Talk:Abortion in Canada/Archive 2

Reformating Other Section looks great

To whoever reformated the other section that i had put in (and others worked on) it looks great the way you bulleted it. I hadn't thought of doing it that way.Thanks makes it look much more professional....did i forget to mention the main suspect had been charged with killing the doctor killed in the US and it was taken out for reason or did i miss that fact...curious as ever...--Marcie 12:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Legality of abortion, Can it be changed

Well to whoever it was that asked the question, if you put a read through the talk page you will get an idea of the fact that it can be changed but it is very unlikely that it will.

When the law on abortion was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada they made it clear that it could be possible to write a law on abortion (and i think they made clear some things that couldn't be included). Then Justice Minister (later Prime Minister) Kim Campbell put forward a new law on abortion (which was really bad even as they go, she tried to get it the most restrictive possible i think). It passed in the House of Commons but it lost in the Senate by a tie vote. Legally a government could write a law on abortion and have it passed. Politically it would be suicide (even the same government didn't go for a second try after they saw what opinion was on the first new try).

I would say that a women's right to choose freely came somewhat later in Canada but that it is more complete and secure than in the US. There are currently discussion going on about what type of testing is ethical in making a choice for an abortion and should be allowed or made illegal (there was a Royal Commission on the topic of New Reproductive technologies, information ethics and that...i can find you the link if you want...i read it for university and it was interesting). Its clear gender is not considered OK, although its one that can be hard to enforce. Those would be the only sorts of laws that i think would be able to pass in Canada.

Finally the ruling was on a different basis than in the US and was based more on women's rights than on privacy (although it included privacy, but it was the right or women to have medical privacy....but it was only part). Even a total shakeup of the Supreme Court wouldn't allow a large change, such as may happen in the US...although from a case in the late 90's with planned parenthood in the US i understand the right of the women to choose was strengthened over the Roe decisions.

I know i'm likely wasting my time here folks...i thought i'd put something in, in case the person cared and would come back...maybe they are new and don't know about the talk page...the change didn't look much like the usual vandilism we have (for example it was a question of could this change which isn't rude or extreemly opiononated in my view) --Marcie 18:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV check notice

The article seems to be fairly NPOV to me. It outlines the status of abortion in Canada, the legal history, and accessibility, and notes the political controversies. Would anybody object if we removed the POV check notice? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Duh! Now I look more closely the article already had a NPOV tag, but it was at the bottom. I moved it to the top where it should be and removed the POV check for now as superfluous. Does anybody still think we need either tag? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Let me change a few things. --jag123 10:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me but i find taking out huge hords of legal information and history to be important. I think it should be reverted. Some changing for POV is one thing---deleting huge parts of the page is another. Want to discuss some particaular part of what you erased perhaps--Marcie 12:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jag you can reach me at my talk page or perhaps we can talk here. I think that too much was erased. So much that it isn't even possible to get into a meaningful discussion about what part could be considered to be POV. I am planning to revert the page in all likelyhood for this reason. I am more than willing to discuss the different areas that you felt should have been erased on NPOV issues--Marcie 21:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The part about the doctor being a holocaust survivor really isn't relevant. The guy broke the law and he was prosecuted. To imply that he get special treatment because he's a holocaust survivor is wrong.

Responses by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) in italics. I apologise that I have to make my comments in instalments because my laptop is prone to cutting out without warning. Broadly I agree that there is much too much interpretation in the current wording, and my comments below are attempts to tease out the factual basis behind some of the POV so that we might perhaps decide what should go into the article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the holocaust survivor's status may possibly be relevant but only if this was raised at the time and was used to rally support for him. If it's true, we should say that people thought some people though it was a bit much for a government to such extraordinary steps in view of his status as a holocaust survivor. If not, I agree that it shouldn't be mentioned.

