Abortion groups meet with health minister

Teresa Wright
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Health Minister Doug Currie met with groups from both sides of the abortion debate Wednesday as he continues to be pressed by abortion service advocates and pro-lifers on the controversial issue.

P.E.I.'s abortion policies exploded into local and national headlines last month when a newly formed lobby group called the P.E.I. Reproductive Rights Organization (PRRO) called for abortion to be made available on P.E.I.

Prince Edward Island is the only province in Canada that does not provide any abortion services. The procedure is not done in Island hospitals and there are no private clinics that offer the service in the province. The government does pay for abortions off-Island, but only with a doctor referral and if done in a hospital. Private clinic abortions are not covered.

The three founding members of PRRO, as well as representatives from the P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Women's Network, met with Currie Wednesday to push for abortion to be made available in P.E.I as well as an increase in available abortion information for women.

PRRO spokeswoman Sam Wight told reporters after the meeting she was pleased to be able to speak with the minister about the lack of access to this medical service in P.E.I.

"It was primarily a listening meeting, beginning to build the groundwork and start a relationship," Wight said.

Her group hopes to eventually see Currie's department take the lead and recruit doctors to perform abortions on P.E.I., she said.

"We are very hopeful. I know we will be planning on speaking with more doctors and seeing where everyone stands on this, but I think it's a real possibility and there's no reason why it shouldn't be."

Wight added she was happy to see Health P.E.I. already meeting some of their requests in providing more information on abortion services to P.E.I. women.

A new page has been created on the Health P.E.I. website with some basic information and links to a few women's groups and walk-in clinics. A letter was also sent from the department to the P.E.I. Medical Society, clarifying to doctors their roles and responsibilities when women are seeking an abortion.

"We're very happy to see that they have made steps forward to make information accessible. It's a really good start, and it is just a start. But it's really great to see," Wight said.

Currie also met with the P.E.I. Right to Life Association Wednesday, immediately following his meeting with the PRRO.

This was his first formal meeting with any groups advocating on the abortion issue.

As a result, he says he wants to take some time to assess the information he received from both groups before deciding on any course of action.

"Today's conversations were certainly a next step and very important for me to hear face-to-face the concerns and the issues that both organizations have," Currie said.

"We know it's a very divisive issue, both sides are very passionate about their positions, so it's allowing me to really understand the depth of both sides of the conversation... but I'm going to take a little bit of time, I'm going to reflect back on the conversations."

Currie said he's also looking at what is being done in other jurisdictions similar in population size to P.E.I. for comparison on what level of abortion services are available to residents.

 

Organizations: P.E.I. Reproductive Rights Organization, Health P.E.I., P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women P.E.I. Medical Society Life Association

Geographic location: P.E.I., Prince Edward Island, Canada

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • CMD
    December 16, 2011 - 13:35

    1941, Germany. It's legal, even encouraged to mistreat, even kill, Jews, Ethnic minorities. Society accepts this, and the few brave souls who speak out do so at risk of their jobs, homes and lives. I worry that our society is headed in this direction. I realize that this issue is complicated and devisive, but it seems odd that everyone today has rights except for the unborn. I write this from an IPhone, glad that Steve Job's unwed, teenage mom was brave enough to give him up for adoption, rather than making the easy, obvious choice

  • Townie
    December 16, 2011 - 08:11

    I am pro-choice. That being said I would never have an abortion for any reason, even if it meant that having a baby would kill me. Now you may find that to be contradictory but I believe some decisions are up to the individual and no one else should have their nose in it. There are too many busy bodies on this island who believe they are always right and refuse to see things from different angles.

    • hmmmm
      December 18, 2011 - 13:02

      So everybody should shut up unless you approve of their opinion?

  • kittten
    December 16, 2011 - 06:27

    eat,drink,-?????---and be merry for tomorrow you can order an abortion

  • Laurie Storrie
    December 15, 2011 - 20:50

    Way to go PRRO Ladies, Don't let the hateful comments get you down!

  • SERIOUSLY PEOPLE
    December 15, 2011 - 18:46

    THERE ARE SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. and you are still arguing over whether a fetus is considered a "life"? Unless every unwanted baby in orphanages have homes, all you Anti-choicers arguments are invalid. If you DON'T believe in abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE! It's very simple. Just because you believe something, does not mean that EVERYONE else has to feel the same way. PEI already PAYS for this service, into Halifax's healthcare. So there really isn't anything to debate about. Keep our women safe at home.

