Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jarrah Hodge

GET UPDATES FROM Jarrah Hodge

Canadian Pro-Lifers Take a Page From Tea Party's Book

Posted: 09/15/11 10:10 AM ET

Taking a page out of the U.S. Tea Party's book and a cue from Ontario Conservative premier-wannabe Tim Hudak, a Canadian "pro-life" group is trying to rally public support around defunding abortion services.

The Campaign Life Coalition is planning a rally on Oct. 22 at Queen's Park to "make defunding abortion an issue in the newly elected provincial government," according to Campaign Life Youth Coordinator Alissa Golob, who's organizing the rally.

The prospect of that government being a Hudak government certainly can't hurt, since Hudak "may have" signed a petition calling for abortion defunding.

As for the argument behind her push, Golob is alleging abortions cost Ontario taxpayers $30 million per year, though even "pro-life" websites like The Interim acknowledge that's just an estimate, as no provincial or federal health ministries release abortion-related medical costs. The Interim also cites a 2011 Abacus poll that found slightly more Canadians (45%) supported public funding of abortion than those who did not (42%).

But the fact that the public narrowly supports public funding isn't why I'd argue against Golob. After all, Canadians' basic rights shouldn't be subject to a vote of the electorate, regardless.

What's relevant here is that we have a public health care system in Canada, one that is supposed to cover all necessary medical procedures, including abortion. The system wouldn't work if we started excluding relatively cheap, relatively safe, medically necessary procedures simply because a portion of the population had a moral objection. Health coverage under the Canada Health Act has to be decided by doctors and governments making decisions based on logic and medical evidence, not politics.

Canadian law also has a thing or two to say on the issue. Though the 1988 Morgentaler decision didn't specifically address women's right to funded abortion, it struck down an abortion ban for infringing on women's Charter rights to "bodily security, liberty, and conscience." Public health care abortion funding could not be cut without hurting at least some women's access to the procedure. It's clear the most marginalized women would be the ones to suffer.

In 1991 when the Saskatchewan Conservative government held a referendum that won popular support attempting to defund abortion, the government lost the next election. Lawyers brought in to study the referendum results believed a defunding law would not survive a Charter challenge as it would discriminate on the basis of sex.

One of the most insulting aspects of this Campaign Life push to defund abortion is the idea that Canadians are too stupid to figure out that abortion is far cheaper for our health care system than forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. American figures show about a 1:4 cost difference. The costs to the medical system could be even higher if we say to some women who cannot afford the procedure that they must choose between continuing to carry an unwanted fetus or having to obtain an un-funded, potentially sub-standard abortion.

Just like we can and should carry the medical costs of women who choose to become mothers, so too we can and should cover a full range of women's reproductive health choices, including the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I have little doubt that Campaign Life is trying to use this defunding effort like the Tea Partiers did to Planned Parenthood: as an attempt to drive a wedge between moderates and open the door to a full abortion ban. At least groups like Kelowna, B.C. 's Right to Life Society don't focus on a financial pretense when they're promoting the city-sanctioned "Protect Human Life Week" happening later this month.

If they want to pretend this is about money, anti-abortion activists are insulting your intelligence because they know they can't get you if they talk about equality and rights.

 

Follow Jarrah Hodge on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jarrahpenguin

Taking a page out of the U.S. Tea Party's book and a cue from Ontario Conservative premier-wannabe Tim Hudak, a Canadian "pro-life" group is trying to rally public support around defunding abortion se...
Taking a page out of the U.S. Tea Party's book and a cue from Ontario Conservative premier-wannabe Tim Hudak, a Canadian "pro-life" group is trying to rally public support around defunding abortion se...
Around the Web:

Pro-choice and pro-life

 
 
  • Comments
  • 48
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:16 PM on 09/19/2011
"What's relevant here is that we have a public health care system in Canada, one that is supposed to cover all necessary medical procedures, including abortion." I guess we have different ideas of necessary. In a situation where a woman or her unborn child's life or health is at risk, then the procedure is certainly necessary. In the event of rape, a woman should also have the right to choose, as her choice to not have sex was taken away from her with no chance to protect herself. But to use abortion as birth control, no way. That is NOT necessary at all and therefore, the woman who wants to kill her child should have to pay for it herself. Abortion is not a form of birth control, and women who use it as such should shoulder the cost. Maybe then they will realize how inexpensive birth control devices really are. Having the right to choose does not negate a woman's responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. There are no shortage of products available to prevent pregnancy and there is even the morning after pill for broken condoms and drunken acts later regretted. Hell, every woman has the ultimate pregnancy prevention already within them - keep your legs closed if you don't want to get pregnant. What there is no excuse for, in this age, is an unwanted pregnancy. Along with the right comes the responsibility for your own behavior.
11:00 PM on 09/17/2011
Some abortions use a salt solution to slowly poison the baby, which takes up to 24 hours to die, meanwhile eroding the skin. Torture in the womb.