This part of the case was before i remember it clearly. But from reading, talking about things and such i think it was an issue at the time, putting a Holocaust survivor in prison almost all of it in solitary confinement (especially when you can point out he didn't harm anyone although he did break the criminal code, its harder generally to accept prison sentences on "victimless" crimes, although i'll admit they can be used for deterrence or maybe to help someone get treatment (for an addiction i suppose seems getting them in a drug program would make better sense but it likely is not possible legally). Canada has never had a law before this case where a jury decision could not be appealed by the Crown....i'm not sure if its totally changed but i know it was changed specifically because of this case. I know its a standard (or at least from what i know) its standard that only the defendent can appeal in criminal cases in the US and i think its always been that way. But not here.--Marcie 19:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"it was mostly always men that were deciding if women should have abortions" I didn't see that anywhere in the decision and I don't see why that would be a reason for the court to repeal the law.

It doesn't say men, true. It says on the law in question: "The purpose of the section is to take the decision away from the woman and give it to a committee" (page 172). Probably some women would be on the committee, possibly all would be women, but obviously she isn't permitted to make her own decisions. I suggest that the word "men" should be replaced by "committees". --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This may be redundant or maybe make me look like i think people aren't thinking. It’s not. The TAC is mentioned on the abortion page and discussed at some length, although i guess we will have to go through the decision to see exactly what was said. But i'm almost positive it was due to problems with the TAC's that had a large part to do with the decision. There WERE cases where Pro Life groups were trying to get their members to be on the TAC so there could be no abortions...also you didn't even need to have one. The TAC issue was so complex that it was hived off to a separate page (i know the link is there but it could just as well be a simple definition and it started that way but got quite developed). If you haven't yet (and this is the part where i'm not saying your stupid) please take a look at the page on Therapeutic Abortion Committee. I'm thinking from some of the discussion here that it might be wiser to have at least a pointer that it is a full article not a definition (Tony i'm thinking vaguely of how the general abortion page hives off...although this page at the moment is set up quite differently). I do want to keep the general style of the page however, i happen to like it.--Marcie 19:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However to summarize: Usually only gynecologists could take a case of a women wanting an abortion to a TAC. If you got pregnant and did not have a gynecologist it could take quite a while to get one (one thing about Medicare in Canada is that the waits are on average longer.... but how long you wait is not based on income generally although there is some correlation between class and being able to access it better...but then i'm poor and i get very good access generally). Or you might run into the problem that you gynecologist was pro life, or in the gray area (i.e. if you were about to die he would take it to the TAC but not for other reasons). Then you had to find another gynecologist. Which took time. Then you had to your doctor had to get an apt. when the TAC met. It could take a long long time and it increased the risk of a woman's health of an abortion at times. Or your doctor might not have privileges at any hospital and then he could not take it to the TAC either (i'm not positive on this one but pretty sure)

As to the issue of males. Well it was only senior doctors that were allowed on the TACs from what i remember...i don't know if they had to be gynecologists or not. At the moment 50% of medical school students are women. In 1970 and even in the mid 1990's they weren't. And women still make up a small part of the senior doctors that could be on these committees. There has been a lot of study that has shown that there are different trends on women who study medicine and practice and i think this could still have an effect on who becomes senior in the hospital. So it did mostly come down to men deciding for women. If its not possible to find it in the case history i can tell you that a lot of WOMEN did not think that a group of three men (and their likely male gynecologist) should be the one's that were making the decisions about whether or not they could have an abortion. It was certainly an issue of the time and maybe that means moving it, but it’s still historically important in my view in some form or another.--Marcie 19:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"law often allowed middle class and affluent women to have abortions " I didn't see that in the decision either. The problem about access is that it was the law itself that prevented it, by restricting the performing of abortions in hospitals only. Whether or not an abortion clinic is actually available now is irrelevant. This is a big problem for me because health services in general are not available everywhere. Unless you live close to a big city, chances are you'll have to travel out of town to get treatment. After reading the article, I get the impression that it's almost unfair or a tragedy that someone who wants an abortion might need to travel, and the government should do something about that. That's not true. Someone who has cancer and lives in a rural area will need to travel, probably a lot farther, to get treatment than someone who wants to get an abortion.