    • Head Shaker
      December 17, 2011 - 08:57

      @ Seriously People. To deconstruct a few points in your argument. Firstly, "life" is not something you have or don't have depending on whether someone wants to take care of you. Just because no one adopts an orphan, it it still has "life". Otherwise you'd just put orphans to sleep like we do with stray dogs and cats. I think very few people would agree with that. Secondly, telling a pro-lifer that if they don't like abortion not to have one makes about as much sense as a serial killer telling people that if they dont' like murder, don't murder anyone. For a pro-lifer, THE PRIMARY issue is that they don't accept the definition that "life" does not exist until your mom decides that you are acceptable enough to be inconvenienced by. Once yhou have that definition, choice is out. Once a child is born, and you have decided that they now have "life" would a pro-choicer be saying that if you don't like infanticide, don't kill your toddler? No. It is exactly the same thing. That is the annoyoing thing about these abortion debates. The parties won't agree what they are arguing about. As for the it is legal argument, so is the speed limit.

    • How
      December 17, 2011 - 17:55

      How can we progress as a society with such hatemongers among us? We are asking to be allowed basic human rights, and you equate it to mass murdering orphans?

    • go away
      December 18, 2011 - 07:58

      Head Shaker should move into a cave with his neanderthal friends, and leave the rest of the world to the enlighted ones who reject and are offended by his funamentalist hate speech.

  • Joseph Kenneth Malone
    December 15, 2011 - 16:22

    Celebrate life and not a culture of death.

    • Open Eyes
      December 15, 2011 - 17:17

      Sorry JKM, but they want a culture of selfishness, greed, wanton abandon, lust, incest, rape, perversion and then murder to fix the result. What selfish person in their right mind would want to be a parent?

  • Way to go PRRO
    December 15, 2011 - 16:17

    ladies... I don't know any of you personally but your doing a great job!! behind you 100%...

  • Robin
    December 15, 2011 - 14:04

    To Nope and YEAH RIGHT: The point I was trying to make is that neither side of this debate can be considered a "fringe element". But if you want numbers... Only 27% want the status quo- no restrictions on abortion. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43161/most-canadians-unaware-of-lack-of-restrictions-on-abortions/

  • Robin
    December 15, 2011 - 12:17

    To Bronwyn: Whether you like it or not, there is a debate. Most opinion polls indicate those who favor the status quo - zero restrictions on abortions, are in the minority. And even among those in favor of unrestricted access to abortion are divided on how much if anything the government should pay for it. And yes the legality is in question. A specific law was stroke down in 1988. The Supreme Court said parliament was free to create a new law. Mulroney tried, but the bill died in the senate. No government has tried since. Abortion is not an inherent right like freedom or speech or religion. It is legal because there is currently no law stating otherwise. This could change at any time, and if you believe Stephen Harper's opponents, it will.

    • Nope
      December 15, 2011 - 13:37

      Actually, Robin, opinion polls in Atlantic Canada have the pro-life percentage at only 20%. More anti-choice 'facts' from the people who think they can tell a woman what she can do with her body.

    • YEAH RIGHT
      December 15, 2011 - 13:44

      Post the opinion polls you're talking about. They don't exist.

    • Yep
      December 15, 2011 - 14:13

      Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy

  • Modern Times
    December 15, 2011 - 10:47

    Come on people - get with the times. It is almost 2012 and we are still back in the middle ages. I am PRO-CHOICE..... Woman should have a choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy or not. It is just that simple. There are many reasons - health issues of the baby, fetal alcohol syndrome, genetic defects, rape, incest, un-wanted teenage pregnancies. I see so many children on this island born with genetic defects (who end up taking a huge amount of money from our health and education, and a huge toll on their parents), It should be a personal choice. If you don't agree with them - don't have one.

    • Uncle Wally
      December 15, 2011 - 13:43

      Is "get with the times" new and persuasive data? Yikes . . .

