Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[scribblet]

You want to roll back changes, get us back to the days woman couldn't get out without a man without being morally accused of something? S

Exactly where did I say I want to roll back changes? Please don't impute words to me, that I never said and don't make assumptions based on your lack of knowledge.

Edited April 29, 2010 by scriblett

[Argus]

Could it be that Canadian electors (majority of them) treat it as it is, i.e. a matter of personal choice, on which everybody can have their own private opinion but is a bad taste to advise to others, especially if advice is unasked for?

I'm afraid you don't get to declare an issue settled and non-controversial simply because it's settled for YOU. The fact substantial numbers of Canadians actively dissaprove of abortion makes it controversial. And just because you think such people should all be in re-education camps or gulags somewhere doesn't change that fact.

I already explained that reproductive freedom is a fundamental human right and in some circumstances abortion could be one of the few means available to uphold it.

The United Nations appears to rather clearly dissagree with you. It seems to be relegating abortion to a very low level of importance in terms of maternal health, and it is in that context Harper is operating. The fact the Liberals, needing a wedge issue, immediately demanded that the government start funding abortions in Africa is something only important to fanatics.

[scribblet]

Are you really this gullible? Ignatieff has been desperately trying to re-open the abortion debate since he became leader of the Liberal Party. His raising this as an issue last year was as obvious and crass an effort at appealing to wedge voters as Harper suddenly discovering "maternal health". Now he's trying to do it again with this foreign maternal health nonsense. It's not being done because he gives a damn about maternal health or abortion. It's being done because the Liberals see it as a way to paint the Tories as anti-female in some eyes, and because they are elbowing the NDP for support among the Left.

Exactly!

This initiative has the potention to benefit millions, yet the opposition is attempting to deflect that fact turning into a non issue of abortion rights. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[bloodyminded]

You really are "pro choice" aren't ya? Calling someone a "killer" for exercising their personal freedom (and without slightest rational reason for that too)?

Actually, almost nobody thinks of abortion as murder--although they're pretty promiscuous with the term.

The only people who perhaps genuinely believe it are the killers of abortion providers.

Imagine: what if you were fully, 100% aware that hundreds of thousands of children were being murdered every year, and that it was legal to do so? Your moral responsibility is to put a stop to this by any means possible...and the ballot box is not working.

So anyone who calls abortion "murder" is complicit by their tacit acquiescence.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

I doubt that they were testing anything, maybe they just feel that the money, repulsive as it may be, might be better spent on medical care and nutrition, (you know – actual food ) medical training, sanitation and drug supplies rather than fund abortions, or maybe that’s better than a well fed child. Surely with medical care, contraceptives and family planning education, the need for abortions will be less.

The women we are talking about don’t care about the ‘right to choose’ Or various nuanced concerns or what someone elses’s ideology says about their health, they are not western women having numerous options to consider, I kind of think that their main concern is food and medical aid. The U.S. has no reason to be outraged as they avoid funding abortions at home so cannot repudiate us for not wanting to abort as many third-world kids as possible. The optics aren’t good on that one.

I’d also bet that even though western women want pro choice for themselves, do you think that Canadians actually believe that abortions for these poverty stricken women are some how going to magically cure their problems !! I’d bet that clean drinking water, basic food and medical care would be what most of us envision as helping these women.

Yes, it takes 100 arrows to slay the dragon. That doesn't mean any one of them is unnecessary. We should be funding everything that will help, including abortion when required.

[scribblet]

So anyone who calls abortion "murder" is complicit by their tacit acquiescence.

El Toro Poo Poo better known as B.ll s.it

[bloodyminded]

[/u]9 April 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1272563888' post='535665']

El Toro Poo Poo better known as B.ll s.it

Unfortunately, it's a fact. We're not talking about arguable distinctions in political philosophy, which gets self-named "conservatives" and "liberals" at one another's throats.

We're talking--by the standards of those making the accusation--about hundreds of thousands of children murdered each year, in a conspiracy between mothers and doctors, while the government stands idly by and does nothing.

So no, scarcely anyone at all truly thinks it's murder. (I certainly don't...just like everybody else doesn't.)

They just scream their sanctimonious rhetoric into the indifferent blue sky.