The ruling comments at page 34: "The argument that women facing difficulties in obtaining abortions at home can simply travel elsewhere would not be especially troubling if those difficulties were not in large measure created by the procedural requirements of s. 251. The evidence established convincingly that it is the law itself which in many ways prevents access to local therapeutic abortion facilities." The cancer patient's travel requirement was generated not by the law but by scarcity of local facilities--an administrative matter, not a legal one. The wording of the section here is very poor I think and should be tightened up (including actual quotes) but the point was made in the ruling.

The quote "The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately " is from one judge only. Not every judge agreed with the decision. Are you going to display their points of view as well?

I could be misreading the document, but it appears that the quote is from the majority opinion. It is appropriate to represent this as the ruling of the court. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Pro-life groups attempted at times to have their members become the members of the TAC" Is that a fact? Please show me the proof.

I agree that it sounds a bit vague. On this subject, or a relating subject, the ruling actually says: "The following statutory requirements contribute to the manifest unfairness of the administrative structure imposed by the Criminal Code: (1) the requirement that all therapeutic abortions must take place in an "accredited" or "approved" hospital as defined in s. 251(6); (2) the requirement that the committee come from the accredited or approved hospital in which the abortion is to be performed; (3) the provision that allows hospital boards to increase the number of members of a committee; (4) the requirement that all physicians who practise lawful therapeutic abortions be excluded from the committees." So it wasn't so much that pro-lifers actively tried to infiltrate the TACs (even if they did) as that the law required the TACs to be skewed against pro-abortion physicians, and permits the hospital board to manipulate TAC membership. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"some pro-life doctors would not take any case there " Is that a fact? Please show me the proof. At that time, the reasons for getting an abortion were clearly detailed in the law. If a person fitted the criteria to get one (ie: danger to health of the mother), I highly doubt a "pro-life" doctor would stand there idle. If a doctor refused to refer a person for an abortion, it's not necessarily because he was pro-life, but probably because he didn't want to go to prison. The fact that the law was later repealed doesn't mean those doctors were retroactively wrong or that they are "pro-life". It's really silly to use "pro-life" or "pro-choice" at a time when abortion was illegal. --Marcie 10:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are doctors that won't give birth control prescriptions to women unless they are married (its legal)and in fact used to be very common.There And said if person gets pregnant they aren't of much help either. There is also a controversy going on about whether a pharmacist needs to fill a birth control prescription although the issue is larger in the US at the moment. There on pharmacist not only refused to fill it recently BUT also wouldn't give the prescription back to the woman so she could fill it elsewhere. Also the pope just made a women into a saint because she didn't have an abortion when it became clear she had cancer that could not be treated if she was pregnant and would likely kill her if carried to term. She had the baby and died shortly after.... So you can get weird views on that even when abortion is legal (in her case there was no question she had a legal right)--Marcie 10:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of that. Do you want to submit statistics? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that doesn't/didn't/won't happen, but is that important to the article? Is it common enough to be in the article? I really don't care what the pope says. Is this about making a neutral article or just accumulating as much dirt as possible "on the other side", like it's a smear campaign? That's what the article looks like now. If that's all it's going to be about, please let me know and I won't bother. --jag123 11:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First off no i'm not interested in a smear campaign. Go back and look at the archives, there were lots of discussions on different topics and lots of edits (which you could see). Tony didn't originally think the page needed much work but you do which is fine with me. I'm doing research. I'm not sure which section of my comment you want statistics on. Could you specify?

I know a girl that was denied birth control pills in the late 80's by her doctor because he felt she was too young (15). He also called her parents. Eventually she filled them in a clinic in my city that was set up for that purpose (they used numbers and although they could have found her file they didn't. They also offered them at an affordable cost since its not like the teenager then could claim them on their parent’s health insurance. And they didn't just offer pills.

I actually used the clinic once as a teen and they did some counseling as well. As an adult i use the version we have now because of the subsidized costs. There are only a few methods available to me and the one that works best requires a product that costs a lot in the stores (about $1.50 per single use).That would be the equivalent of $18 for 12 condoms--and ironically my drug plan would pay for pills but i can't take them. I pay 33 cents to 50 cents each. Once a year they like to do a bit of statistical work again (# of sexual partners and such). They also offer vaccinations depending on your risk (Hep A, Hep B). I didn't actually qualify for Hep B when they gave me the shot but i had two out of the three needed from travelling a fair time before and they wanted to finish the set.In Ontario now all students are immunized for Hep B. The scale of cost of the pill now depends on age, and at my age they won't sell it ---although they would provide a rx. And most doctors have samples.