    • data minded
      December 15, 2011 - 15:13

      @ modern abortion is not a cure to any of the social problems you mentioned. I would love to know if there are significatant rape, incest, teen pregnacies and FAS going on in our Province? Abortion only provide options to these social woes. Women who are pro choice float these strawman agruements not to be questioned. Rape and incest should be treated immediately right after the rape kit and the morning after pill. I have no arguements against those situations but what I am curious about is how many abortions are being performed for these reasons? How many unwanted Teen pregnancies are there? Do we not want our teen girls to be able to self care for their bodies or is it your resolve repeated open access to abortion will be the best strategy for this? If you have a communication barrier with your parents do you think the secret of an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent abortion will really be the best answer for the Teen? I think this will just polarize the situation. You must be careful how you throw repoductive rights around. In most cases there is a male involved in the process in a consenual act. Women can choose to abort or go to term. Although men can provide feedback currently, I believe it will not be fully a "woman's choice" until males are allowed to give up their parental and legal obligations then she can decide to come to full term with the baby or abort, unlike what happens now. You must be a real joy to be around when you see a mother who has decided to go to term knowing her child will have significant challenges mentally and physically. That was their choice and for a movement who promote education about "choices' your comments are a bit off. This is the difference between Pro Choice and Pro Abortion. There is one issue that no one else is saying about the Province providing locally. This procedure is like so many others. They are done on the Mainland. Some in Clinics where the patients are made to bare the cost and some are reimburisable done in Hospital. Just like abortion is currently. I am sure Minister Currie is weighting the business case to this because if he brings this one home, his door maybe off the hinges with other people who are forced off Island for life saving procedures to bring their care back to the island too. * it has been noted Aids/HIV PEI has been absent on the issue of unprotected sex that is associated with this discussion. Awareness is always cheaper than a service.

    • Open Eyes
      December 15, 2011 - 17:06

      At least in the middle ages we murdered people post-natal. Do you have any LOGICAL reason for abortion or are you another eugenist who wants a perfect genetic race. Sounds like you are justifying incest, rape and chemical abuse during pregnancy and going with the "solution" to those inconveniences. Have you no concience?

    • heathen for life
      December 15, 2011 - 17:41

      How do you put a price tag on a human life? How do you persuade a woman whose baby in utero has defects that she should abort it, lest this child burden tax payers? How do you decide which defects are acceptable? Or are no defects acceptable? What about the ones who slip one past the goalie and are born with a defect that wasn't previously detected? Infanticide then? Slippery slope, isn't it?

  • emily r
    December 15, 2011 - 10:39

    So glad this courageous group exists! Keep up the amazing work PRRO!

  • Robin
    December 15, 2011 - 09:56

    I agree with Boggles "if its not your body then its not your decision." Unless you somehow know the baby wants his/her body destroyed, leave it alone

  • a question of life
    December 15, 2011 - 09:50

    "A fetus is not alive, go learn something about biology instead of exerting your opinion on someone else's life." Well biology points to the fact that life is happening inside a mothers womb. It is kind of moog as to the point on the clock when the fetus is now fully human. There are those who argue it is following birth and there are those that say it is at the moment of conception. The 'law' limits human rights in many ways, including the lack of full human rights to the fetus. I notice though that one can be charged with murder if you kills a child in the mothers womb before birth. Interesting contradiction.

  • I LOVE MY HUSBAND
    December 15, 2011 - 09:49

    its pretty pathetic when the Government has to tell women what they are/aren't allowed to do with their own bodies. Also pretty pathetic that other people are also so concerned as to what strangers do with their own bodies!

    • Lynn
      December 16, 2011 - 12:00

      I agree. It is pathetic that the government has to tell people not to kill their unborn children. It is pathetic that someone would end the life of another, which they created, becasue that life is an inconvenience.

    • kitten
      December 16, 2011 - 17:30

      it is not your body about to be aborted!!!! it is another's body that you are aborting -your son your daughter your twins etc etc you have your body that you can choose to commit suicide on i suppose and i hope you dont --but i bet you wan't abort (kill) your own body

  • Annie Margaret
    December 15, 2011 - 09:41

    We are already paying for abortions/doctors in Halifax, why not spend that money here instead of renting out space in another hospital?? The rest of Canada has it figured out, but our Government can't. SAD

  • Facts
    December 15, 2011 - 09:40

    Alot of anti-choice people say that abortion causes mental health issues. An incredible amount of studies have been done to suggest that that is not true. Here is a recent study: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16094906

  • Annie Margaret
    December 15, 2011 - 09:40

    We are already paying for abortions/doctors in Halifax, why not spend that money here instead of renting out space in another hospital?? The rest of Canada has it figured out, but our Government can't. SAD

    • Wtf
      December 16, 2011 - 08:24

      Get enough family doctors and a cardiac surgeon and then ask why we can't do elective procedures.

