Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[bloodyminded]

My post, my comments, are in direct response to comments that have been made in this thread, both about the abortion situation in Canada and in the United States and reference to the Tea Party. If there is a "fuss" being made in Canada, people in this thread sure don't seem to be aware of it and it doesn't seem to be an issue in Canada. Perhaps you can point out where the government is doing something/anything to make the reality live up to the stance or to change the stance? Right now it seems to be as August said -- an issue no one wants to acknowledge or touch. excerpts:

I acknowledged it, while explaining how you (wilfully) misread my remark; even as you keep saying I don't want to acknowledge it. This is a bizarre debate.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Molly]

My post, my comments, are in direct response to comments that have been made in this thread, both about the abortion situation in Canada and in the United States ........it is and it's not Canada's "stance" as such, but Canada's reluctance to define anything, a reluctance to deal with it head on. A reluctance to make it an issue.

I have no idea what you are on about either. I can see neither direction nor point in your comments.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no idea what you are on about either. I can see neither direction nor point in your comments.

My point is that the pro-choicers seems to be content with the status quo, and it makes no sense to me. My point is that in not wanting legislation in spite of the reality, it appears as if you don't want to rock the boat. But it's obvious to me that you are in need of legislation, or a change in legislation, if the reality is to live up to the stance. Seems to me as if you are content with the stance, while I see a big problem in the reality for women seeking an abortion. So where is the fuss about that? Am I missing it? Because I don't see it. I'm seeing that it isn't an issue. That's the point of my comments.

[Guest American Woman]

I acknowledged it, while explaining how you (wilfully) misread my remark; even as you keep saying I don't want to acknowledge it. This is a bizarre debate.

No. I didn't willfully misread your remark. I found it bizarre that you were remarking on the stance, as if that's somehow admirable, in spite of the reality, so I thought you had to have been referring to/implying more. Sort of like it's the "stance" of the U.S. is to promote democracy, and I've seen your (very strong) reaction to that.

But so you acknowledged it. Wow. Acknowledging and raising a fuss about it are two very different things. Hence my comments.

Edited April 24, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

No. I didn't willfully misread your remark. I found it bizarre that you were remarking on the stance, as if that's somehow admirable, in spite of the reality, so I thought you had to have been referring to/implying more. Sort of like it's the "stance" of the U.S. is to promote democracy, and I've seen your (very strong) reaction to that.

It's a bad example, because the U.S. "stance" to promote democracy is an active assertion by each successive administration which (they claim) is part of their policy drive...and it's not crystal clear that it isn't absolute bullshit.

The Canadian government is making no debatable claims about where it stands on abortion.

But so you acknowledged it. Wow. Acknowledging and raising a fuss about it are two very different things. Hence my comments.

There are a lot of things I acknowledge without "making a fuss about." I daresay you're in the same position, as is everybody else.

[Guest American Woman]

It's a bad example, because the U.S. "stance" to promote democracy is an active assertion by each successive administration which (they claim) is part of their policy drive...and it's not crystal clear that it isn't absolute bullshit.

Of course it's a bad example, because the U.S. actually speaks of it's stance. To remain quiet makes it so much better.

The Canadian government is making no debatable claims about where it stands on abortion.

Ummmm. Here's what you said: You have perfectly summed up why Canada's abortion stance remains, arguably, the best in the world.

Canada's actions, to anyone who can see the reality, are just as debatable in regards to the stance as the U.S.'s actions are in the example I gave. You think not making any claims about it changes anything? Makes it somehow "different?" It doesn't change the reality one bit. Keeping quiet about it doesn't make it any better.

There are a lot of things I acknowledge without "making a fuss about." I daresay you're in the same position, as is everybody else.

My comments were in regards to other comments. You asked for clarification, I gave it. You always seem to come back with 'you do this or that regarding other issues too!' when I'm referring to a specific topic. My comments have clearly been in regards to people not making a fuss about this issue, you claim people are, and when I point out that I'm not seeing it, you come back with 'you con't make a fuss about everything either,' basically confirming my observation.

But ok.

