The province of Quebec has announced that it will not appeal a court order to repay Cdn $13 million in costs to nearly 45,000 women who had to pay for their own abortions.
I'm somewhat surprised that this item hasn't had more press, considering the inherent implications of ever-increasing financial strain on our health care system. Something will have to give here - either increased taxes or the delisting of more 'non-essential' services such as eye exams, which we have experienced here in Ontario. I wonder what George Smitherman has to say about this?
The Globe reported the following back at the time of the original ruling in August (you may need to go through Google's backdoor to access the article):
Bruce Johnston, one of the lawyers involved in the class-action lawsuit, said the ruling may have a spillover effect on other services offered in private clinics.
“If you are to offer an insured service, it has to be offered for free,” Mr. Johnston said.
“If there are other medical acts which are a necessary component of an insured medical service, then they also have to be offered for free.”
The abortion association's France Desilets was delighted with the judgment.
“This is a great day for all women in Quebec and a great day for all women in Canada as well because there are other provinces that have the same problem,” Ms. Desilets said.
It would seem then, that if public health care can't provide abortion on demand, then it must be available at private clinics and then the total cost reimbursed to the woman.
Aside from the moral issue here, is everyone comfortable with this notion of abortions on demand anywhere, anytime and the taxpayer footing the complete bill for each and every one?
No accountability. Statistics are very difficult to come by here. If anyone has any, I would be very grateful for the information.
* * * *
Meanwhile, an Ontario woman is fighting to get her cancer treatment covered. Gee, I wonder why there isn't any money left for her?
11 comments:
Charest's government is virulently pro-abortion. This is the government that went looking for a late-term abortionist so they wouldn't have to send women to the States.
and yet we have to pay to get our eyes tested and corrected,
most abortions are for cosmetic reasons, not health if so make them pay for it...
Cherniak, first of all, I find it quite astounding that the Quebec government 'did not understand the law'. However, yes, I can see that it would have been a waste of time and money to pursue it.
I am trying to focus on the issue of taxpayer money going to fund any abortion at any stage wherever it is done. Is everyone o.k. with that? The woman can have as many as she wants, and we will all pay for them as much as she demands; even though the health care system is having to delist other items?
BTW, what does this mean: I've seen more women have kids for the wrong reasons Who gets to decide what are the wrong reasons? Are you trying to say that you should have some kind of input as to when a woman decides to continue the pregnancy?
Wonderfull comments the pro-coat-hanger crowd...
Coat hangers kill babies, too. At least we're not in the kill-the-babies crowd. Women who kill themselves with coat hangers have a choice not to. Not unborn children.
The women that I've known who had abortions, did think of what they were doing ahead of time.
There's no need to kill a baby. Unborn children are equals, too.
His not appealing the decision has nothing do to with being pro-abortion, but one where pursuing in the courts after having lost would be a waste of taxpayers dollars
It just so happens they also happen to be virulently pro-abortion.
I'd like to see more sex-ed in schools. My sense is that there is plenty of sex-ed in the schools, but not enough parents taking the time to connect with their kids. JMHO.
I still don't get your point about people having kids for the "wrong reasons". So what? How does that affect abortion rates? Those people aren't going to have abortions. I don't get what you're driving at here.
I would prefer that some woman/couple seek an abortion knowing that they are not ready/able to be good parents over people who will make bad parents because they have reflected upon what it means to be a parent and the responsibilities that are involved.
Did you happen to give any thought at all to the remote possibility that the woman/couple could give the child up for adoption rather than dispose of him/her? What about all the gay couples wanting to adopt?
The Quebec case illustrates the real crux of the publicly funded abortion issue. I disagree with the outcome and ruling of the courts though. Unless the province makes the policy of funding services provided by private clinics official and clearly defined, any rulings like this are nothing more than activist courts setting policy.
I for one do not want unelected bodies setting social policy and creating laws. And the Charet governments lack of leadership is just so typical of liberals in general.
you are quite funny suggesting that a gay couple adopt an unwanted child.
I would rather see a loving gay couple adopt a child, than have that child disposed of because the mother/parent didn't want him/her, especially one that is destroyed late in the pregnancy.
That should tell you how strongly I feel about this; knowing my hesitation about gay adoption.
We are very much pro-choice, anti-war and a few other values that you'd hate...
Aha! So now we know what province you live in. Are you leaning towards Liberal or P.Q.?
"Wrong reason to have kids?" Please. Do you not know a single family that you look at and consider the need for licensing parenting? God knows, I do. And personal wealth (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it, it's all about character.
Choosing to have a child to increase the welfare cheque size.
Choosing to have a child because "everyone's doing it" and then hiring a nanny fulltime.
Choosing to have a child because you have no alternatives (the stated preference of the pro-lifers, as I understand it) and no support other than outdated welfare amounts that pretty much guarantee you'll live in subsidized housing (and probably cheat to remain there, if you work) for life.
Unborn children are equals, too."
I would argue that. Are they people with rights? IMHO that depends on whether or not they can survive outside the womb. Prior to viability, I would DEFINITELY argue that point. Do you have issues with stillborns? or miscarriages? Because from a physiological perspective, the difference is in cause. Medical science has made is possible for babies at 24-wks (and less) gestation to survive (with massive medical intervention and often long-term effects and costs). 100 years ago, those babies wouldn't have survived. So - the difference?
I would probably argue the "equals" point regarding a 2-yr-old. A baby/child/toddler is not the "equal" of an adult in anything OTHER than the right to existence and freedom from tyranny, fear (unreasonable vs. monsters in the closet) etc. But they cannot hold a job, they cannot pay for groceries, for themselves, their siblings, their parents, and so on.
Does their soul have the same value to God as an adult's? Most definitely, and arguable more.
So please clarify the point you are making (or not) as I'm not getting it.
I still want to see access to the procedure - that's one difference I think between us.
CWTF, I don't want to see women being able to have abortions whenever they want (i.e. at later stages) and have that publicly funded. But I do acknowledge that to be realistic, it must be offered in some circumstances.
Thanks for the bio, BTW. ;)
Post a Comment