Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[noahbody]

On June 21st, 2006, Parliament saw first reading of a private member’s bill by Liberal MP Paul Steckle to re-criminalize abortion. Bill C-338, 'An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation), would restrict later abortions performed after twenty weeks. The bill didn't go anywhere, but Steckle re-introduced the bill in October 2007. It died again when the election was called in September 2008.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html#Steckle

There is no political will to change abortion laws. Politicians as a general rule, like to be re-elected.

[cybercoma]

icman, The SCC did not decide that an unborn child has no status as a legal person. They have made no ruling either way on that point and I really wish you would stop saying it.

Edited April 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[bloodyminded]

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.

Very well put, cyber.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

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.

That's already available. Doctors privately run their clinics, but if they collect from the provincial insurer, they are only able to collect at the rate the insurer sets for the services. What you are describing is already a reality.

[icman]

Smarter than what? With a majority it doesn't matter. He can do what he wants. He whips his caucus, makes his political appointments and gets to call all the shots for 4 years, unhindered by public opinion, parliament, or anything else.

That's 5 years. We have already witnessed first-hand that Harper will not obey his own election laws.

[bloodyminded]

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

Holy cow, here we go again.

For the umpteenth time, some of you folks have get to over your fetish for Left-bashing at the expense of the truth.

The Left is in the Canadian mainstream on the matter of health care. The Left is in agreement with most Canadians.

We witnessed the same phenomenon in the run-up to the Iraq War; "The Left," we were solemnly informed by any number of outraged sycophants, were some insane fringe opposed to the war. But in fact, according to polls, the overwhelming majority of the Earth was opposed to the war (with dissension especially high among the Eastern European "coalition of the willing," Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans).

The Left merely happened to be in agreement with the global majority.

We've got the same situation in Canada with this aspect of the health care debate.

In neither case is a majority proof, in and of itself, of righteousness or correct thinking; but how can we even have a rational debate on these matters when some of you insist on mistaking the vast majority of the country for "the Left," in a pretty clear attempt to try to marginalize majority opinion?

The debate thus is influenced by a false premise on its very first note.

"The Left!The Left! The Left!" That sums up the sober political opinion, an answer that arises again and again in a multitude of debates. It's profoundly lazy thinking.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[icman]

icman, The SCC did not decide that an unborn child has no status as a legal person. They have made no ruling either way on that point and I really wish you would stop saying it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

The court did not consider the question of whether the unborn were included in the “everyone” who have the right to life. The court was to hear Manitoba MLA Joe Borowski later that week with that very question as the central issue, but the case was rendered moot by the decision in Morgentaler, which struck down the provisions that were to be challenged. The court has never considered the issue. Early attempts to fill the legislative vacuum failed politically, and no government has since dared to touch the issue. In two further cases, Tremblay v Daigle (see below) and (R. v. Sullivan [1991] 1 SCR 489), relied on the born alive rule, inherited from English common law, to determine that the fetus was not a person...

I read one of the decisions (about 10 years ago when I was researching this issue), and yes, the SCC relied on the "fact" that a fetus was not a person to make their decision. This was clearly an indicator to the Government that the Legislature was responsible for deciding what to do about the legal status of a fetus, but no Legislature has touched this for over 20 years.

Actually, I believe it was R. v. Sullivan that I read. I shall go re-read it and get back to you.

I used to think that this was a case of the SCC abdicating its responsibility to uphold the Charter. But having put more thought into it, and now given the precedent of English Common Law, it makes tragic sense that the SCC, which is NOT supposed to legislate from the bench, would find a way to kick it back to the House for resolution.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[RNG]

That's already available. Doctors privately run their clinics, but if they collect from the provincial insurer, they are only able to collect at the rate the insurer sets for the services. What you are describing is already a reality.

To the best of my knowledge, there are a (very) few such clinics in Ontario and Quebec. Alberta has none, the provincial government won't license them. And I haven't heard of any in BC but haven't been here that long. I recall seeing a news show a few years ago where it was being argued that they do violate our health act, but that the government was afraid to crack down on them for fear that if it went to the SCC and they lost, the whole system would be jeopardized.

[icman]

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.

What about private delivery and public financing? Public delivery would supposedly be more efficient, according to the "capitalist market methods should be used to do everything" crowd.

But wait, that's what we do now, isn't it? My family physician does not get her day-to-day management orders from the Ministry, just the funding. And she charges me for procedures that aren't covered by the Ministry. Sounds like private delivery to me.

This issue is one I haven't got my head around yet. And I imagine most of the criers on both sides of this issue likely don't either.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[icman]

What about private delivery and public financing? Public delivery would supposedly be more efficient, according to the "capitalist market methods should be used to do everything" crowd.

