Abortion in Canada: Good and Not Nearly Good Enough News

To its credit, Global News has been running several stories lately about abortion -- especially abortion access -- in Canada.

Yesterday, it had two.

First, a new poll on unrestricted abortion.

Canadian attitudes toward abortion appear to be shifting, according to a new Ipsos poll, as six in ten say abortion should be permitted whenever a woman decides she wants.

The Ipsos poll, given exclusively to Global News, found 57 per cent of Canadians endorse a women’s right to choose – up almost 10 points from 2015 and up from 36 per cent from when the question was asked in 1998.

Here's the graphic from the article:

When I tweeted that last night, Mike Schouten of We Need a Law, Any Old Law, Seriously, Give Us an Abortion Law to Fuck Around with as in the US, replied.

@fernhilldammit Likely b/c most Canadians haven't seen what abortion is. #stillworktodo pic.twitter.com/WKsmti6iAR

— Mike Schouten (@mike_schouten) February 24, 2016

Fetus fetishists like him seem NOT to get the message. Back in 2012, as antichoicers were trying to ignite the abortion "debate" yet again, various polls reported that Canadians did not want to reopen the debate, but when actually asked, the majority of us responded to the law of unintended consequences.

The National Post reported: "As debate heats up, Canadian support for unrestricted abortions skyrockets."

So, yes, please, Mike, keep trying to show us what abortion is.

The other story was about the plan by new Health Minister, Jane Philpott, to address abortion access.

Well, it seems, she doesn't have much of a plan beyond "checking" on the provinces.

Also, in the video clip at the link, at least, she can't seem to say the word "abortion."

Bulletin, Madam Minister: the purpose of the Canada Health Act, a federal law, is:

The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made.

The program criteria is:

In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters:
(a) public administration;
(b) comprehensiveness;
(c) universality;
(d) portability; and
(e) accessibility.

That's a pretty big stick you've got there, Madame Minister. We'd would like to see the most pro-choice government evah wield it around a bit.

What would be the point of an abortion debate?

About that debate that nobody wants and yet seems to be raging all the fucking time nonetheless...

I will have more to say about this (biiiig surprise, regular DJ! readers are thinking), but for now (I'm really busy) I just want to put a couple of points out there.

Here's a question no one seems to be asking: What would be the purpose of an abortion debate?

Rabid political partisans are obviously betting that it can score them some votes or at least some points.

Rabid anti-choicers want to roll history backwards and if not recriminalize abortion altogether (which even they admit is not on), then create some kinda law -- any kinda law -- on it.

The sneakier of those two groups take another tack. They want to debate the funding of abortion. This gang has an ally in Prime Minister ShitHead who said yesterday that abortion funding can't be part of the Maternal Health Initiative because it's extremely divisive. (Bulletin, Mr Harper: So is vaccination.)

Media outfits want an abortion debate because it's sure-fire click-bait -- have a look at any story about it and check the comment count. Some pundits want to sell books or freelance pieces. A few boyos want to exercise their middle-school debating skills and they'll do it purely for fun.

I call this aim the #AbortionDebateClub -- debating the fundamental human right to autonomy for FUN and PROFIT!!!!

Am I missing anything? Political points, legislation, funding, FUN. What other end could an abortion debate serve?

Here's my question for now. If legislation is the purpose, under what aegis?

Criminal Code of Canada? All recent Conservative private member's bills have been framed as amendments to the Criminal Code. Effectively this means criminalizing some types of abortion (medical bad, surgical OK?), some aspects of abortion (early OK, late [howlate?] bad?), some reasons (sex-selection VERY BAD) for abortion.

We need only look southward to see where partial criminalization leads. Once there is a law, people will inevitably try to screw around with it. The more forthright of the fetus fetishists admit that they will not stop until abortion is so ringed around with restrictions and regulations and paperwork that it becomes practically unobtainable.

How about the Constitution then? Section 2 of the Charter could have a few words added, no biggie.