  • Uncle Wally
    December 15, 2011 - 09:37

    I am full of opinions. However, for this topic and as a male, I am lost in the woods. The most I hope for is open-minded debate. To be open-minded, one must be clear and hold tight to a position but also allow that position to be changed subject to new or more persuasive information. To do otherwise is simply empty-minded. Which leads me to the bottom line: To change current practice, what new or more persuasive information should the Hon. Doug Currie consider?

    • Bronwyn
      December 15, 2011 - 10:32

      There is no debate. Let me put a finer point on it: THERE IS NO DEBATE. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and has been for decades. Its legality is not in question. The only issue that is of dubious legality is the Island's refusal to ensure local access. The country is firmly over the abortion "debate" and has been settled for almost 30 years on the side of women's right to security of the person. Currie's meeting with the anti-choicers is a disingenuous move at best; they have no legal ground to stand on and he well knows this. (Do other ministers meet with groups who lobby around issues involving the denial of constitutional rights to specific groups of people? No, because these would be termed "hate groups.") In an ill-considered PR move meant to placate a fringe element of the Island, Currie has chosen to legitimate what the anti-choicers are doing as if it is in any way parallel or even relevant to PRRO's agenda. The anti-choicers aren't taking part in the same conversation and it's time to stop pretending that they are.

  • Boggles
    December 15, 2011 - 09:04

    it boggles my mind how people are assuming that the only reason that abortion is done is because they are ( using abortion as an alternate method of birth control). there are many reasons for the procedure to be done, not just rape or birth control. this is a subject that will ignite passions of both sides for way too many years. everyone thinks they are right and the other is wrong, i would not want someone to make a decision on what i can or can not do with my life and then them just have walk away. if its not your body then its not your decision.

    • Please explain
      December 15, 2011 - 09:16

      Please explain how preventing the birth of a child is anything other than birth control. Controlling whether or not someone is born is pretty much the definition of birth comtrol.

    • Get serious
      December 15, 2011 - 12:40

      I think what Bobbles rightfully means is that the position of some seems to be that women are going to use abortion services any time they get pregnant as a form of birth control, rather than a condom or other contraceptives. This view is just silly and ignorant. It is actually quite terrifying the amount of people that have come out as blatantly ignorant. Those of you who have a problem with abortion laws need to address Parliament, not Minister Currie. He would be doing his job by providing better access. This is not an issue that should be put to vote at all. What comes next? Are we going to vote about the rest of the laws that the Canadian government has enacted that doesn't quite jive with the PEI religious sanctuary we have seemed to have created? Where does it stop? I know quite a few other things that our country has allowed that would go against the Bible, are we going to throw those in the trash too?

  • Jason Bourne
    December 15, 2011 - 08:59

    First of all, let's dispense with religious reasons. Whenever someone mentions the bible, I tune out. Not out of ignorance or to be fashionably atheist, but because logic usually has no place in such discussions. Level the playing field and talk common sense. Secondly, the "my body" issue. You think the general public actually cares what you do with your body? You can have your legs reverted and walk backwards, have sexual reassignment, cover your skin in hideous tattoos, make yourself fat, we really don't care. Whether or not you feel any awe for the fact you have a womb and realize just what it does, matters not. There is another human being growing inside you, and this separate person is what pro-lifers are concerned with, and they feel they are the voice of this other person, standing between modern entitlement and a viable adoption; in effect, you don't own this person any more than you own the people you welcome into your house. Thirdly, worth mentioning is the fact there are too many women who pretend to be speaking for themselves, but are rather making some self-righteous noise in some trendy assertion of identity on the coat-tails of a hot issue their egoes have landed them on. It's not that PEI is the least funded and smallest and just so happens to be last by default, it's some kind of conspiracy in which an arrogant few have felt their sense of self can be bolstered. Steady pressure means nothing to this mindset. It's as though every second PEI spends without having drive-thru abortions at Confederation Landing with see-through windows, we're living in Afghanistan or something. Every inconvenience makes them think they're suffragettes. This leads me to the fourth point: Pro-lifers, don't bother fighting it anymore. It's going to happen no matter what you do. Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. What you find morally disgusting today will be trendy tomorrow. It's a losing battle. It used to be in cases where rape, incest or otherwise abnormally risky pregnancies were the cause for abortion, hence the referrals and counselling. Today, if ANY pregnancy that impedes or otherwise inconveniences a modern woman's quest for comfort, then that pregnancy is on the chopping block. There is nothing you find repulsive today that will be considered so in 100 years. What was digusting 50 years ago is fashionable today, and in 50 years, no matter how liberal you are now, many things are going to repulse you, and I'm not talking about valid evolutions like women's rights or gay rights. It's an unwinnable war to wage when you try to appeal for a modern citizen to comprimise in the name of what you consider decency, because decency and comprimise are history. Let what's trendy happen, even if it sickens you. Any opinions otherwise have already been labeled. If you want someone to listen to you, bring up something you think is digusting, publicly fight for the righteousness of it. Fifth, and finally, if we are going to take stands against religious intolerance, let's put ALL religions on the chopping block. The modern mindset may see Christians as its arch-enemy, but let's consider the amount of evolving the Christian churches have done in the past few decades alone. Remember, there are religions walking among us that still execute women for being raped, so if we're going to go after religion next, let's do it clinically, going after the worst offenders first.

