Creating unnecessary panic around later abortions is a political tool to promote controversy around access to abortion in Canada. Later abortions, which are those occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation, are uncommon and occur for a variety of complicated medical and social reasons.
Anti-choice politicians and activists attempt to rally opposition for abortion rights by presenting later abortion as a key issue when it comes to abortion access in Canada. Using later abortion as a scapegoat to create opposition to abortion access is problematic for many reasons. First, it misrepresents the current state of abortion access in Canada, in which later abortions are exceedingly rare (according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, they accounted for 1.29 per cent of all abortions in Canada in 2020). Second, this leads to discussion around what is considered a small number of abortions, and brings an unnecessary amount of scrutiny to people who are seeking abortion. Third, it pulls attention away from the much larger group of people who face access barriers to abortion in Canada due to issues like unregulated pregnancy centres, out-of-pocket costs, lack of willing providers, and the unequal distribution of providers in urban versus rural areas. These are the issues we should be talking about and advocating for politicians to take action on.
Another concern with debating later abortions is that these arguments vilify pregnant people and ignore the very real circumstances under which later abortions happen. They may be necessary because of fetal or maternal health complications Further, experiences of marginalization can significantly impede a person’s access to abortion, leading to delays in care.
Difficult circumstances in the home, such as intimate partner violence, living with parents, or living in a religious household can make accessing care a challenge. In Canada, people living in rural areas often struggle to find a willing provider in their area. People may have to travel significant distances for an abortion, incurring costs for travel, accommodation, childcare, and lost wages. People experiencing poverty or homelessness may find it extremely challenging to access timely care under these circumstances.
Instead of recognizing these complicated situations, arguments against later abortion paint pregnant people as uncaring, lazy, and impulsive–which reflects misogyny against ciswomen and transphobia against gender-diverse people who can get pregnant.
All of these factors just increase the stigma around abortion access, making it more difficult for everyone to feel safe and affirmed in making reproductive choices.
The later abortion debate is, at its core, a political tool for further abortion restrictions. Opponents of later abortions are opponents of abortions in general and use later abortion as a wedge issue where they can create controversy and divide the general public.
People in Canada are overwhelmingly supportive of abortion without restrictions. However, putting the focus on later abortions is one way that anti-choice politicians and activists encourage people to debate the conditions under which abortions are “necessary.”
By arguing that later abortions are “not medically necessary,” anti-choice politicians attempt to introduce and push through legislation that restricts abortion based on the number of weeks gestation, as they have done in 2007 and earlier. However, debating the medical necessity of abortion misunderstands the policy context in Canada. Abortion is “medically necessary” in Canada because it is a publicly funded service that falls under the purview of the Canada Health Act. This benefits everyone by requiring that abortion is freely accessible at the point of care (for those who are covered by a provincial plan).
It can be tempting to debate the merits of abortion rights by justifying the reasons why people access later abortions in Canada. However, these arguments tend to put pro-choice advocates on the defensive and politically exhaust them. The later abortion debate should not be a discussion, because it is an individual’s decision when to exercise their freedom of choice. Only the person having an abortion can truly understand their unique circumstances.
Here are some tips to avoid falling into the later abortion debate:
- Recognize that later abortions are rare and happen for complicated medical and social reasons. Affirm that you support everyone’s freedom to choose and instead highlight issues that prevent people from exercising their right to access timely care.
- Recognize that this is a bad-faith debate that is politically motivated and opens the door to abortion bans. In Canada, we enjoy decriminalized access to abortion without restrictions and we benefit from publicly funded abortion care. We must protect these rights by being aware of arguments that threaten to restrict access.
- Recognize that it is our responsibility to affirm everyone’s right to access abortion, and not to debate why or when such care is needed. Abortion is medically necessary through federal health policy that puts abortion firmly in the realm of healthcare––which is personal and confidential. It belongs in the hands of patients and healthcare providers.