Although at the time i knew 15 was too young for ME, and maybe others, i think that she conducted herself with a lot of maturity showing that she could make a mature decision and follow it through. I doubt it caused her any problems aside from the one's others created for her (the whole thing went on for several months).

Statistics on difficulties of getting birth control in the past. Don't know if those will appear on the net. I have (somewhere) a book on the issue in the United States that i might dig out (goes from birth control to abortion to gay rights--legal history, dry). I don't remember stats but would something from there be sufficient? I must admit i doubt the book is online but it could be checked in a library. Thi part is anecdotal but true. My mom was born in 1946. She skipped a year of school and so high school ended at 17 ( i think). She then did her BA. So if her BA (honours i think...a pregard one anyway so it would have taken 3 or 4 years so she was 20-21 when she started her Masters in Montreal. While she was there one of the dorm mothers was kicked out (i.e. lost her job) because she was giving information to students as to how they could get birth control. And marriage at that time was a large part of the issue. It would likely be about 1967...before birth control was officially legal. People who were married could get birth control easily from their doctor at the time (if they had a doctor). However the pill had been out for some time and was being used. In fact my mom was on it for menstrual irregularities (i know it sounds doubtful but she is so straight laced i think she's telling the truth...although she's officially a baby boomer her family is one generation back and she was the youngest child...my father was born in 42 and is not a boomer). Also i teased her endlessly as a child for a while after i found out about it (kids are like that) and when i think back to her reaction i think she was telling the truth. She also showed me a book McGill put together on Birth Control from that era. It was considered VERY controversial and i'm not sure if it was even legal. All it had in it was general success rates and how different forms of birth control worked. Quite small. While i don't think i heard it from her i have heard talk of women buying cheap wedding rings when they went to the gynecologist.

The pharmacist problem in the United States is large enough that its made the news a few times (i read online, real newspapers like the Washington Post...also i read a The Guardian (British newspaper) that has good foreign coverage so i may have read some of it there). Officially pharmacists in the US are not required to fill any prescription that goes against their religious belief. The guy who wouldn't give back the prescription is much rarer and i believe he may get kicked out or at least a strong warning. Another pharmacist refused to fill a prescription (but from what i remember returned it). He was fired. He worked for a chain that was common and required that pharmacist fill prescriptions regardless of their moral view---although since it looks like he didn't know its created controversy (hence the news).

Finally one thing it should be easier to get stats on is that overwhelmingly churches that were founded by Catholics didn't even have TAC committees. Therefore there was no way to obtain an abortion in that hospital. There were also non catholic affiliated hospitals with no TAC's. I've got an article somewhere on the amalgamation of hosptials and how this is causing problems. In my city a Catholic hospital was merged with the non denominational hosptial. The eventual decision was that women could continue to obtain abortions at the nondenonminational hospital. The article is pro choice and is looking at it from a perspective of how it could decrease access to abortion in cases where instead they stop providing abortion. Would you like me to put it here or link it in? --Marcie 20:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again (or is before) please see the page on Therapeutic Abortion Committees. It may not be in the case law but it did happen and was a problem. Finding in on the internet may be hard given how old it is though--Marcie 19:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that women should have the right to choose. However, it's a leap to say that the government is obligated to make it convenient for women to exercise that right. It's like saying that the government should build temples in rural areas in case a Budhist wants to exercise their right to religion. If there was a law that prevented the building of temples anywhere (like the law prevented abortion clinics from opening), then that's unconstitutional, but besides that, no other inference should be made. Let's not forget that getting pregnant is something that's done actively. The woman still has some responsbility. Frankly, I don't (and neither did the court) really care if she needs to travel, even long-distances and maybe have to pay for those travels to get an abortion.