But wait, that's what we do now, isn't it? My family physician does not get her day-to-day management orders from the Ministry, just the funding. And she charges me for procedures that aren't covered by the Ministry. Sounds like private delivery to me.

This issue is one I haven't got my head around yet. And I imagine most of the criers on both sides of this issue likely don't either.

Actually, I think I do have my head around this, and "private delivery" advocates are lying their asses off about every benefit that accrues to the users.

This is not about private delivery. That we already have. This is about removing regulated pricing on procedures and allowing market pricing instead. Essentially, it is advocacy to have private insurers take over funding of medical care.

Right now, every doctor (or most doctors) are their own private business. All they have to do is let their provincial Ministry determine their prices. But in this model, the profiteers are the doctors themselves, and there is no room for large corporate HMO players. The doctors can decide to perform procedures that aren't on the Ministry menu - but the client has to pay for them. The only restrictions are that they can't charge the user for a procedure that is on the Ministry menu, and they can't charge the user a differential on those procedures to make extra money - they have to fund it through provincial insurance at the prescribed rate. Anything else is fair game.

All this talk about changing to private delivery is code for allowing large HMOs to take over procedure pricing and develop large for-profit organizations that drive down doctors' earnings in favour of stock-holder earnings. This necessitates market pricing for procedures, which will NOT make procedures less expensive. It will increase the health-care costs of employers who have to package health insurance into benefit packages, and self-employed people will have their health insurance premiums priced out of affordability. And all the procedures that will now be denied - to everyone except those that can pay. And the whole time, the change will be accompanied by the chant "better health care for the user.... better health care for the user..." They might as well play loud recordings of it in communities at night while people are trying to sleep. If you want an example, look to the US. Don't let anyone fool you - they pay a higher per capita cost for health care there, and millions of people can't get any coverage at all.

They have forgotten that a healthy society is its own economic benefit.

If you think of the movement for private health care delivery as the rich investor class putting pressure on government to manufacture for them a new, high-yield market to invest in at the expense of the working class, then it all starts to make sense. The fact is, there are only so many developable resources in the world, and high-yield investments are drying up. Places where there is still high-yield action are governed by regimes that many don't trust won't steal their invested funds. So in Canada, where there is a stable government that protects private ownership rights, pressure increases at all levels to privatize everything in sight. Imagine that.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[cybercoma]

Since you edited, I'm editing too!

Great post and this indeed is the heart of the issue. Real Canadian families versus those that have so much expendable income that they want some new place to make money without producing anything of value. Yahtzee!

Edited April 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[bloodyminded]

Actually, I think I do have my head around this, and "private delivery" advocates are lying their asses off about every benefit that accrues to the users.

This is not about private delivery. That we already have. This is about removing regulated pricing on procedures and allowing market pricing instead. Essentially, it is advocacy to have private insurers take over funding of medical care.

All this talk about changing to private delivery is code for allowing large HMOs to take over procedure pricing and develop large for-profit organizations that drive down doctors' earnings in favour of stock-holder earnings. This necessitates market pricing for procedures, which will NOT make procedures less expensive. It will increase the health-care costs of employers who have to package health insurance into benefit packages, and self-employed people will have their health insurance premiums priced out of affordability. And all the procedures that will now be denied - to everyone except those that can pay. And the whole time, the change will be accompanied by the chant "better health care for the user.... better health care for the user..." They might as well play loud recordings of it in communities at night while people are trying to sleep.

If you think of the movement for private health care delivery as the rich investor class putting pressure on government to manufacture for them a new, high-yield market to invest in at the expense of the working class, then it all starts to make sense. The fact is, there are only so many developable resources in the world, and high-yield investments are drying up. Places where there is still high-yield action are governed by regimes that many don't trust won't steal their invested funds. So in Canada, where there is a stable government that protects private ownership rights, pressure increases at all levels to privatize everything in sight. Imagine that.

Well said!

[Keepitsimple]

The Left merely happened to be in agreement with the global majority.

We've got the same situation in Canada with this aspect of the health care debate.

.......................................

"The Left!The Left! The Left!" That sums up the sober political opinion, an answer that arises again and again in a multitude of debates. It's profoundly lazy thinking.

While I have some sympathy for your observation of Left Bashing......in fact, the position of the Left in Canada (and the official position of the Conservative Party as well) is actually out-of-step with the Global Majority on abortion. All Western countries have restrictions on abortion - Canada does not. Same thing with Healthcare. Western countries with the best Healthcare services are those who blend public and private delivery services within a universal access system. Canada only does so by refusing to believe that it does.

[bloodyminded]

While I have some sympathy for your observation of Left Bashing......in fact, the position of the Left in Canada (and the official position of the Conservative Party as well) is actually out-of-step with the Global Majority on abortion.

