Politicians haggle over abortion coversage
A majority of people polled in one of four provinces accused of violating the Canada Health Act say they do not want the provincial government to give in to Ottawa's demands for fully funded abortions in private clinics.
In a poll commissioned by the New Brunswick Right to Life Association the majority of New Brunswickers (58 per cent) agree that abortions performed at private clinics should not be funded by the province, while 31 per cent say they should.
"The results challenge the common myth that there is overwhelming public support ... for abortion on demand," says executive director Peter Ryan.
Ryan says the group hopes the results will encourage the New Brunswick government to stand firm in its 14-year policy of not funding abortions performed at the Fredericton clinic run by abortion doctor Henry Morgentaler.
But pressure from the federal government may override their concerns.
Government warnings
On January 8, federal health minister Allan Rock issued warnings to Manitoba, Quebec and Prince Edward Island stating they must cover the full cost for abortions at private clinics, or risk losing a portion of federal health funding. Rock issued a similar warning to New Brunswick's government the week before.
The warnings arose from concern that by refusing to fully pay for private-clinic abortions, the provinces are violating Canada Health Act policies that stipulate certain health services are to be universally available to all Canadians and paid for by the province.
"Every person in the province has to be provided with health services on the same terms and conditions," says Danielle Shaw, in-house legal advisor for the Salvation Army. "By making a distinction between women who go to private clinics versus women who go to hospitals, the province may be off-side with respect to the universal requirement."
Federal health transfer payments are based on certain criteria, including that the provinces provide funding for "medically necessary" procedures. "If the particular abortions are not medically necessary, then the provinces can argue that this legislation doesn't even apply and the federal government can't object to their decision not to fund," Shaw says.
But the definition of "medically necessary" is one pro-life and pro-choice advocates have argued about for years.
"The [federal government] is just trying to keep the provinces in line with the existing law," says Bonnie Johnson of Planned Parenthood. "Women who don't have access to good abortion services, [are] delayed in getting the abortion and that's not in the best health interests of the woman."
But, says Will Johnston, a doctor with Canadian Physicians for Life, "Abortion is not only not an essential medical service, but isn't a medical service at all. As an unmedical act and an untherapeutic act, it doesn't deserve any place at all in the roster of paid services."
The federal government, which promised to promote universal coverage for abortions in the recent election, is trying "to force a federal political agenda in jurisdictions where it clearly lacks the mandate and the will of the local population," Johnston says.
Blunt instrument
"The Canada Health Act has been used as a blunt instrument of coercion for many years by the federal government to usurp the constitutional jurisdiction of provinces over health care."
Other groups agree. "There is no evidence to support [the] ministry's apparent assumption that every abortion is medically necessary. It is also surprising that [the] ministry has objected to the funding of private clinics for other procedures but now appears to insist on the funding of private abortion clinics," states Bertrand Blanchet, chair for the Catholic Organization for Life and Family in a letter to Rock.
The groups have also raised concerns that the number of abortions could skyrocket if the public funding becomes a reality. Morgentaler himself estimated the 400 abortions performed annually at his Winnipeg clinic could jump to more than 2,000 if publicly funded.
Not only are there ethical
concerns, but also outrage that the public, whose dollars support Medicare, might have no say in the matter, says Ryan.
"The taxpayer involvement in abortion is very disturbing. It's one thing for people to go and get this procedure done themselves, but to demand the public pay for it is a whole other level," he says.
"It's a public outrage. People are being forced to support it. The question is whether people will just roll over and let it happen or say they can't do this."
But whether the provincial governments will listen to the people is the question, says Johnston, pointing to the case in 1991 when, during a provincial election plebiscite, two-thirds of Saskatchewan residents voted against Medicare coverage for elective abortions. The government, however, did not reduce the funding. Similarly, in 1995 the Alberta government considered de-funding abortion, but withdrew after outcry from medical associations.
"The federal government is overreaching its power and abusing its power by dictating to the province that they have to cover this procedure regardless of the view of the citizens," says Ryan.
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
