Throughout the history of our nation every election has seemed monumentily important. Think back on all the slogans of every past election are they really all so different.

This author is not a historian so the question is rhetorical.

I urge an objective look at the records of the two very decent individuals running for office. I believe them both to have integrity in their convictions and a desire to do what is right. I grant them that.

My friends and fellow Americans it is now time to have the courage to follow your convictions and make a choice. A choice which may determine your choice and opportunity to govern your own body.

That is as serious as it gets.

Look back on 8 years and reflect.

Please make your voice heard. Vote.

Who would you vote for today?
( polls)

There have been a large number of commentaries by individuals who dogmatically state that a women has no right ever to choose and abortion under any circumstance.

Yet when replied to by other individuals, they never respond with any objective reasoning?

To note, every professional, professional organization, and many clergy on the planet, from all the major religions, as far as we could tell from our diligence and vetting, including every right to life group that would respond, agreed with the position that women could end their pregnancy under this circumstance.

So Why do the commenters believe otherwise?  I believe we will know by their continued absence of response.  But we would be delighted to hear an intelligently formed argument against a women’s choice in this circumstance.  No soliloquies or pulpits please, just he facts.

We want to give them the benefit of the doubt, so we ask one of these simple questions again.

Some respond with the same rhetorical gibberish, never answering the hard real world questions posed by so many intelligent and concerned individuals.

It is difficult to understand.  It infers that people who harbor these dogmatic beliefs, will not allow their minds to accept the reality of women in need and the difficult choices they may sometimes must make. Instead of educating themselves they withdraw into the catacombs of ancient cliches, and reveal no education into biology, formal logic, ethics, or medicine.  The issues are not that complicated.  Would one person, one, please respond appropriately.  It would be appreciated, as there has yet to be a good response to the very many important issues brought up regarding the women’s right to choose to control her own body.

One simple example I have seed posted, is the women with an anencephalic (a fetus that has had the misfortune of the developmental path that did not create the neurological substrate for brain formation) – In fact many do not even have cranium.  They fetuses all die at, around, or before or shortly after birth and never cognate, unless one believes that cognition takes place in the liver (some do, strangely enough).  It is extremely sad. These women will not have a successful pregnancy, as a severe anencephalic, has never grown a brain.

So, out of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been trained in Obstetrics and women care, NOT one has agreed with the lack of choice for that women to end her pregnancy.

That is intelligent to end these pregnancies early (please see the literature on this point as it is overwhelming without any deviance).  As many of these women, if they choose to let the pregnancy continue, end up with hysterotomy, ruptured uterus, hysterectomies and lose child bearing, hemorrhage, infection from bloood transfusion, and even death.

At a minimum, they have gone full term to have a dead baby.

If there is a single person out there which can make an argument to why these women should not have the choice of ending their pregnancy we welcome that point and discussion.  

In the absence of that we will conclude that this issue of anencephally is presently a settled discussion.

Brownback’s Backdoor Abortion Bill?

Senator Sam Brownback is not well-known outside the state of Kansas. You’re likely scratching your head trying to figure out why you recognize his name. Think back to very early in the Republican race, when the debates were populated by 11 different candidates. The guy on the outer wings, the one who said that he didn’t believe in evolution and that he’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, the one with the curly hair and the Kansas drawl, that’s him.

Sen. Brownback is known for his extreme conservatism. It’s not just fiscal restraint and state’s rights with this guy. He has members of the far-right going, “wow, this guy is hard-core.” Not surprisingly, Sen. Brownback is thoroughly anti-choice. He does not believe that there are any circumstances under which a termination of pregnancy is acceptable, not even in cases of rape or incest. So it’s not a shock that he’s introduced another bill regarding abortion. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume that any bill coming from Sen. Brownback regarding this issue is inherently flawed and a thinly veiled effort to undermine women’s rights, which is why everyone who has read the bill or anything about it is finding themselves a little confused, because that’s not what this bill is.

Here’s what the bill does:

For women and families whose prenatal testing has indicated that the fetus has a genetic disorder, physicians will be required to provide “access to timely, scientific, and nondirective counseling about conditions being tested for and accuracy of such tests.”

Additionally, the bill would create a nation-wide list of families who are willing to adopt children with special needs and referral to support services, including a national clearinghouse of coping resources.

While he may be getting cheers from some, Sen. Brownback’s efforts smack of an inability to grasp the difficulty of the heartbreaking choices some families must make. A diagnoses of Down Syndrome does not always mean that a family will give birth to a living child with Down’s. What it can mean is that the disorder is such that their baby will die from Down’s. The same is true for many genetic and chromosomal disorders. There are degrees of severity and some of them simply are not compatible with life.

