Abortions and funding

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I recently attended a Defund Abortion Rally on Confederation Hill. Campaign Life Coalition NL organized the rally to launch the national Defund Abortion in Canada (www.campaignlifecoalition.com/defundnl).

In Canada, abortions are publicly funded, with over 100,000 each year, and in Newfoundland and Labrador more than 1,000 babies are killed by abortion each year, paid for with our tax dollars. According to the abortion advocacy group, Pro-Can, the average cost of elective abortion in a hospital is $1,000. Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers shell out at least $1 million annually for elective abortions.

This figure excludes the cost of abortion complications, such as perforations, uterine hemorrhage, pelvic inflammatory disease, sepsis, post traumatic stress disorder, suicide, infertility and breast cancer.

All these indirect costs could easily escalate the total cost of abortions to tens of millions of dollars annually.

How many doctors could be hired, how many autistic kids could be cured, instead of pouring money down the abortion drain?

Abortion is used as a backup birth control method more than 96 per cent of the time. No physical illness or alleged “hard case” exists in these situations.

Rather, the reasons are socio-economic in nature.

The Canadian Health Act is federal law which requires provinces to fund medically necessary services, but it does not define abortion as medically necessary.

When this province’s legislators deem an elective procedure as not medically necessary, it does not get covered by provincial health insurance and, as a result, will not receive public funding.

For example, in 1991, Newfoundland and Labrador MHAs fully de-insured optometric care, deeming it to be not medically necessary. Clearly, MHAs can delist abortion. We call on them to have the political will and moral fortitude to do the right thing.

It is important to support women who find themselves in crisis pregnancy situations; to offer them help, better housing, daycare services, adoption and supports that would lead them to have their babies, thereby adding over 1,000 newborns to our provincial population.

This number was mentioned when we attended the first of the hearings on the population growth strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador.

These numbers would be a help to the problem we now face with an aging population and our not meeting the replacement level with new births needed to sustain our province.

In a cash-starved health care system, it is illogical for our government to allocate scarce tax dollars to the destruction of our future generations of children.

Colette Fleming

Mount Pearl

Geographic location: Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Laura
    November 02, 2013 - 00:35

    From ARCC: "All abortions are medically required because health is defined broadly in our society. It encompasses not just physical health, but mental and emotional health as well. Besides, it is impossible in practice to split abortion into two categories of medically required or not, based on women's reasons for abortion. Anti-choice people want to limit funding to abortions performed to save the woman’s life or in cases of rape/incest, but the doctors who actually perform abortions would attest that all abortions are medically necessary. All pregnancy outcomes must be funded equally. Anti-choice people often say that pregnancy is not a disease and that abortion is a "lifestyle choice"—therefore, it is not medically required. However, the same arguments can be made for childbirth. There are no medical reasons for a woman to get pregnant and have a baby. She does so because she chooses to, often for socio-economic reasons. Anti-choice people might protest that there are "two patients" in a pregnancy and that abortion harms at least one of them. But Canadian courts have ruled decisively that fetuses are not legal persons with rights. Also, if the government were to de-insure abortion without also de-insuring childbirth, it would in effect be making the "lifestyle choice" for women."

  • Frank
    October 31, 2013 - 18:21

    Cash starved health care system??? Are you for real? We put about 50% of our GDP into healthcare