This week, Tobin LeBlanc Haley and Jula Hughes hosted an important symposium, ‘Abortion Pathways and Abortion Obstacles in the Maritimes,’ at the University of New Brunswick Law School.
Reproductive justice scholars and activists from across Canada gathered on May 27 to discuss various themes around abortion.
LeBlanc Haley, from the University of New Brunswick and Hughes, from Lakehead University in Ontario, were lead researchers on the Reproductive Justice Access Project NB.
In 2023, the project’s ‘Clinic 554 and Abortion Access in New Brunswick – Final Report’ issued four key recommendations, including for the government of New Brunswick to repeal Regulation 84-20 of the Medical Services Payment Act.
Recommendations to the Government of Canada were to develop and implement a rural abortion access strategy and to address the data gaps in abortion care. Finally, the researchers recommended that “Governments at all levels should collaborate on strategies for meeting the needs of members of equity-seeking groups requiring reproductive health care, including striking an inter-ministerial committee.”
The symposium included three different academic panels and one for community activists.
The first panel reviewed the history and current context for abortion in the Maritimes. Professor Nicole O’Byrne and student Elise Hamill from UNB Law presented a comprehensive ‘Legal History of Abortion in the Maritimes.’ Many of the present struggles with abortion issues stem from the history of the provincial-federal jurisdictions and the question of health care.
Jula Hughes and Christine Hughes presented on the question of ‘Undue Delay.’ They examined the existence of the Therapeutic Abortion Committees in New Brunswick by looking at the Moncton Hospital as a case study. The researchers accessed the hospital’s archival files, remarking how, during their review of the 1970s documents, “people [were] working really hard to make [abortion] as accessible as possible, [talking about] how best to approach this issue, how to make it quick.”
McGill Law student Geneva Montagna’s presentation, ‘Women’s Ability to Access Abortion as tied to their Equality,’ included testimonials from New Brunswick women and discussed the legal, practical and informational barriers present. Clare Heggie, Interdisciplinary PhD student working with Martha Paynter in the UNB Faculty of Nursing, made the final presentation, ‘Abortion Access in Prisons in Canada.’ Heggie and Paynter currently work on a Sexual and Reproductive Health survey in Atlantic Canadian women’s prisons.
The second panel focused on recent changes in reproductive care in the Maritimes.
Paynter’s presentation, ‘Abortion Services in the Maritimes, 2014-2024’ reviewed the National Policy changes and recent Maritimes changes including the 2015 possibility of self-referral for abortion (originally needing a doctor’s referral). The 2017 introduction of Medicare funding for mifepristone in New Brunswick is a big change for rural areas, according to Paynter, noting that the province has the second highest rate of teen pregnancy in Canada. For Paynter, “there is a ton to emulate” from the system put in place in PEI since 2017.
Carly Demont, PhD student in Population Health from the University of Ottawa, spoke about ‘Qualitative exploration of Canadian women’s experiences obtaining Later Gestational Age (LGA) abortion care.’ Services available for gestational age limits in 2021 were 16 weeks in New Brunswick and 13 weeks in PEI. For Demont, the “public has narrow scope of what abortion is,” and change is needed in the late gestational age abortion landscape because, for many participants, “by the time you figure it out and try to get help, it’s too late.”
Demont’s supervisor Angel Foster’s 2012-2016 Canada Abortion Study conducted 305 interviews. Of these, Demont looked at the participants’ needing a later-term abortion and their complex and multifaceted experiences. She also examined their decision-making processes, including whether the abortion was wanted because of a fetal condition or an unwanted pregnancy. For those seeking an abortion because of a fetal condition, all interviewees said they were able to get care in their province.
Claire Johnson, a professor of Health Care Management from the Université de Moncton, spoke about ‘Political Barriers to Abortion.’ Johnson interviewed politicians about the issue and analyzed her conversations.
Johnson found interesting differences between Francophones and Anglophones: Francophones were more open about the topic, with religious beliefs almost always informing their position, especially for Catholics. She also found differences with age; older ‘career’ politicians avoided any risky topic while the younger ones went into politics to take a stand.
Tobin LeBlanc Haley and Christine Hughes presented ‘The Information Vacuum: Myths and Misinformation on Abortion Access in New Brunswick. The researchers conducted 28 semi-structured interviews and three focus groups with 43 unique participants, and interviews in English and French. . During their research, myths and misinformation were both identified and reproduced by participants; what they term “persistent misinformation.”
For the researchers, stigma around abortion creates a fertile ground for myths: “the groundwork for today’s misinformation is very old. In the current context of abortion policy as it exists in New Brunswick, there is no effective communication with the public. This decision is ‘arguably deliberate and steeped in anti-choice rhetoric.”
Some myths identified by participants (2015-2022) include “who accesses abortion,” and the fact that “it’s used as birth control.” These myths have a long-time “storied history,” according to the presenters. The myth that abortion is “harmful to women” and psychologically and physically dangerous is still pervasive. The myth targeting abortion providers as a “money-making scheme,” is clearly inaccurate since two clinics have closed in Fredericton. Finally, myths around how to access abortion, that general anesthetic was needed, and that there was no access to abortion in New Brunswick at all.