The spirit of this bill is laudable, anything that allows women and families to make the decision that is best for them is a step in the right direction. But one step doesn’t get you to a destination. If Sen. Brownback is serious about reducing abortion, then it’s time to focus on the causes and impact of unplanned pregnancy. In fact, knowing Brownback’s typical M.O., one has to wonder if this is an attempt to lull everyone into a false sense of security before tacking on a bunch of amendments that undermine a woman’s right to choose.

Sen. Brownback says that this bill is an effort to promote the “culture of life.” But the so-called “culture of life” has to be about more than preventing abortions, it must be about making it easier to access information, birth control and the resources parents need to raise children in today’s world.

The fact is that the “culture of life” is not being promoted in this country, period. Families are not guaranteed paid medical leave, not all women can access the preventative health care necessary to decrease and detect birth defects, students are not given honest and thorough sex education, and when given the chance to cover low-income children for healthcare, the Congress (Sen. Brownback included) said “no.”

What are we to make of a culture that focuses more on the pre-born than they do the pre-schooler? There must be a broad and sweeping overhaul in how this country deals with issues like poverty, health care and education before anything can be done to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions.

It is obvious that the Florida legislature mounted a multi threaded attack on reproductive rights this week. 

It started by the passing of legislation requiring an ultrasound prior to an abortion and coupled to more egregious terms.  

Terms that are simply rejected by the vast majority of Americans, and over 99% of Nobel prize winners.

That is defining human sentient life equivalent to a full experienced adult at the moment of the meeting of the one cell sperm and the one cell egg whence they fuse and form one slight larger one cell.  Thus a women who was desirous of an abortion must then pay for an ultrasound procedure and  mandated to view the ultrasound image. This would be done before having the abortion, again mandated by the bill passed by the House chiefly divided in a partisan fashion.

The puritanicals and misogynists are truly still lurking among us in droves. Must they die of old age until the generation of rational thinking adults are able to work their way through the political quagmire?  

Oddly also the vast majority of conservatives supprting the measure were older men greyed from age, apparently not from wisdom or a connection to the community.   

The Republican-led chamber also endorsed a “fetal homicide” bill that would create a separate murder charge for anyone who caused a pregnancy to be terminated through an act of violence against a pregnant woman.

This absurdity missed the slew of reasons women may opt for an abortion for very reasonablke reasons, that well over 95% of Americans support. A very limited example include, women with cancer, women with pregnancies in their tubes, women with life threatening heart anomalies (and all other threats to their life) that carry with them a near certain death sentance if they are to remain pregnant through their term of 40 weeks.  

This is well documented in the peir reviewed medical literatue, and is not disouted among proffesionals of either side of the issue to any measurable degree.  The list goes on and on.  

Many of these situations the Abortion Pill could easily solve the end of the pregnancy and save the mother’s life. There are numerous places a women in need of abortion may find an office that perform Abortions safely, securely, privately with respect and confidentiality.

Democrats argued the abortion bill and it’s terms were simply a government invasion into an obvious private health matter.The House’s ultrasound mandate (HB257) requires women who desire abortion to pay for the scans without any assistance, this is a major burden the government would be placing among lower socioeconomic women.

Costs for an ultrasound have great variance and are often a few hundred dollars, stated by an expert testimonial.The measures once again, are micromanaging the method by which a doctor takes care of their patient without regard to the doctor’s experience or training.  

Doctors practice differently because of a number of reasons.  The legislature rarely attempts to micromangae doctor methods of practice except when dealing with abortion care.  The well known safest procedure done in the world, when it is legal.  When it is illegal, women still get abortion, but because of the illegality have to have them performed in areas that are often dangerous and simply just a few decades hospital wards were willed to the brim with women suffering, dying,  and losing wombs to complication because abortion was illegal.  Once again this another fact that is not disputed.

“Are you sure you want to do that?” said House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber, of Miami Beach. “Just to constantly second-guess and challenge a woman who makes what I imagine is one of the hardest and most difficult decisions a person has to make. In that sense, it’s an offensive bill.”  

If the “fetal homicide” bill passed the Senate and became law, anyone who caused a pregnancy to be terminated by assaulting or killing a woman could be prosecuted for murdering the “unborn child” — even if they didn’t know the woman was pregnant.The bill also would apply to drunken drivers, who could be charged with vehicular homicide for causing a pregnancy to be terminated in a car accident.

“It elevates a fetus and an egg, frankly, to the status of an adult person,” said Adrienne Kimmell, executive director of Florida’s Planned Parenthood affiliates. “The purpose of this bill is to create tension with Roe vs. Wade. It’s a chipping-away strategy we’ve seen for years now.”

In this opinion, the imbicilic articulation from the Bill’s sponsor Rep. Ralph Poppell, stated that a fetal homicide bill is an attempt to “curb crime and save lives.”