In Canadian law, the government is obliged to make it easy for a woman to have an abortion, at least in the sense of not putting unreasonable legislative barrier in her way. Where the legislative barrier means the woman has to travel a long way and spend a lot of money, such legislative barrier is unreasonable because this permits legislation to constrain her rights under the constitution. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even in regards to funding, just because the right to choose is constitutional doesn't mean its unconstitutional if it's not free or that funding for abortion is limited. The part about getting a doctor's referral is hard because it's a conservative area. Is that a fact? The doctor can't just deny someone's request to get an abortion because s/he doesn't agree with it. "underpriviledged in Quebec who seek third-term abortions" What's that have to do with anything? I can go on and on...

I think you may be applying US standards here. I think that the law in Canada probably does require freely available abortion. This is certainly the case in the UK. The idea that a right shouldn't be actively defended by a government seems to apply in the United States but not always elsewhere. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's too much personal interpretation of the law or the court's decision here. Just because the law was repealed doesn't mean that fetus have an inherent right to life. Where did you find that? It was mentionned in the Morgentaler decision, but more along the lines of a judge making observations, not making law. As I outlined above, some of the interpretations are not facts. Article is still POV. --jag123 22:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To summaries, I agree that the sections in question were too loose in their presentation of the ruling. However, it isn't enough to just lop it off. A lot of what was said is radically different from what a court of another country would have said, and I agree with Marcie that we should collaborate to rewrite rather than just throw away what is there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's very hard replying to your comments because they are seperated. Re: holocaust survivor, I still don't believe it belongs here. I'm really sorry for the guy, but he was probably making a lot of money performing abortions, especially when it was illegal. To then turn around and say his treatment is unfair because he's a holocaust survivor, even if it was actually quoted anywhere is really wrong. It makes it look as if the pro-lifers, at the time, were just a bunch of heartless animals.

The legislative barrier to getting an abortion was removed when the law was repealed. To highlight that today, abortions are difficult to obtain is unfair. It makes it look as if abortions are difficult to obtain because there is a behind the scenes effort to quelch it, which is not true at all. I still think the Obstacle to access section, especially regarding the maritimes should be seriously reworked. How is health care in that area in general?

Just because what was said is radically different does not mean it deserves special mention here. "Abortion in Canada" is supposed to describe abortion in Canada. It's not a platform. If you put too much emphasis on the fact that what was done here is so radically different compared to elsewhere, then it seems that you have ulterior motives beside just describing the situation. I even question why we have a politics section. No party has adopted a position on the matter. Does it really matter if the right has more pro-life and the left more pro-choice? I think that until a party adopts a position on the matter, or there is some kind of movement to change or make new law regarding abortion, this section should stick to the basics. --jag123 04:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, in more conventional style. No, I don;t want to make a big deal out of his being a holocaust denier, but if it was seen as a big deal at the time by many people (I don't know that it was) then that fact should be mentioned as a facet of the public response to the case. I understand that there were quite large demonstrations in his support (there may have been equally large or even larger demonstrations against him, granted).

"To turn around and say his treatment is unfair." Well that is precisely what a NPOV article cannot say. But if significant numbers of people at the time had opinions for or against this then we should note the fact that they did.

"The legislative barrier to getting an abortion was removed when the law was repealed. To highlight that today, abortions are difficult to obtain is unfair." It is my understanding from reading the text of the article that it's talking about the situation pertaining at the time the law was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

You don't think we should have a politics section in the article? I say that if abortion is not a political issue in Canada we should have a politics section that says that all parties are agreed that the law as it stands should not be changed.

The positions that the parties in Canada take on abortion are not all the same and in fact there was a minor scandal during the last election when a person running for the Conservative Party of Canada made comments about restricting rights to abortion (part of it was in a documentary before he knew for sure he was running i think. Its considered important enough that it is one the Politics of Canada page. The NDP and the Bloq Quebecois support a women's right to choose. The Liberal party has a pro life caucus as mentioned in the article although the size is not clear and at the moment they do not have a large influence. The Progressive Conservative party DID try to make abortion a criminal offense again after the decision, less than 20 years ago. I think this justifies a section on how the political parties work. More votes are whipped in Canada. I'm almost positive if you were and NDP member and voted for a bill limiting abortion you would be kicked out of the party post haste---its a basic part of the parties platform.--Marcie 19:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I certainly don't want this article to be a "platform", but the legal situation in Canada is radically different. In Canada more than in the USA, a woman's body is her property, with respect to abortion. That is what the ruling meant. That is what the article must say if it is to reflect the situation in Canada correctly.

