Monday, September 18, 2006

Charest Caves In

Interesting little tidbit from Lifesite: "Quebec Refuses Appeal on Massive Abortion Payout".

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?

17 comments:

SUZANNE said...

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.

Sara said...

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_WTF said...

Wonderfull comments the pro-coat-hanger crowd...

This case is about the Quebec government not understanding the law, being taken to court and losing.

Sara, how is an abortion a "cosmetic" decision? The callous thinking make me sick. The women that I've known who had abortions, did think of what they were doing ahead of time.
I've seen more women have kids for the wrong reasons (like they were some kind of accessory to their lifestyle).

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 certainly is not a capitulation as this has nothing to do with the abortion debate. It's an offshoot of how the government "abused" the law.
If you have issue with the law (which you seem to have), don't mistake it with the application of the present law...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

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?

Cherniak_WTF said...

Joanne, many of the cases that make it seem like certain services are not available is misleading.
In the case of the woman in Ontario, she wants money for a treatment that was not supported. Often these are unproved, extremely expensive and experimental.

SUZANNE said...

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.

Cherniak_WTF said...

johanne,

Like yourself, I find it odd that the government does not seem to understand the law. But this is the Charest government, a Con government in every aspect but name...

One aspect of the abortion debate is that we often overlook the issues around it. I'd like to see more sex-ed in schools. Some teenage girls use the morning after pill as if it was candy... So a little prevention would help no?

Abortion is an operation that if abused can have long term effects - I think that the dangers are well known and are always discussed before with the patient. Of course I would prefer to see prevention over abortion but I don't see that we should impose limits.

What is covered under the health care system is a thorny issue. If the system in Ontario is similar to the PQ one, there is a creeping privatization that is disgusting.

Wrong reason to have kids? People who want kids as an accessories, because other couples they know have kids. These are parents who are in love with the ideas of kids but not the reality and get bored after a while. Seen this behaviour mostly with the poor and the rich...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

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.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Joanne, sorry for not explaining properly.

The point that I'm trying to make is that 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.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

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?

PGP said...

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.

Cherniak_WTF said...

joanne, you are quite funny suggesting that a gay couple adopt an unwanted child. The views expressed here on SSM make it rather hypocritical. But hey, I'm just pointed out the obvious...

There are, sadly, many children in the care of social services. The anti-abortion crowd are quick to volunteer or suggest that every child could easily be taken care of but oppose most programs that would help (Quebec daycare for example) and rarely place their money were it would help....

Sweater guy (if you don't mind me being so direct), the old mantra of Liberals and activist judges? Could it be that it's just because you don't agree with the ruling? Sheesh...
Charest, and his government are typical Cons (remember what party he used to belong before going provincial?) - he has been a disaster for Quebec and his policies are more akin to Cons than anything else. Heck, even in the implementation of most of his ideas, he's been able to ruin it...

I like how you are making a mishmash of policies and ideas (private health care, abortion and activist judges) - care to add in a little homophobia and you can scream bingo!
The Charest government is the one that pursued a case in the courts when it was in the wrong (this is not a new case and has been in the courts awhile).

This has nothing to do with policy but with the interpretation of the law. Charest is a Liberal in name, he's sold the province to business interest while screwing the citizens (how very Con of him).

One day, maybe, you'll understand that not everything should be dictated by mob rule - something that you seem to espouse. Also, you'd do well to brush up on Quebec sentiment. We are very much pro-choice, anti-war and a few other values that you'd hate... I think that you'd find your views to be in the minority here....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

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.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

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.?

Cherniak_WTF said...

joanne, I have never "hidden" the province I live in.
It's Quebec.

I've also lived in Ontario, Alberta and BC.

I'm not married but have been with the same partner (female) for over 10 years - I have two children - speak English, French and a little Spanish -
If you need other demographics, feel free to ask.

Both the provincial Liberals and PQ are not up to the task of governing this province (for different reasons). On the Federal level, I'm critical of all parties but tend towards the Liberals.

When it comes to abortion, we both agreed (in another thread) that there should be limits to when an abortion should not be permitted. I still want to see access to the procedure - that's one difference I think between us.

Candace said...

"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.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

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. ;)