International Safe Abortion Day
In a recent instagram post for International Safe Abortion Day, we reflected on some staggering statistics from the United Nations Population Fund’s (UNFPA) 2022 State of World Population Report. Nearly half of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended, and over 60 per cent of these may end in abortion. 45 percent of all abortions are unsafe.
Given the harmful norms and stigma that most women, girls and trans folks face with regards to controlling their own fertility and bodies, the life-altering reproductive choice of whether or not to become pregnant is often no choice at all. Nearly a quarter of all women are unable to say no to sex, and sexual and reproductive health services are sidelined in contexts of conflict and crises. A disruption in contraceptive supplies and services of about 3.6 months during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in as many as 1.4 million unintended pregnancies.
Birth control is essential; yet the UNFPA report points out that lack of access is now one of the least commonly cited reasons for non-use, coming in below fears or experiences of side effects, and infrequent or no sex. With the lack of value placed on the lives of women, girls, and trans folks globally, we have not focused on researching methods that adequately address the issues that individuals experience when using birth control. We haven’t reframed our expectations about who is responsible for preventing pregnancy, and seriously committed to finding a range of birth control options for cis men. In the absence of such contraceptive methods, physicians everywhere must do more to validate patients who describe their suboptimal experiences using birth control. (As we have explored in our recent posts, providing safe sexual and reproductive healthcare goes way beyond simply eliminating physical danger.)
Where individuals do have the legal right to safely access abortion care, systems still fall short in addressing the barriers that prevent them from accessing services. Ontario’s Northern Travel Grant program, for instance, eventually reimburses folks for the costs associated with travelling to see an abortion provider in a major city. Yet the program assumes that most people (if they find out about it), can afford the cost of time-sensitive healthcare upfront, and ignores factors such as childcare or lost income.
Undeniably, institutions like the Ministry of Health and Longterm Care need to improve their systems and policies to increase access to safe, legal abortions. The United Nations Population Fund plays a key role in gathering data on these issues worldwide and raising awareness. But so often, true progress depends on the resourcefulness and ingenuity of providers themselves. A major aim of sustainable development is supplying folks at a grassroots level with what they require to address the needs of their local communities.
Sexual and reproductive healthcare providers lead the way; major institutions follow. In Canada, this may be the case when it comes to addressing the demand for care from individuals living in states where abortion is now illegal or heavily restricted. Canadian physicians entering the U.S. could be prosecuted for providing care for these individuals, and insurers will not protect them. We do not yet know the solution, but at Choice in Health, we are used to facing obstacles. You can expect more about this in our next blog post, on the founding of CIHC.