Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

Smallc · April 24, 2011

Whats the problem? Many abortion clinics are privately owned yet publicly funded.

So are doctors offices. How many people on the 'left' speak out about those.

cybercoma · April 24, 2011

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?

I believe nurses get their paychecks from the hospitals where they work. At least that's the way it works in Ontario and New Brunswick. Doctors get paid by the insurance provider (which is the Alberta government); however, they are self-employed. They are not employees of the state.

Mr.Canada · April 24, 2011

So are doctors offices. How many people on the 'left' speak out about those.

I hope the left remembers that when they rail against privately delivered health care in the future.

Smallc · April 24, 2011

I hope the left remembers that when they rail against privately delivered health care in the future.

There is a great deal of privately delivered healthcare. Under the public system, there's nothing wrong with it.

RNG · April 24, 2011

I believe nurses get their paychecks from the hospitals where they work. At least that's the way it works in Ontario and New Brunswick. Doctors get paid by the insurance provider (which is the Alberta government); however, they are self-employed. They are not employees of the state.

Revenue Canada would disagree with you. They deem anyone who gets over X%, and X varies depending on the economy, from a single source, you are not self employed, you are an employee. This was instituted in the early 70's when even people at the manager level would form Joe Smith Inc. and contract Joe Smith to the company he worked for, thus greatly cutting his tax liability. So the Alberta doctor's incomes are in most cases 100% single sourced. QED.

Edited April 24, 2011 by RNG

Mr.Canada · April 24, 2011

There is a great deal of privately delivered healthcare. Under the public system, there's nothing wrong with it.

Agreed I hope the left remembers that the next time they try to demonize the right for suggesting more services be offered through public-private initiatives.

Tilter · April 24, 2011

I do not understand the furor about private clinics.

Situation--- 10 people need a knee replacement.

5 of those people feel that the waiting time for a new knee is too long and go to a private clinic. The private clinic gets paid as much for each knee as it would have been paid had it been a clinic owned by the government.

This cuts the waiting time in half for the other 5. What's the catch?

Smallc · April 24, 2011

I do not understand the furor about private clinics.

Situation--- 10 people need a knee replacement.

5 of those people feel that the waiting time for a new knee is too long and go to a private clinic. The private clinic gets paid as much for each knee as it would have been paid had it been a clinic owned by the government.

This cuts the waiting time in half for the other 5. What's the catch?

How did you suddenly double the number of available staff? There's nothing wrong with private care in the public system because it doesn't split the resources. A separate system does just that.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Smallc

blueblood · April 24, 2011

How did you suddenly double the number of available staff? There's nothing wrong with private care in the public system because it doesn't split the resources. A separate system does just that.

Your forgetting about the staying potential of med/nursing grads if there is a private option up here. Also the spaces at med/nursing school need to be ramped up as well as making it easier for foreign doctors.

Also that private option provides tax revenue to help fund the public system instead of canadians sending our speedy med dollars south.

Smallc · April 24, 2011

Your forgetting about the staying potential of med/nursing grads if there is a private option up here. Also the spaces at med/nursing school need to be ramped up as well as making it easier for foreign doctors.

I don't agree with making it easier for foreign doctors. I do agree with increasing then umber of spots at schools, something that Manitoba has done. I don't agree with parallel systems.

RNG · April 24, 2011

I do not understand the furor about private clinics.

Situation--- 10 people need a knee replacement.

5 of those people feel that the waiting time for a new knee is too long and go to a private clinic. The private clinic gets paid as much for each knee as it would have been paid had it been a clinic owned by the government.

This cuts the waiting time in half for the other 5. What's the catch?

I agree with you entirely. Single payer, yes. Single provider, why?

But the left and the unions (am I being redundant?) are so against this. They forward a slippery slope argument that has no sense at all, IMO. I think they are just afraid of having their inefficiency displayed if they have to compare to an intelligently publicly funded but privately provided health care system.

Mr.Canada · April 24, 2011

I do not understand the furor about private clinics.

Situation--- 10 people need a knee replacement.

5 of those people feel that the waiting time for a new knee is too long and go to a private clinic. The private clinic gets paid as much for each knee as it would have been paid had it been a clinic owned by the government.

