28 points of service per 1,113,785 women of reproductive age
*
Women, aged 15-49 (reproductive age as defined by the WHO). Based on the 2021 Canadian census. Not all people who can get pregnant are women, but the data available only includes two gender categories.
publicly listed point of service offering both medication and procedural abortion*
publicly listed points of service*
Data on the points of service are based on Action Canada’s directory. These numbers are up to date, but not always complete as they do not include all primary care providers who prescribe medication abortion and the landscape of abortion access can change quickly.
14 points of service offer abortion after 12 weeks. Of these, 4 offer abortion up to 20 weeks, 3 offer up to 23 weeks and 6 days, and 1 offers up to 27 weeks and 6 days. Abortion may be available beyond this in certain cases.
Two free and confidential helplines can assist the public in connecting with abortion services:
Pregnancy Options Line: 1-888-875-3163 throughout B.C., 604-875-3163 from the Lower Mainland, or pos@cw.bc.ca. Provides unbiased counselling for all pregnancy options and referrals to abortion services.
Sex Sense: 1-800-SEX-SENSE (1-800-739-7367) throughout B.C. or 604-731-7803 from the Lower Mainland. Offers sexual and reproductive health information and resources, including referral to abortion services throughout B.C
Two free and confidential helplines can assist the public in connecting with abortion services:
Pregnancy Options Line: 1-888-875-3163 throughout B.C., 604-875-3163 from the Lower Mainland, or pos@cw.bc.ca. Provides unbiased counselling for all pregnancy options and referrals to abortion services.
Sex Sense: 1-800-SEX-SENSE (1-800-739-7367) throughout B.C. or 604-731-7803 from the Lower Mainland. Offers sexual and reproductive health information and resources, including referral to abortion services throughout B.C
No centralized system to assist the public in connecting with abortion services
Mifegymiso is fully covered for British Columbia residents with a valid health card.
Billing code
Billing codes are used by physicians to bill provincial/territorial health insurance plans for the different services that they provide. When there isn’t a billing code for medical abortion, physicians can be de-incentivized from providing it.
Telemedicine abortion has been found to be as safe and effective as medical abortions provided at clinics. Because telemedicine abortion allows patients to access care in their homes and often requires just one trip to a pharmacy or clinic, expanding its availability is critical to improving abortion access for people who live in rural communities, who can’t take time off work to go to appointments, or who are at risk of stigma or discrimination.
British Columbia’s Medical Services Plan has billing codes for telehealth that physicians can use when providing telemedicine. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has a practice standard for virtual care and recognizes that “virtual care is a core component of medical care.” The British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) states that registrants must follow their employer/provincial policies related to telehealth.
Telemedicine abortion is currently available from two clinics in British Columbia: Vancouver’s Willow Clinic and Elizabeth Bagshaw Clinic.
Legislation, policies, and regulations
Access to abortion for minors
Under the Infants Act, minors under 19 years of age can consent to medical treatment in cases where the health care provider providing the medical treatment has explained to the minor and has been satisfied that the minor understands the nature and consequences as well as the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care, and has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the minor’s best interests.
Bubble zone legislation
Bubble zone legislation aims to prevent anti-abortion protestors from harassing people within the vicinity of a facility that provides abortion care. Even though criminalizing individual people will not effectively curb the larger anti-abortion movement, these laws can be effective in deterring anti-choice protestors from harassing providers and patients entering and exiting abortion clinics.
The Access to Abortion Services Act was passed in 1995 after years of heavy and aggressive protesting at two clinics, especially Everywoman’s Health Centre, and also in response to the shooting of provider Dr. Gary Romalis in November 1995. It is the first piece of bubble zone legislation in Canada.
Under the Act, facilities must apply for an “access zone,” which is then established through regulations. Homes and offices of doctors who provide abortion are automatically protected, and access zones for the residences of a class of service providers, or the residence of a specific service provider, may be established by regulation. Harassment of doctors and service providers outside of the safe access zone is also prohibited under the Act.
