Every Child A Wanted Child
We marched under the banner of "Every child a wanted child", believing that the world was already littered with more than enough embittered women and throw-away children. That back-streeet abortions had already taken too many lives. This was well over two decades ago; a coalition of women's groups comprised of women from every walk of life. From professional cadres of 'liberated' women to high-profile public figures to ordinary housewives like me, we attended briefing sessions, discussion forums, and made our plans.
From the placard-carrying march to the hiving off into small groups of determined and informed women, we were assigned various members of Parliament who had agreed beforehand to entertain us and our message in their various offices on the Hill. They listened, made their comments, some agreeing, others disagreeing, but all courteous and doing their jobs as professional politicians listening to the concerns of a certain segment of the electorate.
Later we adjourned to a meeting room to air perceptions of how the meetings had gone, and what we felt we had accomplished. Among others, Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, whose courageous determination to serve the women of Canada and for his troubles just recently released from incarceration in a Montreal prison, addressed us and spoke with us one on one. A tired, courtly man whose life experiences in enduring the unendurable surpassed those of most individuals.
A Holocaust survivor himself, and a medical professional to the core with a mission to serve the needs of society's ignored 50% of the population who from time immemorial had to fight for their right to determine whether or not they felt it to be in their best interest, physically, socially and psychologically, to give birth, he was often accused by his detractors of leading a 'holocaust' against the unborn.
Now, in Canada, the general consensus is that it is the legal and moral right of women to be responsible for their decisions whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy to completion. Under the Canada Health Act access to abortion is considered to be a required medical service. The 1988 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to uphold women's rights to abortions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms secured for women guaranteed access to such services.
But we've got a mixed bag of lack of opportunities in this country, with some provinces providing the needed services while others balk at doing so, finding ways to raise barriers and impediments to access, while at the same time the 'right to life' contingent is still determined to deny access to abortion, labelling it outright murder on a grand scale, aided and abetted by some members of the medical community whose religious convictions place them squarely among the abortion-deniers.
The majority of Canadians agree in principle that women should be offered safe medical access to this procedure. Polling of attitudes among Canadians illustrate that there has been a slight increase in support for abortion on demand (from 36% in 1988 to 41% in 2000) and for abortion in certain circumstances (39% to 41%) along with a slight decrease for abortion only in the most extreme circumstances (23% in 1988 and 17% in 2000).
In the years since abortion was decriminalized in Canada, the debate has been waged through the auspices of extreme opinion on each side. The Canadian health care system is based on principles of fairness, transparency, accountability and accessibility, and this is construed as equality of access throughout the country, in principle. Nothing could be further from the truth. In some provinces, particularly those in the Maritimes, access to safe and legal abortion is difficult to obtain.
In New Brunswick, for example, only two hospitals throughout the province offer abortion services which can only be provided by surgeons after a woman has undergone an assessment and a committee comprised of the family doctor plus a gynaecologist provide agreement in writing that the abortion is considered a medical necessity. The hospitals providing the services cannot keep up with the demand, necessitating women who desperately seek abortions go elsewhere.
The services of free-standing clinics such as Dr. Morgenthaler's are not considered to be 'hospitals' under provincial legislation, so abortions conducted in those clinics are not paid for out of the province's health care plan. Which means that women of modest means are faced with an invoice of $600 to pay for the procedure, while women fortunate enough to be able to admitted to one of the two hospitals in the province have the procedure paid for.
Federally, the practise of hospitals using therapeutic abortion committees to vet women and permit the procedure to proceed was turned over when the Supreme Court considered a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over the inconsistent availability of abortion, in 1988. Abortion is covered now by general law, covering consent to be treated.
Unfortunately, the reaction to abortion is complicated by the fact it's a procedure rooted in religious, moral and ethical judgement.
We're a truly hypocritical society. While the majority of Canadians agree that women should have legal access to safe abortions under the Canada Health Act, access that should be available as required wherever one lives in Canada, that just is not what is happening. This is a legally sanctioned, medically indicated service, and people are not receiving the access they need.
Only a month ago advocates for access to abortion services released a report indicating that such procedures were less accessible in Canada than even three years earlier. The study found that only 15.9% of Canadian hospitals provide abortion services, a reduction from 17.8%, in itself a figure demonstrating amply that women are unfairly under-served in a needed medical procedure.
Canadians and our legal system need to force an acknowledgement that equal access to needed medical procedures simply is being denied women, that there's a huge disconnect between the apprehension of accessibility and the reality of denial.
From the placard-carrying march to the hiving off into small groups of determined and informed women, we were assigned various members of Parliament who had agreed beforehand to entertain us and our message in their various offices on the Hill. They listened, made their comments, some agreeing, others disagreeing, but all courteous and doing their jobs as professional politicians listening to the concerns of a certain segment of the electorate.
Later we adjourned to a meeting room to air perceptions of how the meetings had gone, and what we felt we had accomplished. Among others, Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, whose courageous determination to serve the women of Canada and for his troubles just recently released from incarceration in a Montreal prison, addressed us and spoke with us one on one. A tired, courtly man whose life experiences in enduring the unendurable surpassed those of most individuals.
A Holocaust survivor himself, and a medical professional to the core with a mission to serve the needs of society's ignored 50% of the population who from time immemorial had to fight for their right to determine whether or not they felt it to be in their best interest, physically, socially and psychologically, to give birth, he was often accused by his detractors of leading a 'holocaust' against the unborn.
Now, in Canada, the general consensus is that it is the legal and moral right of women to be responsible for their decisions whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy to completion. Under the Canada Health Act access to abortion is considered to be a required medical service. The 1988 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to uphold women's rights to abortions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms secured for women guaranteed access to such services.
But we've got a mixed bag of lack of opportunities in this country, with some provinces providing the needed services while others balk at doing so, finding ways to raise barriers and impediments to access, while at the same time the 'right to life' contingent is still determined to deny access to abortion, labelling it outright murder on a grand scale, aided and abetted by some members of the medical community whose religious convictions place them squarely among the abortion-deniers.
The majority of Canadians agree in principle that women should be offered safe medical access to this procedure. Polling of attitudes among Canadians illustrate that there has been a slight increase in support for abortion on demand (from 36% in 1988 to 41% in 2000) and for abortion in certain circumstances (39% to 41%) along with a slight decrease for abortion only in the most extreme circumstances (23% in 1988 and 17% in 2000).
In the years since abortion was decriminalized in Canada, the debate has been waged through the auspices of extreme opinion on each side. The Canadian health care system is based on principles of fairness, transparency, accountability and accessibility, and this is construed as equality of access throughout the country, in principle. Nothing could be further from the truth. In some provinces, particularly those in the Maritimes, access to safe and legal abortion is difficult to obtain.
In New Brunswick, for example, only two hospitals throughout the province offer abortion services which can only be provided by surgeons after a woman has undergone an assessment and a committee comprised of the family doctor plus a gynaecologist provide agreement in writing that the abortion is considered a medical necessity. The hospitals providing the services cannot keep up with the demand, necessitating women who desperately seek abortions go elsewhere.
The services of free-standing clinics such as Dr. Morgenthaler's are not considered to be 'hospitals' under provincial legislation, so abortions conducted in those clinics are not paid for out of the province's health care plan. Which means that women of modest means are faced with an invoice of $600 to pay for the procedure, while women fortunate enough to be able to admitted to one of the two hospitals in the province have the procedure paid for.
Federally, the practise of hospitals using therapeutic abortion committees to vet women and permit the procedure to proceed was turned over when the Supreme Court considered a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over the inconsistent availability of abortion, in 1988. Abortion is covered now by general law, covering consent to be treated.
Unfortunately, the reaction to abortion is complicated by the fact it's a procedure rooted in religious, moral and ethical judgement.
We're a truly hypocritical society. While the majority of Canadians agree that women should have legal access to safe abortions under the Canada Health Act, access that should be available as required wherever one lives in Canada, that just is not what is happening. This is a legally sanctioned, medically indicated service, and people are not receiving the access they need.
Only a month ago advocates for access to abortion services released a report indicating that such procedures were less accessible in Canada than even three years earlier. The study found that only 15.9% of Canadian hospitals provide abortion services, a reduction from 17.8%, in itself a figure demonstrating amply that women are unfairly under-served in a needed medical procedure.
Canadians and our legal system need to force an acknowledgement that equal access to needed medical procedures simply is being denied women, that there's a huge disconnect between the apprehension of accessibility and the reality of denial.
posted by Pieface | 12:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home