Edited April 29, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Muddy]

I don`t get it! Why are we expected to shape abortion laws in other countries and finance them? If we want to take up a cause for women ,why are we not fighting forced marriage and female circumciseon? Why are we not fighting for womens rights to get educated? To go walk about without a male family member? Lets free women from being mere chattel first! To me this is but cheap election gimmick. Shame on those who use women that have no choices at all.

[scribblet]

There certainly are better causes, but this whole thing is a contrived issue started by Ignatieff because the wanted a wedge issue using anti-Americanism as the fuel.

remember this provocative statement:

“advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States.”

It's working but not enough to change any numbers or votes, and, the policy could still be changed, meanwhile poor, starving women and children seem to be left behind.

[Politeman]

a

Edited April 30, 2010 by Politeman

[Politeman]

a

Edited April 30, 2010 by Politeman

[Politeman]

I agree with what you say about Clinton. Her comments are typical. Dealing with unwanted pregnancies in Canada and around the world continues without any compromises between the two main forces of pro-life and pro-choice. Like all health issues our health-care money is being spent after the fact. Time and money is needed to increase education and awareness for responsible family planning. Prevention!! The men that father unwanted babies are not held responsible for the abortion costs. Should our money pay for abortions in some countries because the fetus is a girl?

[myata]

I don`t get it! Why are we expected to shape abortion laws in other countries and finance them?

But no, we don't. Only use the standards and policies constistent with our own laws and practices here. Why would we want to do something different in Africa than the law of our own land?

Only because the folks who find themselves in the government these days silently despise and hate these laws, these freedoms, and yet can do nothing about it, they choose to kick it where they still can i.e. abroad.

I can't see another logical explanation. Yes it's that old-suspected hidden agenda finally coming out into the open.

Edited May 2, 2010 by myata

[Molly]

I don`t get it! Why are we expected to shape abortion laws in other countries and finance them?

We aren't, nor are we expected to break or adjust either our own laws, or the laws of the nations we assist. We are expected to reasonably acknowledge that an 11-year-old rape victim (for instance) shouldn't become the victim of the posturing of Canadian politicians.

[Argus]

We aren't, nor are we expected to break or adjust either our own laws, or the laws of the nations we assist. We are expected to reasonably acknowledge that an 11-year-old rape victim (for instance) shouldn't become the victim of the posturing of Canadian politicians.

If our government wants to help people in third world countries but doesn't want to get wrapped up in controversy for funding abortions when many, many Canadians don't approve of that then I see nothing wrong with them funding something else and letting those nations which don't care about abortion supply the funding for that.

[nicky10013]

We aren't, nor are we expected to break or adjust either our own laws, or the laws of the nations we assist. We are expected to reasonably acknowledge that an 11-year-old rape victim (for instance) shouldn't become the victim of the posturing of Canadian politicians.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Moonlight Graham]

We aren't, nor are we expected to break or adjust either our own laws, or the laws of the nations we assist. We are expected to reasonably acknowledge that an 11-year-old rape victim (for instance) shouldn't become the victim of the posturing of Canadian politicians.

I agree also with this. We should be more concerned with maternal health than with ideological/political posturing. If a mother is going to die if she does not have an abortion, i don't see a problem with abortions in that case. Rape is a bit trickier, but something that must be seriously looked at as it is rampant in many developing countries.

Sticky issue, but the CPC are showing their true colours.

[Bonam]

Personally I'd rather Canada wasn't meddling with the third world in this way at all. Not abortion, not maternal healthcare or anything else. We have plenty of things that could use funding right back here at home. If some Canadians feel that certain causes in the third world are worthy of receiving their money, there are plenty of charities which they can donate too. But this forced charity where taxpayer's money is thrown into black holes in the third world where most of it will no doubt be misused is a mistake.

[myata]

Personally I'd rather Canada wasn't meddling with the third world in this way at all. Not abortion, not maternal healthcare or anything else. We have plenty of things that could use funding right back here at home. If some Canadians feel that certain causes in the third world are worthy of receiving their money, there are plenty of charities which they can donate too.

And that would be an honest position. What is incredible and hypocritical is our government's push to get itself into the list of do-gooders of the world, while quietly setting policies based not on rationale or reason, not the laws and practices of our own land, but on their narrow ideological likes and preferences. Making Canada's position appear hypocritical, but indeed showing CPC's true ideological colours.

So much for embracing modern reality and leaving social conservatism behind. No, it didn't go anywhere of course. Just biting its time, deep under the cover.

[DFCaper]

Personally I'd rather Canada wasn't meddling with the third world in this way at all. Not abortion, not maternal healthcare or anything else. We have plenty of things that could use funding right back here at home. If some Canadians feel that certain causes in the third world are worthy of receiving their money, there are plenty of charities which they can donate too. But this forced charity where taxpayer's money is thrown into black holes in the third world where most of it will no doubt be misused is a mistake.

This debate is starting to make this perspective mine... I just think if we can't figure out if some starving people who aren't expected to live into their 30's should have abortions, why bother doing anything for them. We have enough women & children with problems within Canada. The far left wins again...children die...

[Molly]

If our government wants to help people in third world countries but doesn't want to get wrapped up in controversy for funding abortions when many, many Canadians don't approve of that then I see nothing wrong with them funding something else and letting those nations which don't care about abortion supply the funding for that.

I find this line of thought pretty amusing. If I was trying to create maximum controversy, I'd change a policy, turn my back on long-standing precedent, introduce a rule that doesn't quite jive with with any established Canadian law or standard. I'd make sure that policy created an us-and-them double-standard, and that it had moral/religious overtones....

It would take a dolt of the first order to believe that such a recipe would effectively avoid controversy.

[Keepitsimple]

The G8 has at least two countries (in addition to Canada) that are deeply divided over abortion - Germany and the United States. It is not at all clear (yet) that these two countries would support spending Federal Tax Dollars for foreign abortions:

Abortion in the US:

Abortion in the United States has been legal since the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, but the effective availability of abortion varies significantly from state to state. Abortion is one of the most contested issues in U.S. society, law and politics.

The cost of an abortion varies depending on factors such as location, facility, timing, and type of procedure. In 2005, a nonhospital abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation ranged from $90 to $1,800 (average: $430), whereas an abortion at 20 weeks’ gestation ranged from $350 to $4,520 (average: $1,260). Costs are higher for a medical abortion than a first-trimester surgical abortion.

Medicaid

Federal law requires that states cover abortions under Medicaid in the event of rape, incest, and life endangerment, but bans the use of federal Medicaid funds for any other abortions.

Based on these restrictions, 32 states and DC fund abortions through Medicaid only in the cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. SD covers abortions only in the cases of life endangerment, which does not comply with federal requirements under the Hyde Amendment. IN, UT and WI have expanded coverage to women whose physical health is jeopardized, and IA, MS, UT and VA also include fetal abnormality cases.

Seventeen states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA, WV) use their own funds to cover all or most “medically necessary” abortions sought by low-income women under Medicaid.

Private insurance

Five states (ID, KY, MO, ND, OK) restrict insurance coverage of abortion services in private plans: OK limits coverage to life endangerment, rape or incest circumstances; and the other four states limit coverage to cases of life endangerment.

Twelve states (CO, IL, KY, MA, MS, NE, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, VA) restrict abortion coverage in insurance plans for public employees, with CO and KY restricting insurance coverage of abortion under any circumstances.

U.S. laws also ban federal funding of abortions for Federal employees and their dependents, Native Americans covered by the Indian Health Service, military personnel and their dependents, and women with disabilities covered by Medicare.[41]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_united_states

Abortion Law in Germany:

As a result, in 1976, West Germany legalized abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy for reasons of medical necessity, sexual crimes or serious social or emotional distress, if approved by two doctors, and subject to counseling and a three-day waiting period. In 1989, a Bavarian doctor was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and 137 of his patients were fined for failing to meet the certification requirements.

The two laws had to be reconciled after reunification. A new law was passed by the Bundestag in 1992, permitting first-trimester abortions on demand, subject to counselling and a three-day waiting period. The law was quickly challenged in court by a number of individuals - including Chancellor Helmut Kohl - and the State of Bavaria. The Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision a year later maintaining its earlier decision that the constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stated that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester[citation needed], providing that the woman had submitted to state-regulated counselling designed to discourage termination and protect unborn life. Parliament passed such a law in 1995. Abortions are not covered by public health insurance except for women with low income.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

Abortion in Italy:

Abortion in Italy became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were granted the right to terminate a pregnancy on demand during the first 90 days. Although a proposal to repeal the law was considered in a 1981 national referendum, it was rejected by nearly 68% of voters.

