In an office in Canada the nurse calls from outside the abortion procedure room. Standing by a counter. the products of conception are in a glass dish. The dish reveals a small pinkish liquid swirl. The nurse pulls down her surgical mask, using a latex gloved finger points at a miniscule, feathery item. “That is what we look for, that little bit of fluff.”
An abortion may be done utilizing local anesthetic in less than 10 minutes. It is safe, requires very little recovery time and almost no medication. In fact it is many times safer than being pregnant, and is the safest procedure done by doctors. Less than 3 per 100,000 have an difficulty. To place in perspective, the chance of dying from anesthesia in a hospital is 30x that. Most abortions are not done in hospitals, simply in doctor’s offices.
Statistics Canada Abortion reports 100,039 Canadian women had an abortion in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available. Another 337,072 did not have an abortion.
According to the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization, about 40% of pregnancies in development countries — including Canada — are unintended. Both organizations say 28% of all unintended pregnancies in developed countries end in abortion.
What follows here is not a debate about whether it is right or wrong. Not a discourse on whether the nurse at Toronto’s Morgentaler clinic was pointing at the byproduct of social evil or choice.
Twenty years ago next month, on Jan. 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of a case brought years earlier by Dr. Henry Morgentaler.
COMMITTEE DECISION
His lawyers argued a situation in place since 1969, where a woman seeking an abortion had to find and convince a three-member therapeutic abortion committee it was medically necessary to protect her health, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
From then on, it would be a woman’s choice to terminate or continue her pregnancy. There are no limits on when. Abortion is treated like any other medical service. Except it is most definitely not. We don’t talk about abortion in Canada because for the most part, we don’t want to.
One 27-year-old Ottawa woman, who has had two abortions, tries to explain why. She’s comfortable with her decisions but knows others, including a close friend, would not be.
“People are judgmental and they look at you differently. For sure. Even if they agree with it,” she said, “she (her friend) looks at me as a lesser person because I did that. And so would other people.”
The country’s right-to-life movement has worked tirelessly to keep its cause alive since 1988.
“People are coming up who have lived with the Morgentaler decision a long time,” says Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of Campaign Life Coalition. “They don’t come to the issue with the same feeling we did. I think our attitude was ‘let’s stop the horrible killing.’ I think the feeling was we’d be able to do this in five years and go back to our families.”
Past serious challenges to the Supreme Court ruling failed and there aren’t any on the horizon in Canada, certainly nothing like what is happening in the United States, next month also marking an anniversary, the 35th, of 1973’s abortion-legalizing decision, Roe v. Wade. But there is a movement afoot here to implement certain gestational limits.
“I personally don’t think we should have a prohibition on early abortion, because I think if you can’t enforce it, then overall it does more harm than good,” said Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
“But Canada is unique in the Western world for having no prohibition on abortion at all. You can have an abortion the day before you give birth in Canada and that is perfectly legal.”
Morgentaler, now 84, says the fight is far from over.
“I think the way people think, it’s other people’s problem, and as long as it doesn’t affect them personally, there’s not much action on that,” he said. “Also, Canadians mostly believe the issue has been solved.”
Morgentaler warns while abortion may be legal in Canada, a variety of factors are at work to limit access. Those problems were reflected in a major survey of abortion access released this year by Canadians For Choice (CFC), an Ottawa-based group created after the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL) dissolved in 2004.
Building on a 2003 CARAL study, CFC research co-ordinator Jessica Shaw contacted 791 hospitals, posing as an out-of-province 22-year-old, 10 weeks pregnant, without a family doctor or any nearby family and friends, seeking an abortion.
AMONG HER FINDINGS:
– Abortion services are available in one of every six Canadian hospitals; a percentage that has dropped to 15.9% from 17.8% in 2003.
– In three out of four calls, hospital staff did not know if their facility offered abortions.
– The average waiting time for an abortion is two weeks, but can be four and as much as six. Until new funding came through, that was the length of the wait in Ottawa, proving access problems are not limited to small towns.
