The anti-choice movement has launched a national campaign
to try to convince provinces to defund abortion. This campaign is the
latest of numerous attempts over the years to defund abortion in several
provinces (including B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario),
beginning immediately after the Supreme Court struck down Canada's
abortion law in 1988.
Every single effort to defund abortion has failed and so will the
current one. The anti-choice movement appears oblivious to history and
evidence indicating that provinces will not and cannot defund abortion.
Provincial governments know that it would violate women's Charter rights
and the Canada Health Act, as well as clash with previous legal
precedents. Defunding abortion would also invite an expensive
(taxpayer-funded) court challenge that provinces would not likely win.
The current anti-choice campaign is mainly appealing to the public
and their wallets, but this is also a lost cause. The public has little
say in what medical services are covered by provincial health plans,
because health-care coverage cannot be decided by majority vote for
obvious reasons (to prevent inequity and discrimination). Taxpayer
funding of health care works similarly to how citizens pay taxes.
Citizens cannot choose which government services they are willing to pay
taxes for, based on whether or not they use them or like them. Public
funding for things like infrastructure, education, and health care
benefit all Canadians. It's how we improve the lives of everyone and
establish a degree of equity.
Nevertheless, since anti-choicers can't win on criminalizing
abortion, they're trying to capitalize on the public's alleged dislike
for funding it. A 2013 Angus Reid poll
found that 43 per cent of Canadians support funding of abortions
whenever they are requested, 42 per cent believe it should only be
funded for medical emergencies, and 7 per cent think it should not be
funded at all. Remarkably, this breakdown closely mirrored the
percentages of Canadians who support the legal right to abortion in all
cases (47 per cent) versus those who want at least some restrictions (41
per cent), and those who want it completely banned (7 per cent).
This implies that public support for defunding abortion may be just
as meaningless as public support for restrictions -- for which there are
no realistic prospects at all in Canada. Despite abortion being
frequently in the news, most Canadians are probably not familiar with legal jurisprudence on the abortion issue
and why women's legal right to abortion has been deemed integral to the
exercise of their Charter rights. Further, most people don't know much
about abortion practice in Canada, so mistaken beliefs are commonly
reflected in polls. A 2010 poll
found that 41 per cent of Canadians think abortions are only available
during the first three months of gestation, when in fact it's available
on request until 20 weeks, and after that only under compelling
circumstances at a doctor's discretion (this is policy, not law). Many
Canadians may also be unaware that abortion restrictions do not reduce
the abortion rate. Their main effect
is to increase hardship for women and put their health and lives at risk.
The main anti-choice arguments opposing the funding of abortion are
numbered below, and come from the website of Campaign Life Coalition
(primarily from here
. I've shortened or combined a few of them for brevity.) My rebuttals are explained in more depth here
, including citations.
1. "Canadian taxpayers fund at least $80 million every year
for the killing of children in the womb. That figure does not include
the cost of common abortion complications, which could easily escalate
the total cost to hundreds of millions of dollars annually!"
The overall cost of abortion care to the taxpayer is a pittance
relative to health-care costs as a whole. Paying for abortion care is
very cost-effective compared to unwanted birth. The social costs of
raising unwanted children are prohibitive, since they are at higher risk
for life dysfunction, including abuse and poverty. Complications from
safe and legal abortion are extremely low, especially in Canada -- in
the range of 1-2 per cent and mostly minor. If abortion was defunded in
Canada, complications would increase because many low-income women would
end up having a delayed abortion (medical risk increases with
gestational age), or resort to unsafe clandestine abortion.
2. "There is a severe shortage of family doctors, nurses, and
funding for elder care and for treatment of autistic children across
Canada. Real medical needs are being ignored, patient wait times are
outrageously long, and funding for cancer research has been cut."
This is a red herring argument. Other problems in the health-care
system have nothing do with whether certain procedures like abortion
should be funded. The cited issues will not be solved by defunding
3. "Abortion is an elective procedure that is not medically necessary. Our tax dollars should not subsidize life-style choices."
All abortions have already been deemed medically necessary by every
province and territory, which means the procedure must be funded under
the Canada Health Act, both in hospitals and private clinics.