  • Pregnant Mother
    December 15, 2011 - 08:07

    I am a pregnant mother due very shortly and already have a child at home. Some might think I would be on the pro life option here but I believe in pro-choice. I took many precautions and still became pregnant very soon after my first. I am still suffering from post partum from my first I personally believe I am not going to be mentally able to raise a toddler and a baby. I am on my medications for my post partum as well as a hernia caused by my first pregnancy is getting worse and causing me daily pain that only gets worse as my pregnancy progresses. I went to my doctor to request to have an abortion but by the time all the appointments needed were done I was almost 18 weeks.... a little to late to have an abortion then. If these services would have been available on PEI I would not be going through what I am now. And if I end up with any major complications after this pregnancy it will be on the PEI goverment for not offering proper medical services for ALL PEOPLE of PEI.

  • DrB
    December 15, 2011 - 08:04

    I'm also quite intrigued as to how tanning beds are being limited in the province, at the call of everyone, because they are injurious to one's health. But yet, on the other hand people are pushing for abortions. Do these people realize how much damage having an abortion causes to woman's body? At least physically, not to mention psychologically. Imagine having another 'being' dependent on your body for life, and then to suddenly have it removed.. quite a shock to system a dare say. Abortions are not healthy for mother or child.

    • Wrong
      December 15, 2011 - 09:36

      Hi, actually, the BBC and many others have done research that indicates that there are few physical or psychological side-effects to having an abortion. Here's a link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16094906

  • Robin
    December 15, 2011 - 08:00

    To Mary MacAfee: re: "since there is no life until birth". So what is it making visible signs of movement in a pregnant mother's womb? A battery powered clump of flesh? If that is your way of reconciling your views, that is your prerogative, but please do not insult our intelligence. While I disagree with them, I respect those in the pro-choice movement much more when they call a spade a spade: they acknowledge that abortion ends the life of (aka kills) the fetus/baby, but the mother's right to end the pregnancy supersedes that.

  • DrB
    December 15, 2011 - 07:56

    Sr. Mary Could you state your position a bit clearer? It sounds like you're against both sides?

  • Janice
    December 15, 2011 - 07:54

    I am pro choice. I personally cannot stand the bickering back and forth between the two sides. I have a nephew who was adopted by my sister and her husband. He is three. His mother, chose to not terminate her pregnancy when she became pregnant eventhough she was highly addicted to crystal meth and lived with a number of users. I love my nephew, he is an amazing little boy, however, his life since birth has consisted of operations and hospitilization since birth. When I say my sister and brother-in-law adopted him, he has been to their home for no longer then a week at a time. He is in constant pain as the damage of the crystal meth at such a high dosage has caused him to have a softening of the matter in his brain. He will live no longer then 5 and he is at the best childrens hospital in the country. I am not saying abortion is an option for everyone, nor am I saying I wish my nephew was never here. That is not the case. But luckily for my nephew my sister adopted him and this mother allowed them to do so, what about the children that have no choice but to live in these unstable homes with these conditions. The children never wanted to be brought into a world where people can be so cruel. Again, I am pro choice.

