Final results: PC - 59 LIB - 35 NDP - 9 Other - 0
See June 4 LifeSite Daily News for analysis of the results

The Issues
Explanations of some of the Ontario life issues
 

ABORTION FUNDING
Question #4, #5
If elected, will you support an end to the financing of abortion clinics by the taxpayer?

Ontario governments and MPPs often state that they cannot de-fund abortion because the Canada Health Act requires OHIP payment for this procedure. In reality, funding is dependent on the answer to one question: Who decides what is medically "necessary" under the Canada Health Act?

1. The Canada Health Act states that provincial health insurance plans must cover "insured health services" which include "hospital services". These hospital services are defined in Section 2 of the Act as services which are "medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disease".

2. Former Justice Minister Kim Campbell stated that it was entirely the prerogative of the provincial government "to draw a distinction between abortions which are medically necessary and those which are not, and to fund only those which are medically necessary, drawing on their own criteria."

Therefore, the Ontario government has the legal ability to remove abortion from public medical insurance.

NOTE: The Canada Health Act does not require that "elective procedures" be funded, nor has any Canadian Court found a Constitutional right to publicly funded abortion.

3. Currently, Ontario taxpayers are forced to pay over 25 million tax dollars for the over 45,000 abortions that take place every year in the province.

4. In 1988 Dr. Henry Morgentaler stated that fewer than one tenth of one percent of abortions are done for serious health emergencies.

5. A 1995 study reviewing all available research on the reasons for abortion in Canada, concluded that "As the procedure (abortion) is not therapeutic, and as there is mounting evidence that it is harmful to women's health, funding by the government under health care cannot be justified." (Abortion Funding Psychiatric Brief, Dr. Doug Geekle, Director of Communications, Canadian Medical Association)

6. Removing funding from abortion does not restrict access to abortion nor promote the rise of illegal abortions.

Note: Conclusive studies by U.S. Government Centres for Disease Control show that in 39 states that removed public funding, 80% of welfare women who wanted abortions were able to obtain them through private funds. No states saw an increase in illegal abortion rates. (Willard Gates, Jr. M.D. . "The Health Impact of Restricting Public Funds for Abortions,"October 10 1977 - June 10 1978. American Journal of Public Health, Sept. 1979)

7. Free abortions means more abortions.

Note: U.S. studies have shown that where public funding for abortion was removed, both the pregnancy rate and the abortion rate dropped significantly. Public funding encourages the use of abortion as birth control.

8. Ontarians Do Not Want To Pay For Abortions:

Note: A 1995 Environics poll indicated that 57% of Ontarians oppose funding of abortion. Regardless of their personal views on abortion, members of the public do not believe that their tax payments should be used to fund this elective procedure.

Pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness. Abortion is never medically necessary.
 

CONSCIENCE LEGISLATION
Question #7
If elected will you support legislation which will confirm the right of health care workers to decline participation in activities for which they have a sincere conscientious objection?

This is first time Campaign Life Coalition has asked this question on its candidate survey � the need for it is clear.

For many years, health-care workers across Canada have been experiencing pressure to act against their consciences in certain very serious matters. For example, nurses are coerced to assist with abortions; doctors are forced to refer patients for objectionable procedures; public-health workers are expected to disseminate controversial sex-education material; and pharmacists are pressured to provide abortion-causing drugs.

Many have lost their jobs for refusing to co-operate in such things; others have been demoted or pushed out of their area of specialization; others have been refused employment or professional certification; and others have quit their jobs, or given up pursuing a career in health care.

In effect, it would ensure that no health-care worker would lack legal protection if pressured to act against his conscience�whether through the threat of firing, demotion, or refusal to hire or give professional certification, or other forms of unjust discrimination.

A poll conducted by Environics in March, 1998 found that 56% of Ontarians would support such measures, and that only 38% would not.

For more details see See http://www.lifesite.net/interim/august98/2healthcare.html
 

THE NDP INJUNCTION
The issue which has the greatest effect on the pro-life lobby remains the infamous injunction which places severe restrictions on pro-life activities near abortion clinics.

Pro-life activist Linda Gibbons has been imprisoned for most of the Progressive Conservative's term because of her refusal to abide by this injunction. Most parties refuse to deal with the subject in public; the following are the "unoffical" party positions.

FCP: In keeping with their consistent pro-life platform, the FCP opposes and abhors the injunction.

PC Party: Although the injunction was NDP-inspired, the Tories have made no attempt to lessen its impact nor have they relented in prosecuting those who have broken it. The Tories never did come through on vague election promises to end the injunction. While in office, they have resisted all attempts to drop the injunction. Top PC brass consistently refuse to meet with pro-life leaders to discuss this subject.