Why can't we oppose all cruelty, whether to animals (there is immense cruelty in the food industries), prisoners in the War on Terror, babies imprisoned in the womb, unable to scream, or anyone?
04:18 PM on 09/19/2011
Sir, you really need to stop listening to Fox News.... There is no such thing as a salt-water abortion that slowly poisons a fetus.
06:08 PM on 09/15/2011
This is further proof my favourite bumper sticker is correct:
The Christian Right is neither!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Russg
06:56 PM on 09/15/2011
If I had that bumper stick, I'd be afraid of being assaulted or having my vehicle vandalized.
01:47 PM on 09/16/2011
Assault and vandalism are not new tactics for the Christian Right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirGigglehead
NRA-Nat'l Rimmers Assoc
06:02 PM on 09/15/2011
As an American who recently enjoyed a long visit in the maritime provinces, I was shocked at the amount of anti-choice signage and messaging we encountered. I had naively assumed that Canadians had settled this issue and moved on. I had also wished that we Americans could be so much more like our Canadian neighbors. I guess that shows how easy it easy to harbor illusions.
What people need to remember, regardless of whether Canadian or American, is that these movements are far more about controlling women than they are about any concern for the "unborn babies." Look behind the scenes at the funding supporting such movements and it is invariably from those who want to take away birth control in all forms and view women as only valuable as vessels for creating more human life.
Canada's own Margaret Atwood long ago portrayed the evil lurking behind this kind of thought in "The Handmaid's Tale." There has been plenty of warning. Will enough people heed it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Russg
06:58 PM on 09/15/2011
Most Canadians have settled the issue and moved on. There are still enough very loud opponents, however, to make a fight of it. The fact that our medical care is entirely public funded creates additional problems that you wouldn't see in all states -- up here, our health care system openly pays for abortions. Down there, many health plans and states don't.

We're not so different from you.
photo
fromdnorth
OK I checked my micro-bio (didn't know I had one
04:56 PM on 09/15/2011
First defeat Hudak and keep his minions away...

Is this what we want?

http://fora.tv/2009/09/29/Republican_Gomorrah_Max_Blumenthal#Max_Blumenthal_Deconstructing_Sarah_Palin
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:37 PM on 09/15/2011
It has never been all about the money to pro-lifers, if it were, there are a lot more health issues that these people could go after that are much larger money pits for our health care system. The money to fund an elective procedure is just
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jake Thomas
elastic
12:28 PM on 09/15/2011
Two things I will never support, capitol punishment and abortion.
I do not know when consciousness starts nor ends.
If a fetus is just a tumour then I say, "suck it out", but I do not know if it is or it is not.
This is not about religion or money for me, I am absolutely ignorant, I do not know when life begins.
I do not know what is right.
Someone give me something that makes sense that is not opinion or rhetoric but fact.
I would like to see why if at all my facts are wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ware
God hates us all!
01:20 PM on 09/15/2011
I am pretty sure that a few week fetus is not an individual, no consciousness here.The woman must has ownership on that thing.
Abortions at a later stage, this is a different thing, I don't support it, except for medical reasons, per example if the woman finds out the baby has a genetic disorder like Down Syndrome.
You're right on capitol punishment.
Religious people got it all wrong here, they support capital punishment but not abortions..I guess they want just the guilty to be killed..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jake Thomas
elastic
03:51 PM on 09/16/2011
"I don't support it, except for medical reasons, per example if the woman finds out the baby has a genetic disorder like Down Syndrome. "

So you are cool Eugenics? Selective abortions? That is a frightening thought.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Russg
07:00 PM on 09/15/2011
I don't think issues like this would be issues unless they were based on fact. The fact that it's opinion is why it's such a stick topic.


