Abortion Discussion


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.

The Elliot Institute, a group from Springfield, Ill., filed the “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act” on Nov. 6, with the intention of getting it on the ballot in November ’08 in Missouri.

The proposal would require the doctor to certify that an abortion was necessary to avert the woman’s imminent death or irreversible disability. Otherwise, the doctor would have to document that carrying the fetus to term would be more dangerous than the combination of all risks associated with abortion. Those risks could include every “psychological, emotional, demographic or situational” risk that has been found associated with abortion in any study ever published in a peer-reviewed journal. Doctors would have to determine how every such risk applied to the patient and present the patient with an evaluation of every positive and negative determination. Doctors would be vulnerable to lawsuits from women who later regretted their decision to have an abortion. The proposal states that a regretful woman could receive up to $10,000 for each risk the doctor fails to include in his determination. There would be no exception in the cases of rape or incest.

Peter Brownlie, a Planned Parenthood representative said that the proposal appears to interfere with the practice of medicine.

“It looks very clearly to be a ban on abortion, with the only exception being a threat to the life of the mother,” Brownlie said. “It’s a pretty extreme measure.”

The Missouri affiliate of NARAL issued a statement saying the proposal would place a near-total ban on abortion, and warned that if the proposal was passed, it would require a dying woman who needed an abortion to save her life to wait 48 hours before undergoing the procedure.

Although many people consider the Elliot Institue a pseudoscientific organization operating behind a thin veneer of respectability, they still see the proposal as a serious threat. Unfortunately, the will of the majority and the authority of the Constitution is not always enough to save us from a constant threat on our most basic rights. Even unconstitutional proposals must be defended against vigoursly, or someday soon we’ll be sadly surprised . . .

The Abortion Pill has been used in over a million cases world wide with safety and the vast majority of women have had a positive experience.

Ask your provider for more inormation if you desire this method to terminate your pregnancy. Many women prefer surgical abortion which is a very short procedure and again, tolerated very well by most women. This is a personal decision and your provider should give you information so you can make an informed decision.

Additionally there are numerous sources for abortion information on line.

 

 

 

 

Fred Thompson

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson speaks at The Citadel military college in Charleston, S.C., Nov. 13, 2007.

Before we begin this installment of the Rights Advocate blog, I wanted to thank all the commentors on both sides of the issue. To date we have been fortunate and have had for the most part literate and respectful posts. We have not edited or had to censure any comments for crude or disrespectful language, and I am appreciative of that. I believe a productive conversation may persist if this forum persists in an articulate manner.

We want to hear all sides of the issue and are open to our opinion being changed by good sound discussion. What more could we ask for? That enlightenment is welcomed. We hope that none of us are so dug into our dogmatic opinions as to not appreciate the well articulated position of another with an even diametrically opposed perspective.

I thank you all for your thought full commentary.

With that preface in mind let’s consider 11/13/07. The implications may be profound and we should all be aware of these important issues.

November 13, 2007 · Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson picked up a devisive endorsement from the National Right to Life committee. This committee is well known as the nation’s most outspoken anti-choice group.

This endorsement may have surprised some advocates of choice because Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment. This amendment has been the movement’s primary goal for many decades. The endorsement is another symbol of division among social groups as the 2008 presidential campaign comes to us quickly.

David O’Steen is the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. He said that he knows conservatives have given support to other GOP candidates for the primary. Mr. O’Steen declared that the organization’s backing will undoubtedly be a lift for Thompson in the primaries that are approaching rapidly.

“It’s been done after much consideration, much study, we have been watching this race since January,” said O’ Steen. “This is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major grass-roots pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.”

O’Steen said his group pored over voting records and positions on abortion, but also electability. O’Steen made it profoundly obvious that one litmus was dissallowing the nomination of the primary GOP front-runner, the former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani.

“I would assume he’s expressing his views, and he’s been consistent with that. Rudy Giuliani has not changed his position — he’s running as a pro-abortion candidate,” said O’Steen confidently.

Thompson trumped up his own integrity in a television ad, declaring that he is “proud to have a 100 percent pro-life voting record.”

However, on NBC’s Meet the Press 9 days ago, Mr. Thompson struggled with the question of when exactly does life begin. He had been on the record in 1994 that he wasn’t sure. He told NBC as well, in a recent interview, “my head has always been the same place.” Later in the interview, Thompson said he believes life begins at conception.

Thompson stated without hesitation that he remains opposed to a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, and he thought that it would be more pragmatic to leave this vital question to the states.

“I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with,” he said ironically. “That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government … serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion.” One wonders if Abortion were indeed murder in the was that it is portrayed by the social conservatives would it surely be an issue simply left to the states? It would be strong enough to be an issue of federal importance as would murder in any sense be.