Edited April 24, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Of course it's a bad example, because the U.S. actually speaks of it's stance. To remain quiet makes it so much better.

But this assumes that the "stance" is real, or meaningful. That America is all about "spreading democracy" is a conventional piety, but that doesn't make it genuine.

Ummmm. Here's what you said: You have perfectly summed up why Canada's abortion stance remains, arguably, the best in the world.

Canada's actions, to anyone who can see the reality, are just as debatable in regards to the stance as the U.S.'s actions are in the example I gave. You think not making any claims about it changes anything? Makes it somehow "different?" It doesn't change the reality one bit.

Again: the Canadian government makes no claims whatsoever about Canada's "stance"; as you yourself point out, it doesn't even really address the practical issues (which, incidentally, are being as overblown here as are reports of how America's healthcare system is "killing" so many people because of greed; real problems are exaggerated into monumental issues that defy lived reality). This is quite different from American politicians regularly claiming "democracy" as the purpose for their actions.

(And if you object to the fact of a Canadian/American comparison, rest assured that I don't find the comparison especially helpful to this discussion; but you brought it up.)

My comments were in regards to other comments. You asked for clarification, I gave it. You always seem to come back with 'you do this or that regarding other issues too!' when I'm referring to a specific topic.

When you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are currently doing, why wouldn't I bring it up?

My comments have clearly been in regards to people not making a fuss about this issue, you claim people are, and when I point out that I'm not seeing it, you come back with 'you con't make a fuss about everything either,' basically confirming my observation.

But ok.

You're altering our very discussion to suit your conclusion. You pointed out that I am not making a fuss about it, AW. You pointed this directly at me, not to "people" in some vague way. You omit this part of the discussion, even though it is precisely germane to why I responded about what you do (or rather don't do).

Again, you said I am not making a fuss about it; I agree completely; there are lots of things I don't make a fuss about; and this differentiates me from you...how again?

It would appear your observations are a priori "confirmed," no matter what anybody says.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

But this assumes that the "stance" is real, or meaningful. That America is all about "spreading democracy" is a conventional piety, but that doesn't make it genuine.

And having the stance doesn't assume that it's real or genuine? As one acknowledges admiration for said stance? So Canada just accepts admiration for a stance that isn't real or genuine? You've lost me. But then, I've noticed that things are "different" depending on if they're being applied to the U.S. or Canada.

Again: the Canadian government makes no claims whatsoever about Canada's "stance"; as you yourself point out, it doesn't even really address the practical issues (which, incidentally, are being as overblown here as are reports of how America's healthcare system is "killing" so many people because of greed; real problems are exaggerated into monumental issues that defy lived reality). This is quite different from American politicians regularly claiming "democracy" as the purpose for their actions.

If the Canadian government makes no claims regarding Canada's stance, I find your remark even more bizarre. I also find the apparent acceptance of it's avoidance of taking a stance even more difficult to understand. It's as August said, which has been my point all along.

(And if you object to the fact of a Canadian/American comparison, rest assured that I don't find the comparison especially helpful to this discussion; but you brought it up.)

Of course you don't.

When you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are currently doing, why wouldn't I bring it up?

Huh?? Where am I claiming that a fuss is being made as I'm not making a fuss about said issue; especially as I'm singing praises for the "stance?" I made a comment based on my observations, you asked for clarification, and I gave it. I never "accused" you of anything until you brought yourself into the fray. I was oringially speaking in generalities, and my observations stand.

You're altering our very discussion to suit your conclusion.

I'm not "altering" anything and my "conclusion" is based on the "very discussion" in this thread.

You pointed out that I am not making a fuss about it, AW. You pointed this directly at me, not to "people" in some vague way. You omit this part of the discussion, even though it is precisely germane to why I responded about what you do (or rather don't do).

I pointed out that you aren't making a fuss about it in response to you; what you had to say about my observations. Go back and check it out.

Again, you said I am not making a fuss about it; I agree completely; there are lots of things I don't make a fuss about; and this differentiates me from you...how again?