2. Everyone (including the zygotal, embryonic, and fetal) has the following fundamental freedoms:

Easy peasy, yes?

Or maybe the Canada Health Act? Again, we could insert a couple of words.

An Act relating to cash contributions by Canada and relating to criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services, except abortion

My serious question again: What is the desired concrete outcome of an abortion debate?

Because if we can't agree on a purpose for a debate, it does seem to me to be simply "extremely divisive."

And totally pointless in a country where a lawless abortion regime has worked very well for more than a quarter of a century.


ADDED: Joyce Arthur offers a distinction between "backwards" and "forwards" abortion debates. What we should be talking about she says is access, funding for women in developing countries, and international advocacy for our successful #LawlessAbortion regime.

Canada Health Act: Then and Now, Nfld and NB

I have a question.

In this piece about what soon may be the only abortion clinic east of Montreal, the Athena Health Centre in St John's, there's this bit of history (emphasis mine).

According to a 1998 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, from the time the St. John’s Morgentaler clinic opened until 1993 the out-of-pocket cost for a woman having an abortion ranged from $400-$750, despite the fact abortion was covered by the Canada Health Act as a medically necessary procedure. In ’93, however, the province began paying the salaries of physicians at the Morgentaler clinic, enabling the clinic to reduce its fees. Then, in 1995, the federal government began forcing the provinces to cover the full cost of abortions for those eligible for provincial health care, and by 1998 the Government of Newfoundland was fully funding the medical service. The cost to the province today is about $1,000 per procedure.

The federal government began forcing provinces to fund abortion in 1995, yet somehow the memo to New Brunswick got lost in a time warp?

Now, nearly 20 years later, New Brunswick STILL hasn't got the message?

Alternatively, why did the 1995 feds force Newfoundland but somehow overlook New Brunswick?

Students of inequality and misogyny in Canada would like to know.

Abortion in New Brunswick: It's Time

By now you've heard that the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton (one of only two abortion clinics east of Montreal!) is closing. CBC report and Al Jazeera report with photos and tweets.

What I hadn't realized is that New Brunswick is the original home of the TRAP law. TRAP (Targetted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws are increasingly common in the abortion wars in the US.

But New Brunswick blazed a trail, legislating against ONE SPECIFIC CLINIC.

From the press release by the clinic:

From the moment Dr. Morgentaler announced his intention to open an abortion clinic in Fredericton, the provincial government planned to thwart his efforts.  The premier at the time, Frank McKenna, stated that: “if Mr. Morgentaler tries to open a clinic in the province of New Brunswick, he’s going to get the fight of his life.”

Subsequent New Brunswick governments have continued to block access to abortion services in New Brunswick.

Dr. Morgentaler was immune to their threats.  He had already survived jail, threats against his life and the bombing of his Toronto clinic.  The actions of the N.B. government only served to strengthen his resolve to ensure that New Brunswick women would have access to safe abortion care in his clinic and that no woman would be turned away regardless of her ability to pay.  The Morgentaler Clinic opened in June, 1994 and since then has provided abortion services to more than 10,000 women in a non-judgmental, evidence based, and professional environment.

The main obstacle the New Brunswick government created for New Brunswick women who needed to access abortions was, and still is, Regulation 84-20, Schedule 2(a.1). It states that an abortion will only be covered by Medicare if:
1. It is performed in a hospital by a specialist in the field of obstetrics or gynaecology and that
2. Two doctors have certified in writing that the procedure is ‘medically necessary’.

(Note that NB has never bothered to define "medically necessary." Read the whole press release for the history of their struggles and the heroic contributions of Dr Morgentaler. Also, DJ! has been covering the clinic's travails for years.)

So. Hats off to the innovative fetus fetishists of New Brunswick!

The deranged anti-choicers, rather than celebrating, are suspicious. They think the closure announcement is a stunt. Well, they don't want to dry up all those tasty donations, do they?

While it's idiotic to think of this desperate measure as a stunt, I think it will have serious unintended consequences that both the governments of NB and PEI (10% of abortions done at the Fredericton clinic are for women from PEI, where abortions are simply NOT DONE) will have to deal with.

