face, so I'll try and spare everyone from too much.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
adopting isn't always a useful alternative; giving a baby up for adoption isn't always the best choice. An abortion at a private clinic is what, $750???? Tell me how it's unfair to have to pay $750 bucks for an abortion if you need it. As far as I'm

I just meant that is unfair that there is such a difference between the costs of abortion compared to ivf procedure.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
talloola;922840[I said:
I just meant that is unfair that there is such a difference between the costs of abortion compared to ivf procedure.[/I]

Tell me about it. And many health plans, like Blue Cross, have implemented a limit to what they'll pay for the drugs needed for ivf. Then there's the travel and accomodations if you live outside the center of the universe....it's freakin expensive, man.It always amazes me that so many clueless twits can get pregnant so easily, while so many people who have more than 2 clues can't.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
It's amazing Karrie. Someone can spend 10-20k on one round of IVF and not be assured to succeed, yet a group like this complains that someone has to get on an airplane for free treatment with assured success. It's time for womens rights lobbyists to stand up for something other than abortion. It really angers me that they don't have the inclination or guts to.

I get that people with infertility struggle horribly with it. My parents couldn't reproduce biologically. It took 5 miscarriages to get them to give up. Abortion just has nothing to do with them. You can believe in abortion rights without it having anything to do with your opinions on infertility and its treatment. To say that abortion is the only thing women's rights lobbyists stand up for is simply not true. Who do you think lobbies for children's rights, daycare programs, equal pay, extending maternity leave, etc.?
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
I just meant that is unfair that there is such a difference between the costs of abortion compared to ivf procedure.

There is a very good reason for the difference in cost. It's the same reason a heart transplant costs more than treating a urinary tract infection. IVF is very complicated and time consuming. It requires more drugs, more professionals, more procedures. Even after all that investment, you aren't guaranteed a thing. It's something I would never be able to choose for myself. I see too much of the bad side of IVF. I think the infertility industry has a lot of problems. I don't see how people can complain that abortion is financially driven, but not see the same thing in infertility treatments. Try paying less than 10K for an egg donor down here. Need a surrogate? Save about 25K minimum. On the bright side, you get to pick genetics that are much better than your own when you do those things, but it's still pretty expensive for an egg that may or may not give you a baby in the end.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
What really freaks me out is the danger associated with messing around so much, so aggressively with a woman's hormones. It makes me SO nervous that the medical industry is so willing to dabble. And it strikes me as an area where, yet again, the stigma drives it. Because society, even to this day, expects a fertile woman. To this day, women feel less like a woman if they don't have babies, if they have to adopt. Yet, the adoptions I've seen where the moms get together before the baby is even born... wow... the connection is so instant. The baby is so very theirs, from day one, that it made my cousin angry that she'd wasted so much time going the other route and beating her head against the wall.

I do completely understand that there are women who can't handle the thought of doing it any other way. But I think society still needs to close some gaps to make adoption a more viable, less stigmatized choice, for the women (both giving up, and adopting), who want a different option.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The troubles stem primarily for it being profit motivated, through surrogates and donors. As well, since it is so expensive you get people and professionals returning more embryos than there should be since everyone is trying to get the biggest bang for the buck without going broke. The UK had IVF through national healthcare. They're considering reducing the number of embryos per cycle to one and providing everyone three chances to make it work. Taking finances out of the equation helps reduce the negative health and social impact.