– Limits on when abortions can be performed vary widely among hospital and facilities — from 10 weeks to 22 weeks.
– Travel time and expenses are an issue. Shaw also encountered hospital staffers who tried to mislead or ridicule her.
“One nurse, in Central Canada, said ‘well, if you are thinking about having an abortion, you might want to first consider checking yourself into the inpatient psychiatric ward at the mental hospital,'” recalls Shaw, “‘because obviously you are not in a good frame of mind.'”
CFC executive director Patricia LaRue says after 20 years, the study shows women are still having to fight to have an abortion.
“We think if we ever need it, it’s going to be there,” she said, “but we don’t need to take a position on it until we ever need it.”
The way Canada’s health care system is structured can explain some of the obstacles to access. Health care is a provincial responsibility and subject to political will. In the months after the Supreme Court decision, many provinces moved to restrict abortion funding.
In New Brunswick, Morgentaler is suing the province over its policies, which funds hospital abortions only under restrictions he says violate the Canada Health Act. And not all provinces include abortion in their reciprocal billing agreements.
“There’s very clearly a two-tier system at work,” said Christabelle Sethna, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa Institute of Women’s Studies.
“Women are sort of ping-pong balls between provinces and different health care levels and facilities.”
Sethna is studying the explosion of privately operated abortion clinics in Canada since the Morgentaler decision: 45% of abortions are now done in clinics, compared to 7% in 1988. And while it is considered both “appalling” and “urgent” whenever news surfaces of Canadians who have to travel or pay for CAT scans or MRIs, said Sethna, “none of the discussion that is taking place about wait times and access to medical procedures like cancer treatments or hip replacements is going on about abortion.”
In the August edition of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada, Sethna reported on how access issues affect low-income women. In a survey done at the Toronto Morgentaler Clinic, she found women with incomes of less than $30,000 were more likely than wealthier women to have travelled between 200 to 1,000 km to have their abortion.
Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, agreed the access issue may not be a problem for women with money and means to travel.
“But it is a problem for many low-income women or immigrants or students who may not have access to the services they need,” she says.
Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), says because abortion is an unpopular topic, federal governments tend to have a “hands-off approach.”
“And if no one is doing anything to improve access,” she says, “it’s probably going to decrease.”
OTHER FACTORS
There are other factors at work. Medical schools in Canada provide little instruction on abortion. More than half of Canada’s abortion providers are near retirement age. The doctor shortage, size of the country and anti-abortion doctors who may conscientiously object to providing the service or information about it are also factors.
Pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups agree it still needs to be an issue.
On one side, LifeCanada president Joanne Byfield says the goal is to get people outraged.
“You don’t decide who is a human being by listening to a judge or a government,” she said. “These are inalienable human rights.”
On the other hand, the Morgentaler decision may have protected the right to choose an abortion, but it didn’t ensure abortion services will be available, says Joanna Erdman, adjunct professor at the University of Toronto’s International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme.

December 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm
The canadians should not allow abortion at all.
LikeLike
December 15, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Lindon, do you seriously believe a women should not have the right to have an abortion under any circumstance.
Would you allow a 12 year old who was raped to have an abortion? Or would you make that child go through a pregnancy, without any other options to consider, knowing that pregnancy at such a young age is dangerous and certainly not in the best interest of that child.
I offer this as a serious real world example to understand your extreme position of no abortion under any circumstance.
As a nurse, I have seen this type of situation many times, and it is sadly and horrifically, not as uncommon as we would like to believe.
Thanks,
Tina
LikeLike
December 15, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I guess under that circumstance it would be OK, but no others.
LikeLike
December 15, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Lindon,
thank you for your reply,
however, there are hundreds of similar examples i could come up with, and I am curious will your opinion change (please don’t take offense) as each is delivered to you. The seeming goal of this blog and commentary is cordial discussion amongst persons of diametrically opposed opinions.