The dimensions of the access zones are calculated from the edge of the lot on which the home or facility is located and are set at:
160 metres for a doctor's or service provider's home
10 metres for a doctor's office (which can be extended up to a maximum of 20 metres through an Order in Council)
up to a maximum of 50 metres for a facility
The Access to Abortion Services Act has faced legal challenges from anti-abortion protestors and has been upheld every time.
Belief-based care denial
Although abortion is an essential medical service, physicians and nurse practitioners can refuse to provide abortion care due to their personal beliefs under current legislation and policies set by regulatory bodies. This practice is often referred to as “conscientious objection,” although a more accurate term may be “belief-based care denial.”
Physicians
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has a Practice Standard called Access to Medical Care Without Discrimination that states physicians are “expected” to provide patients with “enough information and assistance to allow them to make informed choices for themselves” in cases of “conscientious objection.” However, an expectation is not a requirement, and “information and assistance” is not the same as a referral to medical care.1 Thus, the Practice Standard does not obligate a physician to refer a patient to the medical care they need if they object to providing a medical treatment due to their personal values or religious beliefs.
However, in emergency or urgent medical situations, the Practice Standard states that physicians “are expected to provide whatever medical care is appropriate, considering the patient’s safety, scope of practice and available options.”
In cases of conscientious objection, the Practice Standard states that physicians should not “discuss in detail their personal beliefs if not directly relevant and should not pressure patients to disclose or justify their own beliefs.” It also directs physicians to practice in accordance with the Canadian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics and Professionalism, which also doesn’t require physicians to provide or refer for a service they object to based on personal values or religious beliefs.
Nurse practitioners
Nurse practitioners in British Columbia follow the Practice Standard on Duty to Provide Care, which set out that nurses do not allow their personal judgements about a patient’s life or lifestyle to compromise their care by withdrawing or refusing to care for the patient, and explicitly states that “[n]urses do not abandon their clients.”
In cases of belief-based care denial, nurses are obligated to ensure uninterrupted continuity of care for the patient. Specifically, the Practice Standard directs nurses to:
Listen and, when possible, explore the client’s reason for the request or refusal and their understanding of options that could meet their needs;
Do not attempt to influence or change the client’s decision based on the nurse’s conscientious objection;
Do not allow their beliefs or values to alter or interfere with a client receiving safe, competent, and ethical care;
Ensure that the most appropriate person within the organization is informed of the conscientious objection well before a client is to receive the requested treatment or procedure;
Work with their organization/employer to ensure uninterrupted continuity of care including reporting the client’s request and, if needed, safe transfer of the client’s care to a replacement provider; and
Despite their conscientious objection, provide safe care to a client in situations involving imminent risk of death or serious harm that arise unexpectedly and require urgent action for their client’s safety.
Abortion Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2001
This law requires 34 hospitals across British Columbia to provide abortion facilities and services. It may be amended by regulation in order to add other hospitals to the list.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provisions
This law gives the public a right to access information from public bodies, but it limits access to information in some cases. Access to abortion-related information is limited to protect the privacy and safety of those receiving abortion services and those who provide abortion care. Section 22.1 says that in general, public bodies cannot disclose information that relates to the provision of abortion services. Public bodies can only give abortion-related information in 3 situations:
If a person is requesting information about abortion services that they received,
If the information is statistical and discloses only the total number of abortion services provided in the province or a designated region, or
If the information is about a policy related to abortion services.
Out-of-country medical policy
In some instances, patients may have to travel outside of the country to receive abortion care currently not available in Canada. The Medical Services Plan includes out-of-country coverage for patients referred for insured health services not available in Canada.
The patient’s attending medical specialist must submit an application and receive prior approval from the Medical Services Branch in order for the patient to be eligible for coverage. Prior approval enables the province to negotiate a “reasonable and fair” compensation rate with the out of country service provider. If an application is received after the patient receives care, the patient’s specialist must provide the appropriate documentation.
Travel support
British Columbia’s out-of-country coverage program does not include travel and accommodation costs.
