Last year, Canadian Physicians for Life released a compelling statement declaring that abortions are not medically necessary procedures and that they should be defunded. The statement is now available online. Here are a few excerpts. Go read the document and bookmark the page. It’s a great resource.
In these times of strained health care resources, it is more imperative now than ever that government be streamlining spending in the health care sector. A necessary step in doing this is to identify those services which are not medically necessary and delist them. It is our opinion that abortion is never medically necessary and should be defunded provincially…
There are infrequent cases in which pregnancy can place the physical health of a woman in jeopardy. Although induced abortion is often heralded as the sole treatment for these conditions, invariably it is not the only option. Rather, treatment of the underlying condition should be the course of action, and although it may result in the loss of the pregnancy, this situation is far different from an induced abortion which targets destruction of the fetus as its end. So even in these difficult situations, abortion should not be considered as a medical necessity, given that other treatments exist which also preserve the physical well-being of the mother….
When it comes to instances of fetal abnormalities detected during pregnancy, an important comment needs to be made: In any pregnancy, there are two patients. One being the woman, and one being the fetus that she is carrying. This principle should be self evident to any physician involved in prenatal care. The practice of terminating pregnancy based on the characteristics of the fetus is tantamount to eugenics and should no longer be accepted.
by 
Hoo boy. Am I the only one who thinks that this is too much, too fast?
I think there are two problems with this statement. One is the way Physicians for Life defines abortion such that, if it’s a situation where perhaps a termination of pregnancy is the best medical course of action, then we’ll jigger the definition of abortion so this procedure doesn’t qualify as an abortion. That might pass muster with the most extreme sophists, but to most of us, it just looks hypocritical.
The second is the targeting of eugenics aborions. Don’t get me wrong, I see eugenics abortions as wrong, too, but public sentiment is on the side, right now, that abortion is a necessary evil in the cases where the baby has severe birth defects. (I’m not sure that the public is quite so supportive when the baby has a more minor condition such as Down Syndrome.)
If we want to make any progress on abortion in this country, we are going to have to engage those in the mushy middle. And if we start out by condemning those hard case abortions: those where baby was conceived in rape or incest, or those where the baby has severe birth defects, or those done when the pregnancy is endangering the health of the mother, if we start condemning those cases, we come off looking as having no compassion for women in really tough situations, and those who are in the mushy middle, many of whom would be receptive to many prolife arguments, the mushy middle will tune us right out.
Baby steps, folks. Baby steps. Abortion wasn’t foisted on Canadians in a day. It won’t be all rolled back at once either.
Hi Melissa,
I wonder if the timing of this statement doesn’t have something to do with where the abortion debate is at, right now. There are a lot of arguments being made to justify abortion post-viability, or post 20 weeks, as was the case in Texas. The US supreme court just upheld the late-term abortion ban and the liberal media pundits were up in arms, as is suggested here: http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/13131. Seems to me that this is not a starting point for PFL but actually part of a larger debate that urgently needs addressing.
…my two bits.