For example,
again this is not extraordinarily uncommon,
a women is pregnant and then is discovered on her pap smear to have pre cancer (1/72 women per lifetime so fairly common) or cancer of the cervix. The treatment to save the mother’s life is often either a radical hysterectomy, or radiation. Both abort the fetus.
Is this OK also?
Kind regards
Tina
LikeLike
December 18, 2007 at 8:01 am
Lindon,
It would be nice to know the answer to Tina’s question, i found that challenged my own beleif system and am trying to take a more informed less ignorant understanding of this important issue.
LikeLike
December 18, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Umm no under no circumstance should abortion be ok. Not even if someone gets raped. A life is something that is precious and no matter how you got pregnant or how old you are, it is a gift from God. What if you were one of those babies that have been aborted, they had no chance at life, we are robbing our country!
LikeLike
December 19, 2007 at 8:38 am
Haley,
I find your opinion to be so interesting. Do you really belive a twelve year old raped by her natural father should be forced to undergo the pregnancy?
2) Also a pregnancy in the tube, which is a real live baby – I presume, again – would you allow that person to have that taken care off (an abortion of the tubal pregnancy) or would you prefer to let the mother and baby die from tubal rupture? Most people wouldallow the mother the choice to save her own life, in fact it’ s done thousands of times a day. Would you, if you could legislate against that right?
I find it hard to believe you truly believe that these are OK scenarious but would be educational for me to know that people do believe that way.
Thank you for being so kind to address this most contentious issue.
Regards,
Jones
LikeLike
December 28, 2007 at 3:37 pm
abortion is disgusting. one word… MURDER!!!
LikeLike
December 29, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Mary,
Would you allow an abortion under any circumstance?
Like the above examples, to save the life of the mother?
LikeLike
December 30, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I am pro-choice but I am also willing to admit that abortion is killing. There is something alive in the woman’s body and when the doctor is done, that “something” (fetus, baby, whatever you call it) is not alive. And every woman who goes into an abortion clinic knows that is the case. They know they are taking an action that will result in their no longer being pregnant. What a difficult and very sad situation. But there are over 1 million women a year who take this difficult step. Cannot those who oppose abortion, who believe it is “murder”, which technically at this time it is not, be a little more compassionate towards the woman in that situation?
LikeLike
January 3, 2008 at 9:01 pm
The bottom line on abortion is this: All human beings started as embryos. No one “created” themselves. The scientific community has proven that human DNA fully forms at the moment of conception, and science defines what is there as a unique individual of the species homo sapiens. The US was founded on the concept that all human beings are created equal, and endowed by our creator with the inalienable right to life. To support legalized abortion, you either have to say this basis of our country is wrong, that the government can take away the right to life. Or, you have to agree with institutionalizing the prejudice that the way all human beings start is not good enough to count for all new human beings. If the right to life is taken away by our government, they can feel free to take away any other human right. All other discussion about abortion is irrelevant unless it addresses this root issue.
LikeLike
January 4, 2008 at 7:11 am
Yes, compassion for the woman is tantamount in crisis pregnancies. But, abortion advocates lie to women when they ignore or deny the physical, psychological and emotional impact that abortion has on the woman who has the abortion; these advocates lie to the woman that the baby is not a baby; these advocates lie to the woman that it is just “conservatives” trying to deny them rights. Abortion advocates ignore or deny any impact on how the legalization of abortion impacts men, marriages, families, and society at large. Abortion advocates fight any effort at informed consent and to regulate abortion clinics. More women die today in abortion clinics today than ever did trying to do “back-alley” abortions before abortion was legal. Making up a “right” to abortion that comes at the expense of an innocent child’s life, is not a real right. It is oppression. Everything about abortion is based on lies and half-truths. When a woman is confused and scared about how a baby will impact her life, feeding a woman lies is in no way compassionate. True compassion must include the fullness of truth. Yes, be compassionate to the woman involved, but not at the expense of the innocent child. Be fully compassionate to both! You cannot pick and choose who deserves compassion when in a difficult situation. ALL human beings deserve care, compassion and truth.