The Travel Assistance Program (TAP BC) helps alleviate some transportation costs for eligible B.C. residents who must travel within the province for services not available in their own community. There is no reimbursement for travel already taken. To be eligible, you must be a B.C. resident and enrolled in the Medical Services Plan, you must have a referral from a physician or nurse practitioner for the MSP insured service, and your travel expenses must not be covered by third party insurance. You must apply with a TAP BC form, which will be provided by your physician, nurse practitioner, or specialty clinic.
What the law says
Per section 29(2) of the Medical Protection Act, if a beneficiary receives a service outside British Columbia that would be considered as a service in British Columbia, then the beneficiary may apply for coverage for the service to the Medical Services Commission. However, the beneficiary needs to apply in a manner that is outlined by the commission and ultimately the commission determines the appropriate payment permitted for the service.
In contrast, section 29(3) states that if a beneficiary receives a service that is not considered a benefit in British Columbia, then the beneficiary has the option to apply to the commission to determine whether the cost of the service should be paid and if so, the amount.
Now in the case of a medically required service where the need for the service came about unexpectedly when the beneficiary was outside British Columbia or the regulations regarding out of British Columbia have been met, then section 29(4) highlights that a beneficiary has entitlement to have payments made for services under subsection (2) or (3).
The Medical and Health Care Services Regulationalso sheds light on benefits rendered outside of British Columbia. Per section 35(2), if a medically required service is provided to a beneficiary outside British Columbia by a medical practitioner, the beneficiary is entitled to payment for that service. However, there are certain limitations imposed in such circumstances.
Section 35(2)(b) states that if the services are elective, non-emergency and are provided outside Canada, then the commission must provide prior approval. Similarly, section 35(2)(c) states that if the services fall under emergency and the appropriate medical care is not available in Canada, then prior approval from the British Columbia Patient Transfer Network program operated by British Columbia Emergency Health Services is required.
Under the Family and Child Services Act, where a child is “in need of protection”, an apprehension order may be authorized. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Child Welfare apprehended a foetus before its birth. The issue at law was whether an unborn child was a “child” under the Family and Child Services Act. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the term “child” referred to living children that have been delivered. The court highlighted that any other “powers to interfere with the rights of women, if granted and if lawful, must be done by specific legislation and anything less will not do”.
Maurice Lewis v. Regina (BC, 1996) / R. v. Spratt (BC, 2008)
The Access to Abortion Services Act in British Columbia created “bubble zones” around the homes and offices of doctors who provided abortion services in which people cannot carry out anti-abortion protests. In both of these cases, protestors argued the Act violated their right to freedom of expression. The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the British Columbia Court of Appeal both upheld the Act as constitutional.
Two anti-abortion activists distributed copies of the Access to Abortion ServicesAct outside Everywoman’s Health Centre. Under the Act, protestors cannot be present in specific areas around the clinic. The activists claimed that they were not protesting abortion but rather distributing information about the Act. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision that their behaviour and location constituted protest.
BC Civil Liberties Association v University of Victoria (BC, 2015)
Following an anti-abortion club's decision to defy directions restricting the club from using campus space for activities, the club was disciplined by the university. The club sought a declaration that any restrictions or regulations imposed on students seeking to use the school for “expressive purposes” be consistent with the Charter. However, the court held that the Charter did not apply to school premises and declined to grant the declaration sought.
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (BC, 2017 / 2018)
British Columbia Transit Authority – TransLink – refused to place anti-abortion ads by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (“CCBR”) on the exterior of its buses, a decision the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld. On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the court allowed the appeal brought by the CCBR and ordered TransLink to reconsider its decision to disallow the ads as the administrative decision-making body provided insufficient analysis of their decision.
Nachbaur and another v. Black Press Media and others (BC, 2023)
In November 2018, the Nelson Star newspaper, owned by Black Press Media, refused to run an ad from the Nelson Right to Life Society. The Star had recently decided to stop accepting any abortion-related advertisements because of community backlash over a previous anti-choice ad.
The anti-choice society filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal, claiming the paper’s refusal was discrimination based on religion. The complaint was dismissed in 2023. The company was found to have refused the ad to preserve their business interests and acceptance by the local community, which is rationally connected to their function as a local medium of news.
The Tribunal also validated the newspaper’s reliance on the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards as a key reason to refuse anti-abortion ads.