The situation in the USA is very different, but that is a different country. US concepts must not be permitted to influence the situation in Canada. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was a holocaust survivor, not denier :) My problem with that is it's entirely possible that he had lots of support from the population, and that someone mentionned that he was a holocaust survivor. However, most people probably supported him because they believed what he was doing shouldn't be illegal. If someone throws in the holocaust survivor part, his support won't change but it doesn't mean that's it because of that. I'm sure the medias played on this a lot, but that doesn't really change the public's view or their support. Unless it can be clearly shown that the fact he was a holocaust survivor rallied much more support, then please leave it out. I agree with you on the politics section. I didn't mean to say there shouldn't be one, I just think what's in it now is not relevant. You can say that abortion in Canada is not considered an important issue in the Canadian population, that most of Canada favors abortion being legal, and that no party adopts any position on the matter.

"In Canada more than in the USA, a woman's body is her property" I agree 100% with you on that, but that's exactly why the article doesn't need to point that out. When I read the Morgentaler decision, I got the impression that the court avoided discussing many controversial issues, which in my opinion, was wise because it limits the amount of "things" that someone could argue later. That's why they made such a big deal about the access. Not because it was a big social concern, but because that was probably the easiest way to throw the law out. Even when it came to security of the persons right. It was something along the lines of, Is this woman being forced to do something against her will? Yes. Then that's unconstitutional. Case closed. They didn't have to really consider whether a fetus has a right to life or anything of that sort. So to turn around now and assume that because the law was repealed, then that must mean that a fetus has no right to life, or that the access was a tremendous social concern and injustice is totally wrong. It was just the easiest way to junk the law. That's why I have a problem with the article, because it makes a bunch of assumptions based on the decision, which I find to be purely on technical grounds, not moral or ethical. I also assume that most people who visit the page believe that a woman's body is her own property and that they don't have a problem with abortion. And since these weren't really the reason or factors in the decision, to mention them seems to cater mostly to the US pro-lifers, almost in a "hey, look at us, we're more liberal/morally superior than you" way. Prior to reading the decision, I didn't really have a problem with the article. Everything seemed to make sense. After reading the decision though, I noticed that the article takes a lot of liberties and that what was represented on the page was not necessarily what happened in the decision. That's why I can't honestly say it's neutral. --jag123 05:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the fact that a foetus does not have a right to life is an important contrast to the laws in other countries (most of which do not view a foetus as having a general right to life) but for the cases where the foetus does, how this effects court decisions and because it is very different from the concepts used in the US. Lets face it there are a lot of Americans out there that know nothing of our system. I think it makes sense to point out a basic difference in how case law is used. While the planned parenthood case did change the arguments legally in the states to some extent the original decision in Roe. vs. Wade was about the viability of the foetus. And it is part of the arguments that are going on about the Constitutionality of late abortions in the United States at the moment.

I think we're very close to agreeing, but I don't understand why, if it's true that a woman now enjoys substantial bodily autonomy in Canada, "that's exactly why the article doesn't need to point that out." Why omit something that is the most significant finding of the court?

"They didn't have to really consider whether a fetus has a right to life or anything of that sort. So to turn around now and assume that because the law was repealed, then that must mean that a fetus has no right to life, or that the access was a tremendous social concern and injustice is totally wrong." Well the ruling did say that access was an injustice, as I have shown. You seem to want to sweep that under the table, but it is precisely what the court said. Access was essential. Beetz, Estey, Dickson, Lamer and Wilson in the majority decision agreed that the woman's right to security of person was violated by the section. Wilson said that access to a safe medical procedure was a woman's right under the charter. Beetz (with Estey) too, though he was less of a "woman's right to choose" advocate. Dickson (with Lamer) focused solely on section 7, the "security of person" section of the Charter, stating "State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person. Section 251 clearly interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person," an interference which he found did not comport with the principles of fundamental justice. Thus timely access to a safe medical procedure featured prominently in the majority decision.