This cuts the waiting time in half for the other 5. What's the catch?

You'll have to ask the Liberals and the socialist NDP. They're the ones who are against them for some reason that isn't clear to the rest of us either.

bloodyminded · April 25, 2011

I hope the left remembers that when they rail against privately delivered health care in the future.

The Left does nothing of the sort. They rail against a privatized health system in which they aren't guaranteed roughly what they get now (at least).

and it's not "the left," anyway; it's the vast and overwhelming majority of Canadians, who feel exactly the same way.

It's only fringe radicals who speak beneficently of a totally privatized health care system.

I've rarely seen such a tiny little minority who believe they're part of majority opinion. It's frankly bizarre.

For the record, I"m with smallc. I have no problem with altering the healthcare landscape. But a parallel system isn't the way to go.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

Battletoads · April 25, 2011

I do not understand the furor about private clinics.

Situation--- 10 people need a knee replacement.

5 of those people feel that the waiting time for a new knee is too long and go to a private clinic. The private clinic gets paid as much for each knee as it would have been paid had it been a clinic owned by the government.

This cuts the waiting time in half for the other 5. What's the catch?

That those 5 people pay far, far more than they would in the public system. If you think otherwise you must be smoking some bad granola. Plus the staff at the private clinic likely would have been leached out of the public system.

August1991 · April 25, 2011

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.

Cybercoma, thanks for that clarification. If I understand properly, NB will pay for abortions conducted in a hospital. (Link.)

Nevertheless, you make AW's basic point above: In Canada, we may say that abortion is unrestricted legally but that doesn't mean it's available:

There's a place in North America where women have to wait for weeks to get an abortion because of lack of funding for nurses, doctors and operating rooms.
This place is not some conservative U.S. state or a remote corner of Canada's far north.

It's Ottawa.

Wait times for abortions in Ottawa stretched to six weeks this summer and are expected to do so again this winter.

G&M 2007

August1991 · April 25, 2011

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

That curious contradiction has been noted before.

Jack Layton,for example, was treated for a hernia in the private Shouldice clinic. Its services are covered by State medical insurance.

The Left does nothing of the sort. They rail against a privatized health system in which they aren't guaranteed roughly what they get now (at least).

The Left generally argues in favour of State-fiannacing and State-provision (delivery) of health services.

"We'll take a strong stand to make more health care delivered publicly, administered publicly and operated in the public interest," Layton told reporters in Ottawa.
Layton said private, for-profit health care has grown due to Liberal "neglect and design,'' and slammed the other parties for supporting the private delivery of some health services.

"On the one hand, there's today's NDP, which stands firmly and proudly for public delivery of health care... And on the other hand, there are the Conservatives, who support private-for-profit delivery of health care, and the liberals, who want the same thing, have said the same thing, and have done the same thing for 10 years."

CTV 2004

icman · April 25, 2011

Politics is a nasty game. To say you respect members of parliament who believe that women should not have control over their reproductive life is just plain wrong. The SCC has already ruled on it and most people I know consider it a fundamental right that women have full control over their bodies, rather than the choice being legislated against. He might as well say he respects the opinion of those that supported the eugenics program in Alberta. It's a disgusting ideological position and doesn't deserve any amount of respect. The government has no business making decisions for women about their bodies.

The issue is not as black and white as your statement makes it out to be. At some point, a fetus is a person. The SCC said that a fetus has no legal status as a person, making the moment of birth the determining moment. That was a lob back at Parliament to make a decision if they wanted to about the legal status of a fetus at whatever point during development, but the Legislature has declined to go there.

But is there a physiological difference between a fetus 2 minutes from birth and one two minutes old still attached via the umbilical cord? Birth is an arbitrary legal definition of when a person becomes a person that has nothing to do with fetal development.

I would suggest that a woman has choices over their body, but perhaps they shouldn't be so cavalier with that choice as to change their mind at the 11th hour.

This issue is so divided, I have yet to find a forum where reasonable discussion can take place about it without it being overridden by terrifying, wild-eyed zealots on both sides.

icman · April 25, 2011

he's not in caucus, there's an election, he may not get elected again either.