Good grief. You claimed people are making a fuss about it, and you directed that comment at me, I said I don't see it in response, and that includes you, and now you won't let it go.

It would appear your observations are a priori "confirmed," no matter what anybody says.

Whatever.

Edited April 24, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Of course you don't.

I sense a note of mockery here. Are you implying that I did bring up the comparison?

Because I didn't. You did.

Whatever.

Whatever indeed.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

many pregnant women in Canada do not have access to an abortion clinic because these clinics, and Canada's health system, are state-financed.

Actually, that's only half-true. State insurance pays for medical abortions, but the clinics are private not-for-profits most of the time. So yeah, I guess it's state-financed but not in the sense that the state provides the service. What the state finances is your medical insurance. The clinics themselves are not run by the state. They are private.

The problem in PEI is that there are no Morgentaler Clinics, so women need to go to NS or NB, but PEI will finance the abortion. The irony is that NB is the only province that simply refuses to fund abortions through medicaid. Women here, against the decisions by the supreme court, are required to pay out of pocket $700 or more if they find themselves in the situation. Many people can't afford to drop $700 on a dime. So the access to care is limited in NB precisely because it's not state-financed. But the fact is, services must be accessible and universal according to the Canada Health Act. New Brunswick is breaking the law. Their insurance scheme must pay for the same services that every other province pays for. When a woman from PEI comes to NB to have an abortion, PEI's medicare pays for it. When a woman from NB goes to an abortion clinic in NB, she pays out of pocket.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The problem in PEI is that there are no Morgentaler Clinics, so women need to go to NS or NB, but PEI will finance the abortion. The irony is that NB is the only province that simply refuses to fund abortions through medicaid.

What is a Morgentaler Clinic? Is that a euphemism for an abortion clinic, or some other specialized context?

What exactly are "abortion rights" in Canada...can anybody point to them explicitly, regardless of the reality for access and services?

[bloodyminded]

What is a Morgentaler Clinic? Is that a euphemism for an abortion clinic, or some other specialized context?

Morgentaler is a famous abortion doctor who has continuously lobbied for better access to abortion services, no-cost abortions for women, and so on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Morgentaler is a famous abortion doctor who has continuously lobbied for better access to abortion services, no-cost abortions for women, and so on.

Thanks...but we know about Morgantaler's epic struggles in the courts. I am more curious about this use of the label for an abortion clinic. Very interesting....in a Chomsky way.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Thanks...but we know about Morgantaler's epic struggles in the courts. I am more curious about this use of the label for an abortion clinic. Very interesting....in a Chomsky way.

Ah. Well, I believe he meant, literally, a "Morgentaler clinic," rather than using the man's name like "Kleenex." But maybe I'm wrong.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

A progressive blogger that I check in on regularly at election time - Dr. Dawg, has a good post up reminding us of Harper's theocracy clowns like Ken Epps (the attempted bill C-484), and asks the pertinent question for all non-Conservatives: will a Harper majority government have to start throwing some bones to their religious right foot soldiers to keep them happy and well motivated Conservative ground troops? There are a lot of dedicated anti-abortionists in Parliament, and they have to keep their people happy if they get their majority!

After winning his minority in the 2008 election, Harper hastened to reassure the country: the abortion debate, he said would not be re-opened by his government.

“Throughout his political career, the prime minister has been clear on this issue,” Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister, told the National Post. “We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion.”

But this weasel-wording doesn’t—and didn’t—prevent a Conservative from introducing a private member’s bill to accomplish similar aims.

Bill C-484 was supported by all but four of the ruling Conservatives (and enough Liberals to get the thing through second reading)

.

[Topaz]

Since Harper wouldn't come and say what he feels about abortion, I went and search on the net and I went into his church. Harper belongs to the Alliance Church of North American, created in the US. They believe that Jesus will return in a apocalypse, they don't believe in women being ordain, strongly opposes abortion, divorce and condemns homosexuality as one of the base of sins and believe those aren't born again are "lost". They are also against stem-cell research, euthanasia and the use of marijuana. So , I can see why Harper isn't open to talk about his views on the up topics. How important to you think a PM should be open?