"McIntyre and La Forest dissented, deciding the the law did not violate the Charter.

You're right about the right to life of the fetus, I think. This was left to the legislature by the majority of the judges. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Access problems

Re: your first paragraph, I guess I lost my original point, because that does make sense. As for access, I agree that the courts found it unjust, but not because the access was limited, only because the law prevented access. This is going to be a sticky point with me because health care in general is not nationally accessible. This stems from a personal experience. However, what really bothers me is that such a big fuss is made about abortion not being accessible. Prior to the decision, was abortion access limited because of the economic feasibility of having a clinic in that area, lack of demand, etc or strictly because the law prevented it? Since we will never know, I think we should be careful in how we portray it. To the courts, it didn't matter at all if the feasibility/etc was the case, only that the law imposed a barrier. If there is still problems with access to abortion clinics today, then that paints a sorry picture for the national health care system in general, considering that an abortion is a relatively straightforward procedure. If there's no access to abortion clinics, then access to any kind of "complex" (for lack of a better word) health care is probably as equally limited. I should point out that I'm not disputing this as a fact. What troubles me is that someone who isn't aware of the state of our health care system gets the impression that *only* access to abortions is limited, like there is some kind of resistance to the idea in Canada or that people who want abortions are still being persecuted. That's really not the case. Make a point that this lack of access isn't exclusively reserved to abortions, or something like that and I'll be happy.

I just think it's important to keep in mind that the Morgentaler decision intentionally skirted many issues because it wasn't necessary to address them in order to repeal the law and that we shouldn't infer anything about those issues as being settled or decided by the court, even if it was mentionned. By the way, a lot of what you quoted above should be used in the article. --jag123 07:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, looks like our only differences are semantic. Yes, the court criticised the law for limiting access without a suitable justification. It wasn't saying that the state must move heaven and earth to procure an abortion for a woman--I hadn't realised that this was how you read the section. If you read the ruling, you'll see that the access problems referred to were identified specifically as those relating to the law and its operation, not to access problems stemming from any other cause. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I should have stated that at the beginning (that it was all semantics). Apart from a few things (holocaust survivor, mostly men decided) I don't really have a problem with what's being said, just how it's being said. I don't want to sound pedantic or like a pain in the a--, it's just that I think those subtleties make the difference between something that's filled with undisputable facts and something that's tilted or could be open to debate. For instance, saying that "women in Canada enjoy great bodily autonomy.... following a 1988 decision..." (this is a fact) vs the court decided that a women's body is her own property (it could be argued that the court seemed more concerned about the fact that a woman was forced to do something, or that she wasn't given a choice in the matter. That it concerned pregnancy or carrying a fetus to term seemed incidental) I don't want to debate the finer points of the latter (it's really not the best example) but I figure if I feel that the distinction was made (or not made, depending how you look at the sentence) and I'm pro-choice, then anyone who's looking for trouble can easily make that argument. Since it would boil down to how everyone interprets the legal decision, there'd never be any consensus. In any case, hopefully we can all agree that the former is just as good. We can quote from the decision and just present it as is, without explicitly saying that so-and-so means such-and-such. That way, the paragraph contains just as much info but no one can say that our interpretation is dubious; we're just presenting a fact and quoting from the decision. --jag123 09:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accidental erasure of Jag123 new text

I just wanted to say Jag that the erasure of the new text you had put in was an accident (i came across the fact that Tony had put it back in and what was there). Although we may not agree on all things its not my style to try and erase a whole bunch of new stuff because i'm trying to restore OLDER stuff unless it obviously vandalism (ie someo of the stranger stuff you see). Its the first time i did a revert and i'm sorry it occured--Marcie 15:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's okay, you're not the only editor here. There was no way that Jag123's entry was going to be forgotten, your revert was fine. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem Marcie. If I didn't want my writing to be edited mercilessly, I wouldn't have submitted it. I don't think you had any bad intentions either. --jag123 10:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)