Sorry Scriblet. He IS in caucus. Caucus is the group of elected officials belonging to a particular party. I think you are referring to Cabinet, which is the group of Ministers appointed by the PM to run the executive.

There are only 2 ways for Trost to be out of the Conservative caucus... 1)leave the Conservative party (voluntarily or otherwise), or 2) lose his seat.

icman · April 25, 2011

Nobody has a right to any medical procedure. I certainly don't have a right to say a heart transplant. I think we're confusing rights with priviledges. On abortion, I don' think there's any really strong movement to outlaw the procedure. Only restrictions related to late-term abortions, and possibly parental notification for girls under 16. That's hardly taking away anyone's so-called right. But unfortunately you have the pro-abortion crowd that likes to demagogue the issue in an attempt to silence and real discussion and debate.

If the issue was that reasonable, the CPC wouldn't fear putting it forward with their stamp on it and letting the Legislature do its magic.

icman · April 25, 2011

The Federal government has no control over what procedures are funded by provincial governments. You are arguing a red herring.

The Federal Government has an interest (and a right to intervene as necessary) in ensuring that medical coverage is substantially similar across Canada, so that Canadians in NL have access to the same services as Canadians in ON or AB.

cybercoma · April 25, 2011

I do not understand the furor about private clinics.

Situation--- 10 people need a knee replacement.

5 of those people feel that the waiting time for a new knee is too long and go to a private clinic. The private clinic gets paid as much for each knee as it would have been paid had it been a clinic owned by the government.

This cuts the waiting time in half for the other 5. What's the catch?

Here's the situation:

Current system:

You have 2 doctors performing knee-replacement surgeries for 10 people that need it. The surgeries are booked based on severity of the problems, who needs the surgery most. Those not in as severe of a need must wait until those that are have their surgeries first. Everyone gets their knee-replacement based on need.

Proposed parallel system:

You have 1 doctor in the public system organizing care based on need, while the second doctor running out of a private hospital takes those who can afford the services. They will not be the same price because market mechanisms will dictate the prices, not the provincial insurer. Two people that aren't in dire need of services jump the line and pay for their knee surgery because they can afford it. Someone else that is in serious need of a knee replacement, but cannot afford the private services must wait longer because now there is only 1 doctor handling 8 cases, instead of 2 handling 10.

This is what happens in reality and this is why they call it "queue-jumping" because it's not fair to those who cannot afford private services and are stuck in a debilitated public system because doctors go to the private system, exacerbating the shortages. Services are no longer based on need, but based on ability to pay in the private system and it causes detrimental effects to the public system by dividing resources.

cybercoma · April 25, 2011

Cybercoma, thanks for that clarification. If I understand properly, NB will pay for abortions conducted in a hospital. (Link.)

NB is using the same type of system that was struck down by the supreme court: an arbitrary panel of state bureaucrats deciding for women what they are allowed to do with their bodies. In NB we're talking about 2 doctors and a 3rd specialist (OBGYN) performing the "operation". There's a doctor shortage in NB and women in rural NB would have to travel a great distance to have 2 doctors rule, then find a 3rd OBGYN to do the procedure. How long do you suppose all of that takes? She'll be in her third trimester by the time it happens. An abortion at 8-12 weeks does not need a specialist to perform it. They can be done quickly and safely at a clinic with trained staff. To be crude for a moment, it's actually easier and safer than having a tooth pulled. However, the decision is not one to be taken as lightly as that. To make a woman, who has gone through the emotional task of deciding that this is what is in her own best interest, jump through bureaucratic hoops that aren't nearly impossible, they are all but impossible, is cruel and inhumane. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that taking the decision away from the woman and putting it into the hands of the state is a gross violation of her right to life, liberty and security of her person. The state cannot intrude on decisions pertaining to her body. It is for her and her alone to decide. Otherwise, she is being forced by the state to use her body, against her will, as an incubator for an unwanted child.