Finally, a number of myths were perpetuated by “folks who were in the know” about how to access a medical or surgical abortion. People were confused about the facts: if one needed signed consent from a partner, if Moncton was the only city where abortion was available, if mifepristone has an upper weight limit, if the drugs for mifepristone and Plan B are the same, if the two-doctor rule was still in place, and if patients can’t self-refer.
Jula Hughes’ analysis of New Brunswick’s health care websites also shows that the literacy rate needed to understand information on reproductive issues is far above the average literacy rate in New Brunswick. Hughes added that a “significant number of people are putting out misinformation in the field.” MychoiceNB and Reproductive Justice NB’s websites have produced good information but are not high in the algorithm’s findings.
Third to speak was Harini Sivalingam, Director of the Equality Program with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and a York University PhD student in Social and Legal Studies. Sivalingam spoke on ‘Litigating Equitable Abortion Access in Canada: Legal Challenges and Progress.’ Her intern, Jonathan MacDonald, a STU undergraduate student, helped with the research.
Sivalingam commented that the path to access has been varied: “decriminalization, depenalization (…) where we’re at now is inequitable access.” The CCLA lawsuit over Regulation 84-20, launched in 2021, wanted to ensure the litigation actually achieves change. CCLA is actively looking for expertise on abortion access in New Brunswick and needs experts with clinical practice experience who have experience in this area and are able to speak directly to the difference between hospital and clinic care.
Joanna Erdman, law professor and MacBain Chair in Health Law and Policy from Dalhousie Law spoke on ‘The community clinic and public space in Canadian Abortion Law.’ Her point of reference was the Pink House in Mississippi, now closed, the only clinic in the state for a long time: “it disappeared in plain sight.” Clinic 554 was also ‘disappeared,” according to Erdman. Spatial tactics of abortion law use space, exclusions, and displacements: “The Maritimes fought hard to keep abortion out. The clinic stood, the clinic withstood.”
For the Supreme Court of Canada, public interest standing is a legal issue to challenge “systemic” problems. They granted “the clinic” standing when Morgentaler sued: that is significant. Morgentaler’s “policy actor,” public interest status was “a declaration that the government got it wrong.”
When the public interest standing was granted, the then-doctor’s affidavit spoke of all the barriers to access: “When there is only one, uncertainty is a constant concern.” According to Erdman, “The Clinic was a community resource, an economic and social resource, it was the someone who would/could help you in this place.”
Kerri Froc from UNB Law spoke on ‘Studied Indifference: The Report and the Constitutionality of Regulation 84-20.’ For Froc, the report makes clear that an entire system creates barriers to abortion care. For her, the situation is really about coercion of women and subordination.
Tracy Glynn from the Canadian Health Coalition spoke of ‘Imagining Public Delivery of Reproductive Healthcare in a Sea of Privatization.’ She recalled former Liberal Premier Brian Gallant telling her that granting funding abortions at Clinic 554 was a slippery slope to privatized health care. In the meantime, the Gallant Liberals were privatizing Extra-Mural Care and Tele-Care. She also noted that for-profit plasma clinics have been allowed to set up in New Brunswick, and that privatization of virtual care is a threat with Maple delivering eVisitNB. For Glynn, health care is put in danger by for-profit corporations, and the public should advocate for a “truly public health care system that includes public delivery of care.”
The last part of the symposium, a Community Activism Panel, was moderated by Karen Pearlston and Christine Hughes. Pearlston declared: “For the first time in 40 years, there’s no clinical access to procedural abortions in the province and no access to abortion in Fredericton at all.” She reminded the public that Clinic 554 was an “intersectional community effort.”
Participant Amber Chisholm talked about some of the wins of the last decade, including access to Trans health care in 2017. Regarding the litigation around Policy 713, for Chisholm, the social discussion is vastly disproportionate to the reality of the issue: “The wider debate is stoking up a moral panic around medical transition.” The debate is going towards health care and what is and isn’t appropriate, which is concerning to her.
Participant Angus Fletcher decried the clear disjunction between what the legal issues are and who they are being framed for. For them, an audience being built by a larger right-wing movement is causing a “moral panic” against Trans folks. A conscious strategy by Conservatives to reach out to right wing groups and organizations has been quite successful so far. Fletcher added that “Every struggle starts with the Tories rolling something back.” For them, activists fight these situations through popular organizing because every conservative strategy is just ‘to run the clock.”
Finally, Indigo Poirier explained how misogyny has historically been a core part of other forms of oppression, for example, by decentralizing women in Indigenous communities. Intersectionality is important, but we need to keep in mind that the effect of policies on Indigenous, disabled, lower-class, and BIPOC communities is much worse. However, for her, activists and Trans folks “have made enough gains that it seems to be a threat to the existing power structures.”
Sophie M. Lavoie is a member of Reproductive Justice NB and the NB Media Co-op’s editorial board.