LikeLike
January 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Pro-life never feel the situation calls. Unfortunatly very INfrequently situations are gray. But many times what the doctors say are undoubtly truths turn into miracles. If you are pregnant, you take a chance at new life AND your own. Question: Instead of ‘would you want a 12yr old to go through pregnancy’ think about would you want a 12 yr old to go through murdering their own child??? The situation is horrable, abortion does not ‘fix’ it. The problem is not the pregnancy here!!!
LikeLike
January 10, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Please take a look at what even early abortions do to the unborn: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca
This is what abortion does, even early in pregnancy.
Regardless of how difficult the situation is for a parent of a born child, we would be horrified if that parent killed that child, right? Several women in the US drowned their kids because they were emotionally distraught – does that make it right?
If the unborn are human beings too, then shouldn’t they be granted the same type of protection? That’s the question you need to answer.
Besides, the vast majority of abortions here in Canada are not performed on 12 year old girls or for cases or rape or incest. Even the pro-abortion group CARAL (now called Canadians for Choice), testified in Parliament that abortions are done for socio-economic reasons. And because there is no abortion law in Canada, it is legal to abort a nine month old in the womb because the fetus if female or has the wrong eye colour or has down’s syndrome. One woman we heard had an abortion because she didn’t want to miss her tropical cruise.
It is not my personal, subjective, religious point of view that life begins at fertilization – science tells me that just as all things that reproduce sexually, humans begin life at fertilization. And if human life begins at that point, it should be legally protected at that point too.
LikeLike
January 13, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Canbuhay,
I am curious
would you allow an abortion (if you were the supreme legislator) under any condition?
Regardless of the many reasons that a women might choose to end her pregnancy, and there are understandably very many. Would you disallow under that simple example which is not a rarity, without disputing the frequency as it is commonly known that this does occur? It was given as an example to understand when someone with your perspective would allow, or never allow under any circumstance an abortion.
In another way of stating that question, would you allow a young girl you had been raped to decide not to endanger herself and abort the pregnancy or would you force her to take the pregnancy to term where she might suffer a wide variety of well understood greater chances of danger for herself including her own death (higher mortality for younger mothers, well documented), including the inability for her to reproduce when she is ready and married with someone that she wants to have a baby with. An answer would be educational.
It seems no one who is pro-life is willing to answer a question like this and I cannot understand why, if just for the sake of simple discussion . . . I suspect the integrity of your convictions will allow you.
Thank you for your time,
Regards,
Julia
LikeLike
January 14, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Julia, your question has an underlying assumption: that getting an abortion to avoid endangerment is actually true. This is a very poor assumption. Abortion hurts women in many physical, emotional and psychological ways, and can only make life worse for a woman in a crisis pregnancy like you describe. This is the truth. All the lies, denials and willful ignorance of abortion proponents cannot change truth.
The biggest problem with abortion is that it trivializes, or even renders all human rights moot. Why? Because it denies the founding principle of the USA, the self-evident principle that all human beings are created equal, with an inalienable right to life. Abortion is the highest form of prejudice, and the highest form of child abuse. It justifies the argument that any human being that another human being does not want to be around is OK to kill (in gruesome, painful ways at that). This issue is never addressed by abortion proponents.
ALL HUMAN BEINGS DESERVE COMPASSION!!! Lying to women in crisis pregnancies will only be much worse for them in the long run. Millions of children around the world die needlessly from abortion in the meantime. Children are the future. Abortion proponents avoid this truth, and the inherent responsibility that comes with it.
Thank you for your time.
Andrew
LikeLike
January 23, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Andrew,
Briefly,
as I don’t want to make this an overly lengthy comment in reply to yours’. There are so many issues of contention it would be difficult to focus on any single one.
To keep it simple. Your first two lines are inaccurate, and Julia’s statements are not assumptions they are well documented facts about the relative morbidity and mortality of differing disease processes and the well documented morbidity and mortality rate of being pregnant. I would recommend a review of the technical literature to see the thousands of articles written on this topic.
The US Census, and The US Task Force on Preventative Services are among many objective sources one could turn to.