[RNG]

Since Harper wouldn't come and say what he feels about abortion, I went and search on the net and I went into his church. Harper belongs to the Alliance Church of North American, created in the US. They believe that Jesus will return in a apocalypse, they don't believe in women being ordain, strongly opposes abortion, divorce and condemns homosexuality as one of the base of sins and believe those aren't born again are "lost". They are also against stem-cell research, euthanasia and the use of marijuana. So , I can see why Harper isn't open to talk about his views on the up topics. How important to you think a PM should be open?

As long as we maintain the church/state separation, I see no problem. I don't think there have been any examples of Harper's beliefs affecting his legislation. And I'm still waiting for his black-shirted armed henchmen to be wandering the streets.

I strongly disagree with his tough on crime stuff, but that isn't religion inspired, IMHO.

Edited April 24, 2011 by RNG

[cybercoma]

Thanks...but we know about Morgantaler's epic struggles in the courts. I am more curious about this use of the label for an abortion clinic. Very interesting....in a Chomsky way.

Abortion clinics are usually non-profit Morgentaler Clinics. It wasn't a euphemism or creative writing. That's what they're called.

[bush_cheney2004]

Abortion clinics are usually non-profit Morgentaler Clinics. It wasn't a euphemism or creative writing. That's what they're called.

OK...thanks. So do these Morgentaler Clinics own the abortion market? If my niece in Monkton gets knocked up, does she have any other in-province option from her regular health care provider?

http://www.morgentaler.ca/

[cybercoma]

OK...thanks. So do these Morgentaler Clinics own the abortion market? If my niece in Monkton gets knocked up, does she have any other in-province option from her regular health care provider?

http://www.morgentaler.ca/

I'm really not sure to be honest with you. I know some hospitals do them in other parts of Canada, but the issue is all messed up in NB because the government doesn't provide universal access to services like they're supposed to. It's tied up in the courts right now.

[Mr.Canada]

Abortion clinics are usually non-profit Morgentaler Clinics. It wasn't a euphemism or creative writing. That's what they're called.

So the left is against privately delivered health care except when it pertains to private abortion clinics?

[Smallc]

So the left is against privately delivered health care except when it pertains to private abortion clinics?

[Mr.Canada]

Whats the problem? Many abortion clinics are privately owned yet publicly funded. The left is constantly railing against the conservatives for proposing private delivery of some health care services in Canada. However many abortion clinics are just that. privately delivered health care services paid for by the taxpayer. How do they explain this hypocrisy?

Edited April 24, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

So the left is against privately delivered health care except when it pertains to private abortion clinics?

All health care is privately delivered in Canada. Doctors, nurses, etc. are not employees of the state. In fact, one might argue doctors are entrepreneurs of sort. They're paid for they charge the state-insurer for the services they offer. However, the state-insurer determines what it will pay for the services. Drs., though, could theoretically not charge the state-insurer for services and charge the patients directly. However, they're not at all able to collect from the medicare if they do that. You either choose all medicare funding or all private funding. A few hospitals are publically owned, but the vast majority of them are run by non-profit groups. So, what's public in Canada is healthcare insurance. The delivery is mostly private.

[RNG]

All health care is privately delivered in Canada. Doctors, nurses, etc. are not employees of the state. In fact, one might argue doctors are entrepreneurs of sort. They're paid for they charge the state-insurer for the services they offer. However, the state-insurer determines what it will pay for the services. Drs., though, could theoretically not charge the state-insurer for services and charge the patients directly. However, they're not at all able to collect from the medicare if they do that. You either choose all medicare funding or all private funding. A few hospitals are publically owned, but the vast majority of them are run by non-profit groups. So, what's public in Canada is healthcare insurance. The delivery is mostly private.

Where do you live? In Albera, doctors get a paycheque from the Alberta government. Nurses get a paycheque from the Alberta government. Mrs. RNG worked at a cancer center as a dietitian and got a paycheque from the provincial government. Her pension is from the Alberta government. This is private?