Clearly it is just another attempt to harm women and march the limitations of reproductive, and private personal matters into the hands of those elite that show no regard or connection to the intelligent women who are quite capable of making decisions and managing their own bodies without a strange antagonistic man’s interference and intrusion.

Addressing reporters on March 13, 2008, Lt. Gov. and soon-to-be Gov. David Paterson said that this mechanism is not the one by which he would have wanted the top job. It was his first public address since Gov. Eliot Spitzers official resignation.

“This is not the way I would want to aspire in my career. It’s a very ironic feeling, and I just have to try and do my best,” he said on AM radio from Albany.
He stated he wanted to five-day transition period before taking the oath on Monday. This would enable him to get up to speed on state business.

“We needed to get the state back to work. And we needed to have our government functioning,” he said. “We needed to show that to people Monday.”

With Spitzer’s resignation, the fight over Abortion Rights continue, including the Abortion Pill and The Morning After Pill.

The New Yorkers For Parental Rights is already urging soon-to-be Gov. David Paterson to reject Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s attempt to adopt the Reproductive Health & Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP).

Most suspect Gov Paterson to be as reasonable in regard to the protection of the right of women to have access to abortion and other women’s health related issues.

One can only hope that Gov. Paterson will continue the struggle for abortion rights and protect the access for women to abortion providers of their choosing.

by

Peg Johnston 

At my abortion clinic we often tell patients, “Sex is designed to get you pregnant,” the corollary of which is that “Sex makes us stupid.” In our conversations with patients we are trying to acknowledge that there are universal biological imperatives going on. It’s also a way of humorously admitting that it is a human condition that those sexual urges sometimes make us take risks that we never would in a rational moment.

The bombshell that exploded in NYS Governor Eliot Spitzer’s face today that he was a client of a high priced prostitution ring, carries the same message. It’s hard to believe that this squeaky clean politician who is tough on crime, has a lovely wife and family, and had a promising politicalcareer, would blow it all over something so stupid. But, we listen to similar stories everyday.

This controversy will undoubtably bring out the worst in Puritanical America. And it won’t be just political opponents of Spitzer—or Democrats—that will be capitalizing on his sexual indiscretion. All of the “soccer moms” that were so bitter toward Bill Clinton for exposing their kids to public discussion of “blow jobs” will be outraged again.

There are other countries—in Europe, for instance, that would greet this news as not worthy of news. They think it odd that Americans are so intolerant of sex and the sexual eccentricities of our leaders. (Of course, there are other, fundamentalist countries where the woman involved would be stoned to death.)

I would love to see this latest unfortunate controversy spark a discussion about our need for sex, about sex and power, for risk taking around sex, for what that might mean about someone’s character or ability to do a job. I would like to think that such a discussion would get more people to understand that humans are sexual, sometimes against their more rational interests. And that this discussion would increase our compassion for everyone, including women who have sex, with or without their spouse, with or without birth control, and get pregnant.

But I doubt it. People are too busy pretending that other people are stupid and they have never taken risks around sex. BS! They’re just lucky.

The author has been an abortion provider for over 20years and has written on abortion politics extensively.

I thought it would be interesting to pose this question because it doesn’t presuppose the supremacy of either side of the abortion issue. Instead it is a question that might show contrast between different viewpoints on the same side of the issue.

In order to explore this issue, I am going to pose a hypothetical.

Lets take a situation where a woman purposely pokes holes in her lovers condom with the hopes of getting pregnant. In this case lets say she does get pregnant and has effectively made a decision that is completely contrary to her lover’s wishes. He might have strong reservations about population control, he might not be ready for the temporal and financial responsibility of raising a child, or many of the other reasons that a person might have not to carry a pregnancy to term.

Shouldn’t he have a right to decide not to have a child?

For many of us, this issue is about autonomy. The right of a person to not have their body violated by state or citizen is fundamental. But with rights go responsibility and visa versa. A man is held to a level of responsibility for providing for his offspring, and he should have rights that are at least commensurate with that.

If you believe abortion isn’t murder, and that there is no crime in the removal of a healthy fetus from it’s mother’s womb, then I think you should be open to the possibility that in the hypothetical laid out above, a forced abortion would be nothing more than the retrieval of stolen property. The traumatic invasion of the woman for the 10 minute procedure would be balanced against a lifelong traumatic impact that the father didn’t want.

Hopefully you’re getting the point, which is that the stronger our case against abortion=crime/murder, the stronger the case for the rights of the father.

I appreciate your comments.
V

Why I am Voting for Hillary
by Mary Quinlan

I didn’t start out as a Hillary supporter and in fact, I was hoping that she would not run. I thought, “It is really enough to be a good senator, a la Ted Kennedy” and the prospect of having her “out there” and vulnerable to the vicious attacks was more than I wanted to think about. Also, my stand on issues is far closer to Dennis Kucinich than middle of the road Clinton.