In order for the comment discussion to flow it would be great if you replied to the question below. No one else seems to on this page, disallowing a furthering of discussion. So it always seems to end there. Please help me further this discussion.
Even pro life OBGYNs agree with the basic facts stated above of the many reasons (agreeably not all) that some women may choose abortion (and the relative mortality rates) although they are opposed to abortion.
The difficulty is reconciling the fact that a woman’s life may be saved, and an abortion may be part of that process even if the woman is pro life and desires the pregnancy. Here is where the line can be best explored.
There is a large number of women who have had their life saved by intervening, while the women was pregnant. The cure of her other ailment led to abortion of the fetus. I seriously doubt you could find a single Board Certified OBGYN who would say this statement is absolutely not true as you suggest in any circumstance.
Rather than rehash what has already been gone through on this site multiple times, would you allow a young women who has been raped at the age of 12 (there are many cases documented of this sort of sad scenario) to choose to have an abortion?
Or would you place a dogmatic law in effect that disallowed abortion under any circumstance despite the womens choice to control what happens in her own body?
I believe a substantial discussion may evolve from an examination of the very difficult questions.
I would never presume to speak for the wide range of individuals who are prolife since their opinions vary so greatly on this topic, and that is natural.
As published in the American Journal Of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the vast majority of people who are prolife, by survey, would indeed allow a twelve year old to end a 6 week pregnancy if she were raped.
Do you agree with those individuals? I agree with Julia, it seems impossible to get someone who is prolife that comments on this Blog, to answer this question about abortion. Please do answer so we may continue a thoughtful discussion.
Thanks for reading my reply,
Hilda
LikeLike
January 24, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I have already mentioned how rape victims should be treated: with utmost compassion and support. The baby deserves the same. What if you were conceived as the result of a rape? Should your mother have aborted you? You presume abortion can possibly solve a situation of rape. It cannot. Abortion only causes more problems. To believe otherwise is to believe lies about, deny, or willfully ignore, the consequences of abortion. To determine whether abortion should be legal, you must answer the question whether the consequences of abortion are a good thing for individuals or society. Laws should protect human life, first and foremost. Without a right to life, no other human rights have any basis anymore. Should laws defend human life?
Yes, there are situations where a medical procedure results in a fetus being aborted. But, if that is not the intent, then it is a regretable tragedy. Abortion on demand ALWAYS intends that an innocent human life be destroyed. All these specific situations have nothing to do with the larger issue of the protection of all human life. However, there are answers for these situations that are workable, if only an attitude can be spread among all humankind that all human life is sacred, infinitely valuable, and worthy of protection. Not all opinions are equally valid. Not all people who label themselves “pro-life” have a full understanding of the consequences of their positions.
As to your comment about a “dogmatic law”, all laws are “dogma”. Dogmatism is not bad. It leads to an ordered society, where all members of that society are protected. To deny this leads to tyranny, where only the strong are free.
LikeLike
January 24, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Andrew,
Thank you for your answer.
I presume from your answer that you would not allow a pregnant 12 year old access to an abortion and force her to go through the pregnancy even though it places her in danger of pregnancy related complications. Even if abortion was what her parents and she decided was best for her, an abortion at an early stage, which is well documented to be very safe, with some of the lowest morbidity and mortality rates of any procedure including dental unbelievably.
I am not sure what you are speaking of when you talk about lies relating to this conversation, perhaps i misunderstand which is very possible in asynchronous communciation. It is probably better to talk about what I am saying than the large volume of contentious debate that has gone on for decades to discuss specific circumstances to understand better when one may or may not have an abortion.
Anything I say please feel free to pull up the objective data showing the inaccuracy. It would be my pleasure to fix any errors in my understanding of the issue.
Once again please consult any expert, textbook, literature, any specialist regarding the dangers of pregnancy at both ends of the age spectrum.