The term "medically necessary" has been broadly defined to mean a "medical service that is essential to the health and medical treatment of an individual.
This must include all abortions because every pregnancy poses some
medical risks, even when the woman and her fetus are healthy. Further,
the World Health Organization's definition of health also covers mental
health. Women who can't obtain an abortion are at high risk of suffering
negative psycho-social consequences
Lack of funding increases the chance that women won't be able to get a
legal abortion and as a result, suffer ill health due to unwanted
pregnancy or unsafe abortion.
Anti-choicers say that provincial governments have the exclusive
right to decide whether to defund a particular service, and while that
is technically true, it doesn't really apply to abortion. Provinces
cannot simply defund all
abortions, since even some
anti-choicers will concede that a few are medically necessary to save
the woman's life or in cases of rape and incest. Provinces must rely on
the medical profession to help them define which abortions are necessary
and which are supposedly not, but medical groups have refused to go
along with this because they say all abortions are medically necessary
(such as in Alberta in 1995). In any case, it's not up to doctors to
decide on the medical necessity of abortion -- women have a right to
abortion on request without having to state a reason.
Even if a naïve anti-choice provincial Health Minister tried to
defund all abortions without the input of medical groups, it's extremely
unlikely he or she would be successful. The media and the women's
movement would have a heyday attacking such a dangerous and
discriminatory policy, and the Health Minister probably wouldn't last
long in his or her position. More importantly, defunding abortion would
be unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny. When Saskatchewan
citizens voted to defund abortion in a 1991 referendum, the government
shelved it after its lawyers advised that defunding abortion would
probably not survive a Charter challenge, as it would discriminate on
the basis of sex. That's because only women get pregnant and only women
need abortions. In addition, several court decisions have required
provinces to fund abortions at clinics as well as hospitals, and legal
expert Joanna Erdman has argued that abortion funding is protected under
the Charter's gender equality guarantee.
Describing abortion as a "lifestyle choice" is derogatory to women.
However, it could be said that a woman's decision to have a baby is not
medically required -- she gets pregnant and has a baby because she wants
to. But it's not a woman's reason for her decision that's at issue,
it's the outcome. Childbirth and abortion must both be fully funded
because women's reproductive capacity is integral to society, and the
government cannot make childbearing decisions for women because they are
Reproductive health care is health care. When anti-choicers say abortion should be defunded based on the idiotic claim that "pregnancy is not a disease,
" they should be consistent and also oppose funding for pre-natal care and childbirth.
4. "Over 96 per cent of abortions are performed for convenience as a back-up birth control method."
In contrast to this sexist and insulting falsehood, a woman's
decision to have an abortion is a very serious one that is not taken
lightly. Women are responsible moral agents who can be trusted to make
the best decision for themselves and their families, according to their
own unique circumstances that no one else can judge. Further, most
Canadian women use contraception
although much could be done to improve access to the most effective
methods. Unintended pregnancy can happen to anyone despite best efforts,
because no birth control is 100 per cent effective and people are human
and make mistakes. Abortion must be there as a safety net.
5. "The 100,000+ children aborted annually would pay at least
$500 million dollars in income taxes alone after their first year of
employment. This lost tax revenue would help keep dying government
programs afloat like Medicare, Old Age Security, and Canada Pension
Women are not brood mares for the state. They cannot be conscripted
to produce babies for economic or other reasons. Unfortunately for
anti-choicers, Canadian women were declared persons in 1929, and gained
equality rights and other constitutional rights under the Charter in the
1980s. The age of reproductive slavery that anti-choicers yearn for is
never coming back.
The lament for the "100,000+ children aborted annually" makes plain
the real goal behind their duplicitous "Defund Abortion" campaign -- to
stop all abortions. But that's nothing more than cruel ignorance. If
abortion was ever banned in Canada, women would still be having 100,000
abortions a year, only they'd be doing it clandestinely and unsafely.
Those abortions wouldn't be reported or tracked, just swept silently
under the rug along with women's misery, fear, suffering and deaths.
Sadly, punishing women for having sex
does seem to be what the anti-choice movement is really about.