The SCC said that a fetus has no legal status as a person

The Supreme Court has done no such thing. In fact, they made it explicit that they were not ruling on the legal status of the unborn child. If you can show me otherwise, post your reference. Edited April 25, 2011 by cybercoma

Rick · April 25, 2011

Here's the situation:

Current system:

You have 2 doctors performing knee-replacement surgeries for 10 people that need it. The surgeries are booked based on severity of the problems, who needs the surgery most. Those not in as severe of a need must wait until those that are have their surgeries first. Everyone gets their knee-replacement based on need.

Proposed parallel system:

You have 1 doctor in the public system organizing care based on need, while the second doctor running out of a private hospital takes those who can afford the services. They will not be the same price because market mechanisms will dictate the prices, not the provincial insurer. Two people that aren't in dire need of services jump the line and pay for their knee surgery because they can afford it. Someone else that is in serious need of a knee replacement, but cannot afford the private services must wait longer because now there is only 1 doctor handling 8 cases, instead of 2 handling 10.

This is what happens in reality and this is why they call it "queue-jumping" because it's not fair to those who cannot afford private services and are stuck in a debilitated public system because doctors go to the private system, exacerbating the shortages. Services are no longer based on need, but based on ability to pay in the private system and it causes detrimental effects to the public system by dividing resources.

Very well put cybercoma.

One of the best and most direct explanations I've seen written to refute the idiocy of those who insist that privatization of our health care system would decrease wait times.

icman · April 25, 2011

Just... sticking the extremely unwelcome public nose into ^rivate and personal stuff that's absolutely none of your G-D business.

That's where you are wrong, Molly. In my view, there is no difference between a mother deciding to abort 2 minutes before birth and 2 minutes after birth. The determining factor should be fetal development, not whether or not the kid is still attached to you.

You are standing up so vehemently for a legal decision to deny a certain type of human personhood based on an arbitrary date in their life. Legally, there would be no difference between what we have now and the SCC declaring that an individual that is pre-pubescent has no legal status as a person. Or that no-one under the age of 3 has legal status as a person. Those dates are just as arbitrarily assigned.

I wouldn't give a crap about this issue if it wasn't for women like that brain-dead imbecile in Saskatchewan who shot herself up the vagina with a pellet gun and lodged a pellet in the head of her 8.5 month along fetus. That kid has no legal basis to sue her for assault causing bodily harm now that he's born and brain-damaged because he wasn't a person when he was assaulted. There is no crime against him. That's morally repugnant.

I get that this is a not just a touchy issue, but a very difficult one. Where should the line be drawn? I don't know the answer. So long as doctors won't perform abortions after 24 weeks except in dire circumstances where the health of the mother is at serious risk, then perhaps its self-regulating and no law is required.

But that Saskatchewan woman, who had legal access to an abortion all throughout her term if she wished it, should not go unpunished for her actions. The fact that a fetus is considered legally no different than a wart until the moment of birth means any woman can make that same choice, or worse, without any consequence. That does not sit well with me. And just because I am a man doesn't mean I don't have an interest in justice, ethics and morality for children. That's like saying that I shouldn't have an opinion on Catholic priests abusing boys because I never went to Church.

RNG · April 25, 2011

Here's the situation:

Current system:

You have 2 doctors performing knee-replacement surgeries for 10 people that need it. The surgeries are booked based on severity of the problems, who needs the surgery most. Those not in as severe of a need must wait until those that are have their surgeries first. Everyone gets their knee-replacement based on need.

Proposed parallel system:

You have 1 doctor in the public system organizing care based on need, while the second doctor running out of a private hospital takes those who can afford the services. They will not be the same price because market mechanisms will dictate the prices, not the provincial insurer. Two people that aren't in dire need of services jump the line and pay for their knee surgery because they can afford it. Someone else that is in serious need of a knee replacement, but cannot afford the private services must wait longer because now there is only 1 doctor handling 8 cases, instead of 2 handling 10.

This is what happens in reality and this is why they call it "queue-jumping" because it's not fair to those who cannot afford private services and are stuck in a debilitated public system because doctors go to the private system, exacerbating the shortages. Services are no longer based on need, but based on ability to pay in the private system and it causes detrimental effects to the public system by dividing resources.

Very few people are proposing that type of system. The proposals are that a private firm establishes a clinic to do knee surgeries as paid for by the province. Same price, then the choice would just be which one was faster or better. Single payer, multiple suppliers.