The Morgentaler Clinic acted as a safety valve. For women who could afford it and arrange the travel, time off work, child care etc, the clinic provided an "out" for these two governments.

Fine, they could say, you want a "non-medical" abortion? Go to Morgentaler's and pay for it yourself.

Not anymore.

So what will the governments of NB and PEI say to women now?

Will this be the wake-up call for women and their allies previously shamed into silence? Will this be the rallying point for pro-choicers across the country to demand that ALL Canadian women get equal access to health care?

I hope so.

Now for the public service part of this blog post.

Here's a petition to sign. Now at over 6400 signatures, when I signed yesterday, it was just over 3000.

Next, here's a list of NB legislators with email addresses for letter writing.

And here's a blogpost by a former clinic worker, Pedgehog, with her own insights and suggestions.

It's time. Let's drag New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island into the 21st century.

UPDATE: There's an election in NB this year. Looks like Liberal Leader is "softening" support for government 2-doctor policy without actually coming out in support of repeal of the regulations.

UPPITY-DATER: There's a rally next Thursday, April 17. 2,000 already confirmed.

MORE: There's NBProchoice tumblr. Upload a picture.

More on the Canadian Sexual Two-Step

First, the step back:

DJ! fave (^NOT) Stephen Woodworth is at it again.

Meanwhile, Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth hits the stage at the National Press Theatre for "an important announcement" on his backbench bid to have the Commons "affirm that every Canadian law must be interpreted in a manner that recognizes in law the equal worth and dignity of everyone who is in fact a human being" -- which is, of course, a not terribly veiled attempt to restart the 'conversation' that he had hoped to trigger with his original, more obviously abortion-targeted motion in 2012.

As he has already used up his slot on the private members' priority list, Woodworth will almost certainly not get the opportunity to see his motion go to the House floor under his name, but he may have successfully persuaded a colleague to carry on the campaign.

That was from National Treasure Kady O'Malley, who when asked which MPs might give up his or her spot for this quixotic ploy, responded with this link and the additional information that the first 15 names have priority.

Those names are:

122. Chong, Michael
123. Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
124. Ayala, Paulina
125. Mayes, Colin
126. Chisu, Corneliu
127. Péclet, Ève
128. Hoback, Randy
129. Leef, Ryan
130. Hayes, Bryan
131. Van Kesteren, Dave
132. Choquette, François
133. Valeriote, Frank
134. Patry, Claude
135. Stanton, Bruce
136. Morin, Isabelle

From Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's list of anti-choice MPs, there are three possibles: Mayes, Hoback, and Van Kesteren.

We live and see.

From the step-forward file: New Brunswick students call for an end to the shameful and illegal refusal of NB to fund abortions.

A group of students at St. Thomas University has launched an online petition asking the New Brunswick government to fund abortions at a private clinic.

The aspiring social workers say they know women who have had difficulty accessing abortions and they want the province to fund abortions at Fredericton’s private Morgentaler Clinic.

Here's their petition, now with more than 3,000 signatures.

Support the students' efforts and women's rights in New Brunswick.

UPDATE to Woodworth bit: Kady reports that she missed the beginning of his presser, but noted that he seemed to be giving the speech he always gives.

OKAY! Finally! News! Oh, for heaven's sake: Woodworth is going to stand up and ask for unanimous consent for his motion. #Hw

— kady o'malley (@kady) April 8, 2014

If every MP who was going to make a doomed attempt to seek unanimous consent held a press conference, we'd never get anything else done. #hw

— kady o'malley (@kady) April 8, 2014

Woodworth claims it will be 'a dark and dangerous day for Canada' if even one MP says nay. #hw

— kady o'malley (@kady) April 8, 2014

I thought he'd persuaded one of his colleagues to put it forward in the next batch of private members' biz. That would have been news! #hw

— kady o'malley (@kady) April 8, 2014

Upshot: Same old bullshit.