In Monday’s Sudbury Star, Ruth Farquhar, an Ontario freelance writer, wrote that it was a sad day for women as New Brunswick’s only private abortion clinic announced that it would be closing its doors due to lack of government funding of private centres. She expressed her disbelief that the province required the opinion of two physicians prior to an abortion procedure being performed. And since abortion was obviously a “medically necessary” procedure, she declared that the province was “clearly, from a legal standpoint, in violation of the Canada Health Act.”

Unfortunately Farquhar and others who argue that clinic procedures must be government funded don’t quite have the law on their side. Neither do they seem to be in favour of rigorous medical standards to protect women’s health.

If women want to undergo any surgical procedure, it is cautious and in fact ‘pro-woman’ to require that they consult a physician, and more so to require the opinion of more than one. No medical procedure is without risk.

Last weekend I had to undergo a Dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure due to a complication following the birth of my son. Now a D&C and an abortion aren’t unrelated procedures. A D&C is a surgical procedure where the lining of the uterus or some contents found in the uterus are removed. The same procedure is used for early abortions. In that case, it is the developing child in the womb who is removed.
Even though I was a fairly non-urgent case for Ottawa’s busiest hospital, no fewer than three doctors were involved in the decisions surrounding my D&C. Then four other physicians attended my surgery. I thought it was overkill, but clearly those with medical expertise thought otherwise. In fact, they thought it medically necessary.

Given my experience of undergoing a fairly simple and straightforward D&C, is it that unreasonable that the New Brunswick government requires two medical opinions stating that an abortion is necessary prior to a citizen undergoing surgery?

Farquhar also claims that abortions are “medically necessary.” What she is referring to is a term that provinces and territories may assign to certain medical procedures under the Canada Health Act. If a province determines that a procedure is “medically necessary”, it must fund that procedure with tax dollars through its public health insurance plan. But what is “medically necessary”?

I’ve had the painful experience of reading through the Canada Health Act as well as consulting all available court decisions which address the question of “medical necessity.” The reality is that the Act is vague and no court in Canada has provided a clear list of criteria help provinces, or Canadian citizens for that matter, determine on a case by case basis whether or not a medical procedure should be classified as medically necessary. This isn’t some clear and established legal term or test.

Farquhar is brazen in claiming that the New Brunswick government is in clear violation of the Act. I can’t imagine any lawyer worth their salt making that kind of legal assessment. In fact, Health Canada even states that it’s up to each province to determine for itself which procedures are considered medically necessary.

Even the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada states that the determination of whether a procedure should be deemed “medically necessary” is “a matter of professional medical judgment, based on the patient’s particular circumstances and needs.” Heck, that almost sounds like New Brunswick’s policy – two physicians assessing each patient individually, on a case by case basis, in accordance with their professional judgment.

Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves “pro-choice.” Indeed, “choice” is the governing principle of their movement. “My body, my choice” is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?

Faye Sonier is a human rights lawyer practicing in Ottawa. She’s also a regular contributor to the ProWomanProLife.org project.

I’ve been a pro-life activist for six years. One of my primary files as a lawyer for The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is the “Life” file. Daily, I study issues like euthanasia, assisted suicide, reproductive technologies and abortion.

I’m currently working on an abortion-related project that the EFC is preparing to release. This means that for the last four days I’ve worked on nothing else. I’ve been reading and writing about abortion non-stop. I’ll continue to do so for the next few weeks until we release the report.

Only four days into this project, I’m already struggling with waves of nausea and deep sadness. This is partly because the abortion topic is a hard one to focus on exclusively. We’re talking about the dismemberment and killing of unborn children. We’re talking about the damage abortion inflicts on mothers, fathers, families, and communities. The damage for individuals may be psychological, emotional and physical but many fail to consider it is also reflected in demographic, cultural and economic realities of our society.

Anytime spent studying this issue is like taking a class entitled “Culture of Death 101.” It’s not a happy topic.

The other reality is that I’m six months pregnant. My son, Jack, seems intent to dance his way to the ninth month, whether that’s in his waking prenatal hours or in his sleep. The boy is kicking and stretching incessantly.

So while my laptop is propped up on a pillow just past my ever-growing belly, as I read about abortion procedures, Jack might kick enough to knock aside a page that is resting on my stomach. While I read pro-choice arguments that ring increasingly hollow, about choice or bodily rights, Jack is making my sweater ripple and bunch with his activity.

And this makes me feel sick, this reading about the killing and the rhetoric in defence of killing children just like my Jack.

Other pro-lifers have confessed to me that sometimes, to cope, they have to mentally and emotionally move to a 30,000 foot view of the abortion issue. They need to think about the “issue” without thinking about one or every single life destroyed. I fully understand how it would be crippling to function, much less engage, otherwise. I’ve been there too. Some days, as horrible as it sounds, I can’t bear to think about each life lost. On those days, I can handle a statistic, but I can’t handle the Susies, or Ellas, or Matteos, or Jacks who didn’t make it through the day because an abortionist and mother decided that today would be that child’s last.

Right now, I cannot separate myself from the individual lives that are being lost on an hourly basis. I can’t because I have one life that is making itself known all too loud and clear. His movements echo those of the little ones who will move no more before the end of the abortion clinic’s business day.

Today, like yesterday and the day before, about 275 children will die in Canada from abortion.

So I cry. I put down my journal articles and email a few of my colleagues and let them know I’m struggling. They call and we share. I try to get perspective. I cling to hope that lives are being saved because of the work the pro-life community is doing. That this work we do makes a difference. That hearts are being changed. That maybe today a life will be spared.

But it also spurs me on to pray for the children and women who are victims of abortion and for my colleagues who spend their lives sharing a message of life. It makes me recommit to this cause on a nearly minute-by-minute basis.

My struggle is minute compared with that of the children who are fighting for their lives, angling their little bodies away from the abortionist’s instruments. It is small compared to that of the women and communities who are left to pick up the pieces once the procedure is over. Abortion leaves loss, destruction and suffering in its wake. And today, it leaves me feeling sick and my heart that much more broken over the little lives lost than it ever has before.

And, for this activist, that’s probably a good thing.

Faye Sonier is Legal Counsel with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. She lives and works in Ottawa with her husband and little Jack.

You can read the entire piece here, but we include this quote from Ms. Sonier:

“This report is hugely damaging to CPCs in B.C., as well as the rest of Canada. I understand why the CPCs are not pursuing the suit further. Given how unspecific Arthur was in her allegations, an appeal of the decision would be a tough, uphill and costly legal battle. I like that the CPCs will issue a rebuttal of Arthur’s allegations. This is a reasoned response to a near impossible situation.

But I’m still frustrated. I’m frustrated that a poorly crafted, government funded report will tarnish the reputation of Canadian CPCs. Unlike Arthur’s shoddy research, CPCs are funded not by tax-payers but by private donors so centres can offer free services and resources to women and families facing unplanned or crisis pregnancies.”

Ms. Sonier encourages the reader to send a note of encouragement to your local crisis pregnancy centre and we do the same. For the contact information for the centre nearest you click here.