As a woman, I would not want to live in the United States. Why? Because U.S. conservative leader President Bush is anti-choice on the abortion issue, and so is his newly-appointed attorney-general, John Ashcroft -- who only secured his position by the narrowest margin of support. There is even animosity toward Ashcroft within the Senate itself, which is odd considering those appointed by the president are usually well-accepted by everyone else.

According to a recent Globe and Mail article by Andrew Cohen, Ashcroft, a devout Christian, “doesn’t drink, smoke or dance, opposes abortion, affirmative action and gun control and is weak on civil rights.” And he admits it openly. (Ashcroft is also homophobic: he was against the nomination of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg because he is gay.)

Interestingly, Ashcroft is the same Senator who suffered defeat by a deceased fellow candidate, governor Mel Carnahan, in last November’s election. Jean Carnahan, who was appointed to the Senate in her husband’s place, also voted against Ashcroft’s nomination for attorney-general of the United States.

President Bush, who intends to discontinue funding international family planning programs as well, is against abortion on the grounds that, “every person, at every stage and season of life, is created equal in God’s image.” On the 28th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Bush was making a speech at an anti-abortion march: “We share a great goal, to work toward a day when every child is welcomed and protected in law.” (He obviously hasn’t seen too much of his own country; what about the children already born who are without food, shelter, adequate education and healthcare, and so on? They don’t seem to be too welcomed or protected.) If Bush appoints a slew of anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade could very well be overturned.

In Canada, the situation is somewhat different. Granted, we have our hard core right-wingers but, for once, it seems as though things are working in women’s favour: Health Minister Allan Rock is demanding the provinces pay for abortions in free-standing clinics rather than only those performed in hospitals. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Manitoba governments have all been threatened with cuts to federal transfer payments since refusal to fund abortions is actually a violation of the Canada Health Act. Not without its emotional/ social/ political baggage, abortion is still a medical procedure and as such should be covered by provincial health insurance plans. Statistics Canada data indicates 114, 848 abortions were performed in Canada in 1997 or 33 abortions per 100 live births.

At the same time, the Saskatchewan Pharmaceutical Association is working to make Plan B (a morning-after pill) available to women without a prescription. The objective is to reduce the number of abortions overall by providing increased access to this emergency contraceptive. According to the president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, Plan B is “slightly more effective and has fewer side effects” than Ovral and Preven, two other pills used for emergency contraception. Aside from the argument voiced by pro-lifers like the Campaign Life Coalition that Plan B constitutes abortion without even a doctor’s involvement, the most considerable problem for women is the drug’s cost of $15.95 + dispensing fee. It seems a lot easier and safer (both physically and emotionally) to get to a pharmacy than an abortion clinic or a hospital that provides abortions.

As Ruth Miller said in a Globe editorial about public health care policy and abortion, “I personally am opposed to smoking, but I would not be so mean-spirited as to suggest that treatment should not be provided or paid for when a smoker needs medical care.”