But I decided to open myself up to Hillary Clinton on a different level. First, I tried to look at the big picture of what’s going on in the world today: the disastrous lack of diplomacy that has left us the most hated country this moment; the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan; the downward spiral of our economy and the huge national debt; the danger our personal liberties and the Constitution are in; the rapid deteriorization of the environment; the widening inequities in this country and in the world.

We all play the game of “If I were President I would….” but what would it take to really be President? It’s tempting to say “Not much if George W can do it,” but I think we can all agree that he is not doing it. And, as much as I respect Dennis Kucinich, for instance, (or any one of the large pack of Democrats who were running for President), I cannot really see him as being up for the job. I think the job of President really takes some intestinal fortitude, some deep and nuanced understanding of the big picture as well as the particulars, an ability to assess a situation quickly with all the best advice available. It takes real courage to take action in an uncertain and dangerous world. I never thought I would say it, but I think it takes maturity.

When I considered Hillary from this point of view, I came away more favorably impressed than I ever imagined. She is smart, smart, smart, even more intelligent than Bill Clinton; his intellect was a great part of his appeal, and the lack thereof is part of Bush’s disastrous presidency. She is tough which is reassuring both in a national security kind of way and in the inside-the-beltway-Shark-tank kind of way. Even her political calculation seems to me an asset (although not warm and fuzzy) in this climate. And, we are kidding ourselves if we think every politician is not calculating and cunning. It’s more a part of her public persona, partly because she thinks strategically, and partly because the media loves to paint her as a bitch.

I am voting for Hillary because I think we are in a really big mess, and I think she has the intellectual depth, the political acumen, and the personal strength to navigate that mess and actually change some things. Obviously I disagree with her approach on some things, but this decision is really about who can get the job done.
When I think about all the problems in the world and the high level of anti-Americanism, I am reassured that she already knows many world leaders and they respect her. In terms of reproductive justice issues, as well as broader personal liberties like habeas corpus, Clinton is solid. Although she is careful on the abortion issue, she gets that it is about real people’s lives, something most politicians do not. One thing that really impressed me is that when she was first elected Senator from NY she very quietly set out to understand the ins and outs of the Senate and connect with others on both sides of the aisle. When she was ready she very effectively got things done—help for NY farmers, help for 9-11 first responders, and help for uninsured children with the SCHIP program, the largest expansion of public health care since Medicare and Medicaid.

It strikes me that she has already studied the job of President, first hand, for 8 years. It’s not the same as being President but you certainly know the scope of the work, the possibilities, the need for restraint, and how to get things done. That persistence, willingness to compromise, and strategic leverage of power is something that takes years to understand, much less master.

It’s odd for me to think that 10 or certainly 20 years ago I would have been all about Obama and his hope message, but from my older, more experienced viewpoint now I think we need a whole lot more than hope. We need her experience, her intelligence, her maturity. The change we need is from the catastrophe of the Bush Presidency and Hillary Clinton can start slogging through his mess from day one.

And in 2012 or 2016, Barack Obama will get my vote when he has a lot more to back up his inspiring message of hope.

Politics is a dirty game. It is unacceptable, however, when those with a thorough knowledge of how the game is played, knowingly misrepresent a rival’s position on an important issue to misinform the public. That is what has been going on in the Democratic primaries, and unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is the guilty party.I’m referring of course to the Clinton’s characterization of Barack Obama as falling short of being pro-choice. If you aren’t up on the facts of the matter, I’ll lay them out briefly for you. As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted “present” seven times as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills. The Clinton camp says that his voting “present” instead of “no” means that he isn’t fully committed to the pro-choice movement. In Illinois, a “present” vote has the same effect as a “no” vote in determining if the bill passes. Should Obama have acted differently? Real leaders of the pro-choice movement don’t think so:

“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

The Clinton’s have jumped on this non-issue, trying to portray Obama as not fully committed to a woman’s right to choose. It saddens me that one of our most viable candidates feels they have to resort to misleading and divisive tactics in order to win the party’s nomination. When it comes right down to it, the Clinton campaign is appealing to our least noble instinct by trying to suggest to women that they can’t be adequately represented by a male candidate. She is trying to fuel this fear fire in the heart of the female electorate, hoping that it will trump the voice of reason.If you’ve listened to Barack Obama, then perhaps you share the feeling that I have, that he is a candidate that will rise above race and gender, and inject the voice of reason into a system that dearly lacks it. I feel that I won’t always agree with his decisions, but I know that they will have integrity. I don’t feel that way about Hillary anymore.I truly believe that as it pertains to the choice issue that Obama will always protect our rights and not compromise them for political expedience. That’s not to suggest that Hillary’s likely to waver on choice issues. But there are many other issues that are of serious concern for us. As a woman, I’d rather have a politician that is going to address each issue fairly on its face, than one that might be doing what is expedient for their career . . .

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.