You also sound intelligent and understand that speaking for a large group as if they were one individual (I think this is where you misunderstood my use of the word dogma, again common in this kind of communication, more importantly let’s focus on the points) the belief system of the entire population of individuals who would allow that 12 year old access to abortion is not possible, i have a feeling you would agree with that point, they certainly vary in opinions.
Many people have a variety of perspectives, as you have a very different perspective then the vast majority of people who do not believe in abortion under every circumstance. I hope there is common ground on that point at least.
We have seen young pregnant women die at our hospital. So I hope you respect the vast literature, professional, and anecdotal experience revealing these experiences and not call them lies. If you have a professional (even prolife) Board Certified OBGYN that disputes any of these facts, I would be very curious to hear them, as I doubt you can find a single one in the entire nation.
Again lot of points for a comment so I’ll try and stick to one.
Most importantly in this discussion to understand (forget the rest if you want) . . . An example of one of the regrettable procedures according to your nomenclature where an abortion is performed to save the womens life. For example a women misses a period finds out she is pregnant, but that pregnancy is in her fallopian tube, that pregnancy is the conceptus of a future viable baby. The way to save the women’s life is to abort the pregnancy. I am really trying to understand your position of whether it is ever OK to end the life of the pregnancy. Is it OK, under those circumstances to abort the pregnancy? You would be ending a life. Is that OK? It is not the pregnancies fault that it got stuck in the tube . . .
This is very common, tubal pregnancies representing about 1-3% of all pregnancies depending on the socioeconomic conditions under study.
Sorry, feel like I wrote too much. Would really like your opinion on tubal pregnancies since they are so common they really do deserve attention in regards to the abortion issue of that pregnancy.
Looking forward to your answer to that specific question about how to treat tubal pregnancies, and understanding your position better on what you believe is allowable or not under your belief system for tubal pregnancies.
Another good example to address is a misplanted pregnancy that has attached to something like the omentum in the abdomen where an abdominal pregnancy could occur. What would you do?
Regards,
Hilda
LikeLike
January 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Pregnancy complications can occur for women of any age, for many reasons. The research on why is often prejudiced by the world view of the researcher concerning abortion. The question is what world view is the best on how to address these pre-natal complications. Doctors can’t always explain why a given person lives or dies given certain situations. Doctors are not “God” when determining whether a certain outcome will occur.
As far as different viewpoints, you cannot argue that all viewpoints are equally valid. If I have a view that if anyone named Hilda that I feel is inconvenient to me can be killed, this is obviously a viewpoint not equal to the exact opposite view.
You ask a good question on “extra-uterine” pregnancies, or ectopic pregnancies. You do sound intelligent, so I hope you will not discount, in a prejudicial way, a Catholic answer to this question. This is complicated question, so it requires a complicated answer. Please refer to the link: http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
Specifically read the explanation of MTX vs. salpingostomy vs. full and partial salpingectomy, and the principle of double effect. I could not come up with a better answer than this one.
The questions of rape and ectopic pregnancies are important, but are small issues when compared to supporting Roe v. Wade (and Doe v. Bolton), which allow abortions on demand for any reason for all 9 months of pregnancy. Abortions due to rape, incest and ectopic pregnancies are way less than 10% of all abortions in this country. All others are used as a form of birth control. Acknowledgement of the impact on women, children, families and society on this attitude and the action of abortion itself is denied and avoided at any cost by abortion proponents. This is the lie told to women. The truth is abortion cannot solve a crisis pregnancy – only respecting human life will.
I will repeat the fundamental issue here, which needs to the basis of discussion (rather than distractions of exception situations): The USA was founded on the self-evident principle that all humans are created equal, endowed by the creator with the inalienable right to life. To support abortion, you have to say that this principle is both not self-evident and wrong, or you have to support the idea that it is OK for a government and individuals to subjectively determine which human beings have this right to life, and which do not. Without an absolute, inalienable right to life, all other human rights are trivialized. A “right” to abortion presupposes that another’s rights are to be suppressed. Rights that only can exist at the expense of others are not rights at all. This is better called oppression that only will result in prejudice, racism, bigotry and tyranny.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike