New Brunswick Right to Life

                                                                                                                    P.O. Box 113, Station A, Fredericton, NB E3B 4Y2
                                                                                  Tel. (506) 459-8990 or toll-free 1-888-796-9600. Fax (506) 454-8093. Email nbrl@nb.aibn.com
                                                                                                Office: 562 Brunswick St., Fredericton, NB. Website: www.nbrighttolife.ca 

Life for All. Love for All.

February 3, 2009

The Hon. Michael B. Murphy, Q.C.
Minister of Health
Province of New Brunswick
PO Box 5100
Fredericton NB E3B 5G8

Dear Mr. Murphy:

            You may recall our exchange of letters about four months ago. I appreciated your October 7 reply and responsiveness to our concerns.

            I write now with a heavy heart. In my last letter I voiced concern about an apparent significant increase in abortions at the Dr. Georges Dumont Hospital.
In your October 7 letter you acknowledged the increase and offered an explanation. My concern, however, has only deepened.

            When I wrote I did not have statistics. But since then I have been greatly dismayed to learn that 227 abortions were performed at the hospital in 2007-08. 
Adding to our consternation is our recent discovery that another 143 abortions occurred at the Chaleur Hospital over the same period. The total of 370 for the two
hospitals, together with 58 others reported for other hospitals, represents an enormous and, we submit, unnecessary loss of life.

            We call upon you to intervene. Hundreds of children are being denied life under government auspices. The guise of “medical necessity” that is being used to
cover these procedures under Medicare is, we submit, being seriously abused. You have it within your authority to take remedial measures. With all respect, we
insist upon the pressing need for you to exercise that authority.

            In our considered view, what has happened over the past two years is that these two hospitals have gradually taken on the kind of de facto abortion on
demand role previously in effect at the Chalmers Hospital. The Chalmers came to perform virtually all hospital abortions in the province, doing 400 in its final year
 of such activity (2005-06). We had documented evidence that most were carried out simply because the pregnancy was unwanted and for no other medical indication.
 With a similar combined number now performed in Moncton and Bathurst, it is reasonable to believe that a similar pattern of Medicare abuse has developed.

            You may recall that when I met with you in January, 2007 I pointed out that Regulation 84-20 governing Medicare payment of abortion does not define
“medical necessity” and warned  that the vagueness lends itself to abuse by unscrupulous physicians.  I urged you then, and in my latest letter, to close this loophole.
In your October reply you expressed confidence that the Regulation provided adequate “safeguards” against abortion on demand. I respectfully submit that the
safeguards have now been proved seriously ineffectual. 

            Mr. Murphy, I feel compelled to remind you that the situation is grave. It is your watch. A great many children are dying, unjustifiably. It seems to us that you,
as an honourable man, face a moral imperative to act. 

            We strongly suggest that the situation warrants some soul-searching on the part of the government about the ethical foundations of our health care system.
That examination should include careful scrutiny of the concept of “medically necessary abortion.”

            As to foundations, respect for human life has been a hallmark of good medicine since Hippocrates. In light of the discoveries of modern medical science
about the genetically distinct development of an unborn baby, we see no sound reason why respect for prenatal human life should not be a sine qua non of
contemporary medical care. Our health care system should be about saving and protecting lives, not destroying them. Period.

            Consequently, ethically speaking Medicare should not pay for abortion in any case excluding danger to a mother’s life. It is our further contention that the
 Province has the legal authority to enact this ethical norm, and should exercise it.

            As you probably know the main legislation governing Medicare, the Canada Health Act, does not specify any particular procedure as “medically necessary”
and thus to be publicly insured. It leaves it open to the Provinces, with their constitutional jurisdiction over health care, to determine whether, and under what
circumstances, an induced abortion may be medically required.

            In our correspondence with former federal health minister Alan Rock, we found that, in arguing that New Brunswick violated the Canada Health Act (by
not funding private clinics) he relied very much (and unduly, in our view) on the two premises that the Province had (a) already designated abortion as a “medically
necessary” procedure and (b) not defined medical necessity, therefore (he maintained) an abortion taking place at a private clinic in New Brunswick was automatically
“medically necessary” and could not be excluded from coverage.  In other words, he implicitly recognized that New Brunswick could legally either determine abortion
 not to be medically necessary or else define the criteria of medical necessity.

            Hence, if New Brunswick were to set down, by Act or regulation, that Medicare does not cover induced abortion, except when medically required to save
a woman’s life, its policy would be legally justified. We urge you and the government to adopt such an ethically sound policy.

            Mr. Murphy, for your consideration I have included, in Appendix A, four possible amendments to Regulation 84-20, Schedule 2. I wish to point out that while
 all of these spell out “medical necessity” and therefore represent some protection against publicly-funded abortion on demand, the amendments represent four descending
levels of protection for New Brunswick children in the womb. We are therefore far from indifferent as to which amendment is accepted.

            The Proposed Amendment expresses what we advocate above and see as commensurate with the respect that is due to human life. 

            Alternative Amendment #1 incorporates an additional exception for rape and incest and would be consistent with the moral views of most New Brunswickers.
 A 2007 Environics poll found that 66% of Atlantic Canadians said that Medicare should either not fund abortion at all (13%) or “only in medical emergencies, such as a
threat to the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest” (53%). I would further point out that this alternative embodies the public funding standard used by Maine and 31
other U.S. states.

            Alternative Amendment #2 has an additional exception for a serious long-term physical threat to a woman’s health. I would point out that with this kind of
exception it is difficult to remove all ambiguity, therefore it is subject to varying interpretations and more prone to abuse. It is markedly less desirable, and more ethically
 compromised, than the preceding two amendments outlined.

           Alternative Amendment #3 is by far the least desirable option. Its additional allowance for a danger to psychological health would leave a considerable loophole
 that would be difficult to guard against. The effect of this amendment might be negligible, i.e. little of the current abuse might be curtailed.

            Amendment #3, in fact, hearkens back to the “endanger her life or health” exception of Section 287 of the Criminal Code (struck down by the Supreme Court in
Morgentaler v. R., 1988; my emphasis). That provision did not prevent de facto abortion on demand at numerous hospitals across the country. While recognizing that some
definition of medical necessity is better than none, we would remain extremely dissatisfied were this type of standard to be adopted. A truly ethical government can do better.

            Still in regard to amending Regulation 84-20, I would point out that, according to legal advice I have received, any amendment could have the further
benefit of rendering moot the two lawsuits against the Province that are now before the courts since they hinge upon this particular regulation in its present
wording.

            Understandably, tightening the Medicare requirements would carry wider policy implications. For example, it would raise the question, If hospital abortions are
less freely available what will abortion-minded women do? We would welcome the opportunity to discuss such questions with you, including our proposals to expand
 services for pregnant women. 

            We hope you agree with us, the status quo is not an option. Other jurisdictions have succeeded in offering women more help, lowering abortion rates, increasing
birth rates. We are convinced that, with the right leadership and resourcefulness, New Brunswick can do likewise.

            We know that the leadership we look for requires political courage. Please be assured of our prayers, as you do everything you can in this grave matter of life and
death. Thank you in advance for giving this the careful attention it deserves.

            Yours sincerely,

            Peter Ryan, Executive Director

             Enc.