O’Steen said his group found Republican Mitt Romney too inconsistent on the abortion issue. He disliked the Arizona Sen. John McCain position on embryonic stem-cell research, and he regarded the other hopefuls as, simply, long shots — they are too under-prepared and not funded well enough to catch up to Giuliani.

In the last several days, social conservatives have been as vociferous as ever — just not as harmonious.

Televangelist Pat Robertson declared that he is backing Giuliani.

Ironically, juxtaposed to that position, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Moral Majority, with voting integrity said Romney is the proper choice on this issue.

“George Bush combined a perspective that was very familiar to social conservatives, and an ability to win and raise millions and millions of dollars,” he said. When asked which Republican could accomplish that now, Ayres replied: “Nobody, which is why social conservatives are fractured at the moment.”

Still, Ayres insisted the party is not too worried about where social conservatives will be by the fall. Hillary Clinton, he said, remains social conservatives’ best hope for a rallying cry.

The State of Massachusetts legislature has given the approval Thursday, November 8, to a bill that mandates that Abortion protesters to stand at least 35 feet from Doctor’s offices and clinics that offer abortion services and private abortion care.

The present Govenor, Gov. Deval L. Patrick is expected to sign the legislation into law.

The bill, expected to be signed next week, will be the among the nation’s strictest state law requiring stable, fixed zones that protesters cannot enter around those reproductive health offices and clinics that offer abortions and reproductive care services.

The current law was enacted in 2000, declares that protesters cannot go within 6 feet of a person in an 18-foot zone outside the doors of an office that offers . The agencies responsible for protecting the zones have said it was difficult to enforce.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously on Thursday and the House in a 122-to-28 vote. There are 10 reproductive health offices in the state offer abortion care.

“The basic goal of the bill is to make sure patients and staff can enter reproductive health facilities without being obstructed, intimidated and harassed,” said Representative Carl M. Sciortino. Sciortino is a Democrat and is one of the bill’s sponsors. He also noted that “Current law is completely unenforceable and did not protect patients and staff the way it intended.”

Opponents of the new bill, in a typical response to laws protecting individuals from their ceaseless harassments, say the law will violate their freedom of speech.

The call for buffer zones started in 1994 after John C. Salvi III killed two women and wounded five other people at two offices offering abortion care in Brookline, Mass.

Colorado, Florida, and Montana have buffer zone laws similar to the current Massachusetts law. Interstingly, the country’s largest fixed buffer zone, 36 feet, is mandated in Melbourne, Fla.

On this past Friday the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision overturning a state law allowing parents the right to agree to or deny abortions their minor teenager daughters may be considering. The state’s parental consent law has been tied up in court ever since the state legislature approved in in 1997. It is refreshing to hear that Alaska’s Supreme Court had the good intelligence to protect teenagers and allowing a path to their emancipation. In other words they would not be forced to carry a pregnancy and go through labor if they did not want to endure this process which may place their bodies in harm’s way.

The most important point here is that the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of other’s trying to impose their view on what that individual should or should not do with their body.

The court issued a 3-2 decision on the law stating that it denies a teenager her right to an abortion.

Both the majority and the two dissenting judges agree that parents should play a vital role in their children’s lives and health care decisions but the majority said parents should not have a veto power to override a teen’s decision to get an abortion.

Justices Walter Carpeneti and Warren Matthews issued dissents in the case and said the state legislature carefully balanced the right of parents and teenagers and said the measure “is the least restrictive alternative which will effectively advance the state’s compelling interests while protecting the child’s constitutional right.”

Information on providers who offer abortion care or the abortion pill can be found at a number of sites including Abortion.com and RU486.com. According to statistics from the state health department, there were 1,923 abortions in Alaska in 2006 and 126 were done on girls 17 or younger who would have been subject to the parental consent law.

The ruling is the second time the Alaska Supreme Court has weighed in on the parental consent law. In 2001, the justices ruled the measure invalid and cited the state’s privacy clause as the reason, despite any wording saying the clause was meant to uphold an unlimited right to abortion.

Hopefully, this can be seen as a positive step toward maintaining the right of an individual to choose privately the choices they make in their reproductive lives.

Regarding the inalienable right of an individual to maintain the privacy and control of their body, specifically in the realm of reproductive advocasy, we may always find a historically relevant perspective paraphrased from Ms. Margaret Sanger.

We maintain that a person possessing an adequate functional fund of knowledge of their reproductive anatomy and functionality is the finest judge of the time, circumstance & conditions under which their pregnancy should be managed. We continue to assert that it is the right, regardless of all and any other considerations, to ascertain if they will have a child or not, and how many children they will decide to bring into the world if they choose to decide to become a parent . . . Only upon a free, self-determining individual can lay the foundation for any unshakable structure of gender betterment.

« Previous Page