  • andy
    December 15, 2011 - 07:37

    No life untill birth sister mary? What's your definition of life, mine is a beating heart. I would say by your comment that you don't have kids or don't want them if you do. So let me ask you this then, if I was to go out and beat a pregnant lady causing her to lose the child what would i be charged with? Probably at least manslaughter, how can you be charged for killing something that isn't alive, according to you.

  • Cindy
    December 15, 2011 - 07:35

    Hey Doug, Make sure you keep the status the same, you want to bend over for a green party supporters and NDP supporters , you will never get my vote if you allow abortion

    • Mary
      December 15, 2011 - 09:34

      Cindy, abortion IS allowed on PEI, just not performed here. The pro-life groups also seem to have literacy issues.

  • Quiet Observer
    December 15, 2011 - 07:07

    If there has ever been an issue that should go to public, non-political vote (plebicite/referendum - whatever the right word is), this is it. I don't feel any political party should be strapped with the burden of making a decision based on pressure grou[p tactics. LET THE PEOPLE OF PEI DECIDE.

  • Fred
    December 15, 2011 - 06:41

    Jeanette Myers.. they are not changing any kind of 'status' just ensuring all women on PEI have the same access to health services as the rest of Canada.

  • As long
    December 15, 2011 - 05:36

    As long as we are looking at what is funded, why is optometry and dentistry not covered, and when are we going to get a comprehensive catastrophic drug program. Why is this one issue a human rights issue on the scale of canned pop, and other issues acceptable for people to live with?

    • Omg
      December 15, 2011 - 09:19

      And the pro-breeder hate continues..

  • A man
    December 15, 2011 - 02:11

    Aside from the fact Doug Currie isn't cut out to make any decisions for anyone, NO MAN is equipped to make any decision for a woman when it comes to her body and health. If you are against abortion, you are anti-choice, not pro-life. If you're so pro-life, go lock arms around a cemetery. A fetus is not alive, go learn something about biology instead of exerting your opinion on someone else's life.

    • emily r
      December 15, 2011 - 10:42

      thank you!

  • Jeanette Myers
    December 14, 2011 - 22:57

    I find it highly disturbing that the government would even consider changing the current status. The population of the Island is around 130,000 people and I doubt severely that there would be enough rapes to condone forcing Doctors who have a conscience to perform abortions (assuming that people aren't using abortion as an alternate method of birth control). Taking the life of the unborn is no different than stabbing someone in a back alley and only people who are deemed to be insane do that kind of thing. One of the things I loved about coming back to the Island was the fact that life was still important...from birth to death. If political pressure is all it takes to change the minds of the representatives that are supposed to support the majority (not the noisy minority), I will very disappointed.

    • Jenny
      December 15, 2011 - 00:06

      There is no way that anti-choice is the majority. The rest of the world is laughing at us. Most of the Island supports choice - the empathetic and legal option.

    • Kayleigh
      December 15, 2011 - 00:11

      "The population of the Island is around 130,000 people and I doubt severely that there would be enough rapes to condone forcing Doctors who have a conscience to perform abortions" May I ask, how many rapes exactly do you think should happen anyway? And that in itself is even beside the point. What matters is that women have the right to this service. It would be no different than you being denied services in the like, healthcare is important, especially for woman. You don't have to agree, you just have to understand.

    • M.C
      December 15, 2011 - 07:49

      If you want to speak in terms of population, our Island population surpasses that of all three territories combines, and yet abortion care is provided within each. Rape statistics are highly inaccurate, as so many women (and men) do not step forward.

    • Natalie
      December 15, 2011 - 08:51

      This isn't about rapes, or forcing doctors who aren't comfortable to perform abortions. Any person on the pro-choice side of the issue will be quick to assure you that rapes/incest make up about 1-2% of abortion procedures. The point is that regardless of the reason behind it, abortion is a legal right of all Canadian women. It doesn't matter if you were raped or not. Also, the PRRO does not have any interest in pressuring doctors who are not comfortable with performing abortions to change their stance. They have stated that they have talked to some doctors who support their cause and some who don't. I don't think anyone would want to force a doctor to perform an abortion if they were not willing to do so. The fact remains that there are doctors who are supportive of this and would be comfortable with providing the procedure. I'm not sure how you got either one of those points from this article...as far as I can tell it doesn't even mention them.

    • So
      December 15, 2011 - 09:13

      So 98-99% of abortions are because they are inconvenient? As for no one wanting to force doctors, you should look at earlier articles where people were voicing the opinion that if a doctor didn't want to, them they should stop practicing medicine and live in a monastery.

  • Canadian first
    December 14, 2011 - 22:20

    Don't move too fast now, Doug C. You've got so much weight on your shoulders making this huge decision for all we Island women!

    • Catsass
      December 15, 2011 - 10:13

      I support both sides and understand why this topic is one that bring about such passion in those advocating for their side. I guess this would mean I am a PRO CHOICE person. After all, God gave us free will...why can't we give it to each other? We dont need a special clinic. In fact, that is the worst because it prevents any kind of privacy. I do believe that our hospital should be equipped to perform abortions. It's less money and makes more sense all around. BUT the first referall from a doctor, SHOULD be to a support group where people can learn what options are there for them. There is always going to be people who arent responsible. For example: I know woman who DO use abortion as birth control and have had more than I can count. I also know woman who have had abortions for good reason but the decision didnt come easily. But to create policy that controls someone's very personal choice, because of a few people who would misuse it, is like putting a stop to charity because some will use the money you give them for drugs instead of food. Doesnt make sense does it? There are so many children on this earth that are starving, forgotten, abandoned, abused, in foster homes, orphanages etc. If as much effort went into helping those children, as did in the abortion debate, imagine how many of those children would be saved from a terrible life. If people who cant have babies and want them so badly, why are THEY not given their options for adoptions as well? Why arent more of the children that are already struggling for survival adopted to these loving homes? That, to me, is more of an issue.

  • Curious
    December 14, 2011 - 21:46

    Misleading title, one would think it was only one group yet in the very first line the headline is debunked. And why is the term pro-life no longer used? Anyone?

    • Sister Mary MacAfee
      December 14, 2011 - 22:56

      Curious, how is it misleading? The heading says groups met with Currie and the lead says he met with groups. How is that misleading? The heading and story does not make it seem like he met with just one group. The term pro life is long outdated. The anti-abortion groups are not pro-life since there is no life until birth. The anti-abortion groups are anti-choice since they seek to deny women the choice to be in charge of their own bodies. It will take a bit longer yet, but the ant-choice groups will die a deserved death at the hands of an ever evolving society. The groups that still want to control women and their bodies under the guise of protecting life will soon find they are no longer welcome in a world that has come a long way since the church ran every aspect of a person's life.

    • Head Shaker
      December 15, 2011 - 05:02

      Nice bit of self serving sophistry. Please define the term life to defend the assertion that life does not exist until birth. Antiabortion groups are not not necessarily anti-choice. I can choose to kill my neighbour. The ability to choose to do something and the ability to have that action allowed are separate issues.

    • Really
      December 15, 2011 - 08:54

      Excuse me Sister Mary, did I read that right? There is no life until birth? I have been pregnant twice and both of my children had heartbeats, could hear sounds and could move and react long before they were born. It is one thing to have an opinion on abortion but as a mother I can promise you that life begins long before birth. People can argue about right and wrong, mothers rights vs baby's rights and so on, but it is alive. It is a life.

  • WTF
    December 14, 2011 - 20:40

    Is IVF and fertility treatments included in "reproductive rights" or is this a one issue lobby group?

    • Omg
      December 15, 2011 - 05:04

      What a disgusting and hateful attitude. Abortion is a basic human right. The right to allow yourself to be breeding stock is not.

    • Well..
      December 15, 2011 - 07:55

      It's usually the most successful measure to work on one issue at a time. Right now PEI is grossly behind in terms of access to information in terms of abortion care. I'm excited to see what PRRO turns its specs on next. Look at the attention that they've brought to this issue! More awareness and ground has been covered in three short months than has been achieved in quite some time.

    • Wtf
      December 15, 2011 - 09:09

      The most successful tactic from a non-profit organization point of view is to come out with a fully rounded position and statements as the the role of the organization and produce a strategic plan as to the relative priority of different objectives with anticipated timelines and strategies. i'm just asking if they are focussed on one particular topic, and if so the name of the organization is misleading.

    • Wrf
      December 15, 2011 - 09:23

      I checked the website. They are abortion only.