Italian women are eligible to request an abortion for health, economic or social reasons, including the circumstances under which conception occurred. Abortions are performed free-of-charge in public hospitals or in private structures authorized by the regional health authorities. The law also allows termination in the second trimester of the pregnancy only in one of the following cases: a) when the life of the woman would be at risk if the pregnancy is carried to term; the fetus carries genetic or other serious malformations which would put the mother at risk of serious psychological or physical consequences. The law states that, unless a state of emergency requires immediate intervention, a period of seven days has to occur between the medical authorization and the effective date of the termination. Although the law only permits pregnancy termination to women at least eighteen years old, it also includes provisions for women younger than eighteen, who can request the intervention of a judge when the legal tutor refuses the intervention, or there are reasons to exclude the legal tutor from the process. The judge has to make a decision within five days of the request.[1]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_italy

Abortion in France:

Abortion is legal on-request in France in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (first trimester). Abortion has been decriminalized since the passage of the Veil Law in 1975. Abortion had been criminalized in France with the imposition of the Napoleonic Code. After the first trimester, two physicians must certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

During the Nazi occupation during World War II, the Vichy régime made abortion a capital crime. (The last execution took place in 1942). Following the war, the death penalty for abortion was abolished, and special courts were set up to deal with abortion cases.

Births, legal abortions, and clandestine abortions in France between 1968 and 2005.Illegal abortion rates remained fairly high during the post-war period, and increasing numbers of women began to travel to the United Kingdom to procure abortions after the UK legalized abortion in 1967. France legalized abortion in 1975, available on demand initially until the tenth week, later extended to the twelfth week of pregnancy on condition that women seeking abortions undergo counselling on alternatives thereto and that a one-week waiting period be observed. After the twelfth week, two physicians must certify that the woman’s health is endangered or the fetus is handicapped; otherwise, abortion is illegal. Since 1994, French law has required that multidisciplinary diagnostic centers decide which birth defects are severe enough to make abortion after the 12 week limit permissible.

France was the first country to legalize the use of RU-486 as an abortifacient in 1988, allowing its use up to seven weeks of pregnancy. By one estimate, a quarter of all French abortions now use RU-486.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

[Argus]

I find this line of thought pretty amusing. If I was trying to create maximum controversy, I'd change a policy, turn my back on long-standing precedent, introduce a rule that doesn't quite jive with with any established Canadian law or standard. I'd make sure that policy created an us-and-them double-standard, and that it had moral/religious overtones....

It would take a dolt of the first order to believe that such a recipe would effectively avoid controversy.

The UN itself avoids dealing with abortion. It's not their main priority in terms of maternal health care so why should it be ours? Further, there was no controversy until Ignatieff began one by focussing on abortion as THE most important aspect of any effort at maternal health care. In fact, to listen to the Liberals, there's no point in even considering doing anything else. Abortion is the only issue here, and nothing else merits funding. Of course, this is a self-serving controversy. As he has no ideas, policies or substantive issues he's been desperately trying to raise abortion as an issue for some time now.

The fact is many Canadians are split pretty much down the middle on funding abortions even in Canada. Only 43% believe we ought to be funding abortions except in emergencies. I would imagine a considerably smaller percentage believe we ought to be funding abortions in other countries.

Edited to add this. 61% of Tories and 40% of Liberals oppose funding abortions abroad.

poll on funding abortions abroad

As much as some of you deluded souls seem to think abortion is a dead issue (no pun intended) and that nobody has any problems with it but a few old cranks that's just not the case.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Argus

[myata]

"Deeply divided" is a pointless distraction. While it's a standing state of affairs in Canada, the policies abroad should be consistent with our own laws. To do otherwise is hypocritical, and of course sheer, ideology driven opportunism.

You want to change it here, in Canada? Bring it on, why hide behide poor Africa?

[Keepitsimple]

"Deeply divided" is a pointless distraction. While it's a standing state of affairs in Canada, the policies abroad should be consistent with our own laws. To do otherwise is hypocritical, and of course sheer, ideology driven opportunism.

You want to change it here, in Canada? Bring it on, why hide behide poor Africa?

You seem to forget that Canada is actually following the will of Parliament (the recent motion that was defeated that tried to include abortion in "Family Planning" for Maternal Healthcare)......or is that only relevant when it comes to Parliamentary motions that go against the government?

Edited May 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple