PUBLICATION:
National
Post
DATE:
2005.01.06
EDITION: National
SECTION:
Comment
PAGE:
A18
COLUMN:
Father Raymond J. de Souza
BYLINE:
Father Raymond J. de Souza
SOURCE:
National Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileging
death over life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last
night, CTV aired its biography of Henry Morgentaler and his campaign to
establish abortion-on-demand as public policy in Canada. The title chosen by the
producers? "Choice."
The
title is ironic in light of recent events. Just before Christmas, a Manitoba
judge ruled that women who had to pay for abortions at Morgentaler's private
clinic in Winnipeg had their constitutional rights violated. That decision is
expected to clear the way for hundreds of such women to sue the Manitoba
government for reimbursement of the cost of their abortions.
When
it comes to abortion policy in Canada, governments are left little choice
indeed. No restrictions, full taxpayer funding and no dissent tolerated.
The
Manitoba case is particularly striking given the debate over private provision
of health care. The facts in Manitoba are not that unusual in terms of broad
health care policy. The provincial health plan paid for abortions in hospitals.
It did not pay for them in private clinics, such as the one Morgentaler opened
in Winnipeg in 1983.
In
April, 2004, Morgentaler sold his clinic -- it is now known as "Jane's
Clinic." In July, the Manitoba government agreed to pay for abortions in
the new, non-profit clinic. But the ongoing legal action resulted in a refusal
to pay for private clinic abortions before last July, and Queen's Bench
Associate Chief Justice Jeffrey Oliphant ruled that unconstitutional on Dec. 23.
"In
my view, the legislation that forces women to have to stand in line in an
overburdened, publicly funded health care system and to have to wait for a
therapeutic abortion, a procedure that probably must be performed in a timely
manner, is a gross violation of the rights of women to both liberty and security
of the person as guaranteed by [the Charter of Rights and Freedoms],"
Oliphant wrote.
Extraordinary.
Pace Justice Oliphant, standing in line in an "overburdened, publicly
funded health care system" is run-of-the-mill medical practice in Canada.
In fact, whenever doctors have tried to establish private clinic alternatives,
whether it be for diagnostic testing or day surgeries (eyes, knees, etc.),
Canadian governments have declared it an unacceptable attack on our health care
system.
To
be sure, time is of the essence where abortion is concerned. The longer the
mother waits, the bigger the baby grows, and the more difficult the whole
procedure becomes. Indeed, if the wait is too long, it becomes necessary to
resort to a gruesome partial-birth abortion, a procedure so brutal that it is
not done by Canadian doctors -- not even at the Morgentaler clinics.
Nevertheless, some Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, Ontario and
Quebec, will pay the $5,000 cost for late-term abortions to be done in the
United States.
Leave
aside the question of whether abortion should be considered a "medically
necessary" practice. Leave aside, for the moment, the whole question of
whether abortion constitutes a fundamental human right or a gross violation of
human rights. The Manitoba case shines light on another question, rarely asked:
Why does abortion qualify for government support routinely unavailable for other
medical procedures?
If
denial of private-clinic abortion funding constitutes a violation of liberty and
security of the person, then why doesn't the same hold for, say, heart
surgeries? Why does our health policy demand that everybody wait in one long
public line, but when it comes to abortion, then all options -- including the
grand bogeyman of them all, American provision -- must be fully funded?
"Choice"
has long been the adopted slogan of the abortion movement. But there is little
choice for the rest of us who question taxpayer support for abortions. In the
United States, abortion-on-demand is public policy, thanks to the Roe v. Wade
decision. But the federal government does not pay for abortions. Here in Canada,
surveys have shown much less support for taxpayer-funded abortions than for
abortion rights per se. But instead, we have the perverse situation that not
only are abortions taxpayer funded, but they are funded like no other medical
service. Now, according to Justice Oliphant, abortion funding in a private
clinic constitutes a constitutional right.
We have opted in Canada to accept, in the name of equality of access, substantial restrictions on the patient's ability to choose how and when she is treated. If a patient is dissatisfied with the care provided by the public system, she is most emphatically prevented from seeking other options on the public dime. Yet for abortion, choice of doctor, clinic and even country is paid for in full. Surely this is the most perverse outcome of all: The patient choice that is fully funded and guaranteed in Canada's health care system is the one that ends a life, not saves one.