Yes, I don't disagree. And my argument (as I stated) wasn't about the rights or wrongs of any idea, from healthcare to abortion to war. I only suggested that, if we're going to start complaining about somehting particular to "the Left" or "the Right," then oftentimes we're drawing the debate, at first note, upon faulty premises.

So the current healthcare issues have very little to do with the contemporary Canadian "Left." If there's a public problem or blindness to serious issues, it's utterly mainstream. No doubt we could discover, similarly, criticisms of "the Right" that are at bottom criticisms of majority, mainstream opinion.

This matters a lot, because when an argument is premised falsely in such a way, it is--consciously oir unconsciously--an attempt to marginalize opinions with which we disagree; "Oh, sure, the loony-left holds this view...so what?"

It's antithetical to serious discussion. Now, if I were to lose my mind and promote Soviet-style Communism, such criticisms would be perfectly apt.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[icman]

While I have some sympathy for your observation of Left Bashing......in fact, the position of the Left in Canada (and the official position of the Conservative Party as well) is actually out-of-step with the Global Majority on abortion. All Western countries have restrictions on abortion - Canada does not. Same thing with Healthcare. Western countries with the best Healthcare services are those who blend public and private delivery services within a universal access system. Canada only does so by refusing to believe that it does.

Well, then clearly we are putting the cart before the horse.

Canada needs to sit down and decide and ratify what our healthcare system should provide to Canadians. We need to agree on what we want from a healthcare system. Then we can design a system that best meets those needs.

I'll start...

1) Universal access

2) Efficient (low per capita costs)

3) High quality

i) high diagnostic success rate

ii) high recovery rate

iii) fast recovery rate (ie, lower average wait times )

4) Minimizes suffering

5) Respectful of patients

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[icman]

[icman]

... the current healthcare issues have very little to do with the contemporary Canadian "Left." If there's a public problem or blindness to serious issues, it's utterly mainstream. No doubt we could discover, similarly, criticisms of "the Right" that are at bottom criticisms of majority, mainstream opinion.

This matters a lot, because when an argument is premised falsely in such a way, it is--consciously oir unconsciously--an attempt to marginalize opinions with which we disagree; "Oh, sure, the loony-left holds this view...so what?"

It's antithetical to serious discussion. Now, if I were to lose my mind and promote Soviet-style Communism, such criticisms would be perfectly apt.

Well said!!!

[bloodyminded]

Well said!!!

I mean, you can say "Universal healthcare," and somebody's going to start ranting about "the Left."

It's usually the same sort of person who likes to wax about those "out of touch with Canadian values."

I can only assume they've never stepped foot outside the Rodeo, or the offices of the Fraser Institute.

[RNG]

But what I see again and again is, anytime someone has a suggestion for improving our health care, there is an immediate reaction along the lines of "privatization - bad, end of the world as we know it and booga, booga". Without listening to the ideas and rationally evaluating them.

Completely analogously, on a US politics forum I visit, any time a change to their system is suggested there is an immediate reaction along the lines of "socialism - bad, end of the world as we know it and booga, booga".

[cybercoma]

Yeah, but the American system is broken. Their government actually spends more money per patient on healthcare than we do in Canada and it's a private system. Figure that one out.

[RNG]

Yeah, but the American system is broken. Their government actually spends more money per patient on healthcare than we do in Canada and it's a private system. Figure that one out.

They fight vociferously that their system is just fine the way it is, and as proof, they use things like that Ontario baby that our doctors wouldn't treat anymore so the parents took him to the states, and that certain Canadian political leaders recently went to the states for treatment and they manage to find every whiney story about waiting times here. And they won't even shut up enough to allow some debate.

And I agree that our system isn't as bad as theirs, but it could still use a lot of improvement.

[cybercoma]

Of course our system can use improvement. I don't even think that's a point anyone has made in the debate. People don't want private healthcare in Canada, but that doesn't mean things are perfect the way they are.

[Guest American Woman]

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:G&M 2007

Exactly. Yet the pro-choicers seems to have nothing to say about this and/or about the exclusion of abortion from the reciprocal payment plan. Nary a peek about it in this thread. I'm beginning to believe what you said -- that Canadians too often are good at simply ignoring certain problems or pretending that they don't exist. All I'm hearing is the singing of praises for how wonderful Canada's situation is in theory. The fact that abortions are so unavailable to so many Canadians should be a concern. Why it's not is a mystery to me.

Edited April 25, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

I'm beginning to believe what you said -- that Canadians too often are good at simply ignoring things and pretending they don't exist.

Maybe someday we'll be as fundamentally wise as Americans at solving problems. Who knows?

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe someday we'll be as fundamentally wise as Americans at solving problems. Who knows?

You can always hope.

a thousand times over.