^^ I wrote that out and then stopped and thought about global warming as an issue. Or stem cell research. Or any number of things that DO have facts to back them up, but are still issues. I think the sentiment still stands though.
11:53 AM on 09/15/2011
hmm, so money is the new "pro-lifer" argument to abolish abortions. They say we will save an estimated $30 million a year by defunding abortions. That makes sense in the short term, but what about the long term costs of providing health care, education, parental leave and social assistance if those pregnancies were allowed to come to term? If we are looking at this solely as a money issue the "pro-lifers" fail.
12:30 PM on 09/15/2011
we pay for a lot of those pregnancies already. funding abortions doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who needs one will have one. people will have kids whether you like it or not.
07:24 PM on 09/15/2011
" funding abortions doesn't necessaril­y mean that everyone who needs one will have one." your right, but it does make it accessible to low income families that would not be able to afford an abortion otherwise. If we don't fund them, then we would be forcing people into having a child they either don't want or can't care for.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MJinCanada
Safe from zombies until my 2nd cup of coffee
11:30 AM on 09/15/2011
I'm convinced that most so-called pro-lifers don't really care about the future health and welfare of the fetus. What they REALLY want is to use a helpless infant to punish "bad girls."

That's why they don't care that unwanted babies are significantly more likely to suffer poverty, neglect, abuse, illness, learning disabilities, being shuffled from relative to relative to foster home, gang and drug pressures, and incarceration.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Russg
07:01 PM on 09/15/2011
You are intentionally misinterpreting their argument. That really doesn't strengthen your point at all.

They are against abortion because they are against killing. There is nothing more to it than that. Pro-lifers believe that a fetus is human life and, therefore, has legal, individual rights. It isn't about 'punishing' anybody.

That said, I don't agree with them. At all. But if you are truly convincing yourself of something so absurd...I find that sad.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
buddha65
The night is my companion and solitude my guide
12:28 PM on 09/16/2011
No russg, the point is that they do support killing, just not fetuses. The rabid pro-lifers are more often than not, pro-war and pro-death penalty.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
relentless63
10:41 AM on 09/15/2011
Harper, Ford and Hudak project a Tea Party influenced conservatism. While refusing to allow a parliamentary debate on abortion because it’s "not the priority of the Canadian people," Harper presses for defunding of any facility, domestic or foreign, that provides abortions. Worse than the fact that these antediluvian policies are encouraged is that they grow, mature and become active in the dark and without public scrutiny. We are not American. We don’t pattern our national values after the religious values of a few who don’t understand the difference between church and state. In Canada we don’t require or deny anyone an abortion. We simply provide them for the well being of women.
04:45 PM on 09/15/2011
Did you read the article? Nowhere are the feds mentioned (except by you).
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
08:20 PM on 09/16/2011
Fanned and Faved.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thinkingwomanmillstone
great, green, globs of greasy grimey GOPerspeak.
10:05 AM on 09/15/2011
Why do people continue to let the Anti-Choice movement get away with calling themselves Pro Life? At least in the US, they are the least Pro life people I've met. The Congresspeople and state reps who are anti choice continually vote against funding programs for the poor that would keep them, including their babies and children, alive. They vote against healthcare, education, food stamps, unemployment, medicaid and for war and defense spending regardless of the justification or lack thereof. They are proponents of the death penalty...even if there is doubt of guilt or a fair trial. They are not pro life by any definition of the word.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jake Thomas
elastic
12:33 PM on 09/15/2011
I support education, unemployment benefits, socialized medicine etc. I am against the death penalty, I believe in fair trials. I don't believe in abortion so how do I fit into your little box.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thinkingwomanmillstone
great, green, globs of greasy grimey GOPerspeak.
01:08 PM on 09/15/2011
You are an anomaly. My box isn't little...the box with people like you is minute. The anti choice movement is largely represented by the people who stood and cheered at the number of executions that Perry has ordered...and the idea that we should just let people die . Too bad you can't believe in the right to privacy of a woman. I myself can't imagine an instance where I might choose to have an abortion but I don't think I have the right to make this medical decision for others. The attack on planned parenthood funding will not limit abortions but will cause more as it also denies women access to affordable birth control. If you want to stop abortions, promote contraception. Making abortions illegal will not stop them, it will just once again drive them to the back alleys. Lack of funding will also cause many to not receive necessary health treatment to save their lives and in the case of HIV testing the lives of others. You are a small segment of the public anti choice movement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barb Bissonnette
Political junkie in rehab
01:24 PM on 09/15/2011
Well, Jake, since you will never be in a position to have to make that kind of decision, then you may speak your objections, but don't make those decisions for other ppl.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Russg
07:04 PM on 09/15/2011
It's about framing the debate. A pro-choicer may call a pro-lifer an anti-choicer, because it makes their side of the argument look stronger. On the other hand, pro-lifers often call pro-choicers pro-abortion. I don't think I've ever met (or heard of) a single pro-choice person who LIKES the idea of abortion, yet they continue to frame the debate that way.

Why? Because it makes them look like the good guys.