babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » How is Canada doing on abortion rights?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How is Canada doing on abortion rights?
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 July 2008 04:09 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Abortion rights: How are we doing, Canada?

quote:
So where to go from here? The latest Angus-Reid poll revealing that only 49 per cent of Canadians believe that abortion should remain legal under any circumstances shows us that the battle is not over yet.

In fact, I really don’t like to think of basic human rights like abortion as only battles, or movements, or current affairs we have to deal with.

We should always be there to support people having rights over their own bodies. The truth of it all is that the moment we stop supporting these rights, they go away.



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 25 July 2008 06:28 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Having read the poll information on the angus reid website i find this even more interesting than the stat quoted in the first post

quote:
Conversely, 42 per cent of respondents would allow the procedure only under certain circumstances, while five per cent would make abortion illegal in all circumstances.


According to data in the polling results 91% of respondants are in favour of abortion in Canada. Only 5 % responded that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.

Therefore it is this 42 percent that need to be messaged because it can be hypothesized that many of them when questioned keep abortion or get rid of abortion rights would answer keep it.

here is the polling data from the angus reid site.

quote:
Polling Data

Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?

Abortion should be legal under any circumstances
49%

Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances
42%

Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances
5%

Not sure
3%

Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,003 Canadian adults, conducted on Jun. 4 and Jun. 5, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Other poll highlights:

46% believe abortion should be permitted in all cases
43% say the health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested
53% want women under the age of 18 to have parental consent in order to have an abortion


angus reid


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 25 July 2008 07:12 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So only 5% of Canadians think abortions should be illegal. But yet they are spinning it differently!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 25 July 2008 08:49 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So that's still quite a large amount of people whio want to limit women's control over their bodies.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 25 July 2008 09:56 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances 42%

Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Prophit
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15312

posted 25 July 2008 10:12 AM      Profile for Prophit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well Stargazer I guess they figure its their body and not yours
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 25 July 2008 10:22 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:

Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?


I disagree that it should be okay if the fetus is past viability. This is the way the law is formulated in most of Europe. That said, this affects a very small proportion of abortion demand and the woman should still be able to have the fetus removed whenever she decides.

That is my understanding of the 42% - or how I myself view the issue. However, overall this isn't much of an issue due to the rarity. I would like to see the change so that it cannot be used as a red herring by anti-choicers and to ensure that fetuses that are viable human beings on their own are not being destroyed.

All of that said, abortion after this stage would probably disappear if access was improved across the country.
Here is the situation in my province


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 25 July 2008 10:25 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
a more accurate poll would be one that asked Abortion Legal or Abortion Illegal.

Using the data provided it is 91 % legal 5% illegal.

I think that this is a great number.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 25 July 2008 11:42 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?

Exactly, it is no one else's business but the woman's.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 July 2008 11:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Prophit:
Well Stargazer I guess they figure its their body and not yours

How be you just stay completely out of the feminism forum from now on. Or else you're gone.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 25 July 2008 11:50 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i may have missed this in the polling data but it appears that they polled men and women.

I wonder how a similar women only poll would be responded to.

Do men push the results one way or the other?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 25 July 2008 12:22 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course men would push the poll one way or the other. But really it doesn't matter, as it is no one else's business but the woman's who is making her own choices.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bob9999
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15375

posted 25 July 2008 11:26 PM      Profile for bob9999        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Of course men would push the poll one way or the other. But really it doesn't matter, as it is no one else's business but the woman's who is making her own choices.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


Yes, it is business of the murderer and the victim only.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 26 July 2008 04:21 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
bob9999 is banned.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 July 2008 05:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just in case it's not clear, since I've had a question about this by private mail - abortion is not up for debate on babble, anywhere on babble. And the feminism forum is for protected space for feminists (and since, over the years, we've had this fight so many times, when we say "feminists" we mean "pro-choice feminists"), so any opposition to abortion, or disparaging comments about women or abortion providers, is strictly not allowed.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 27 July 2008 10:25 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been reading an interesting book called The politics of abortion, which discuses (at least the part I'm at) what the master narrative was- and unlike in the USA where abortion is an issue of individual rights, in Canada it was a concern over Doctors getting prosecuted for providing abortion they believed their patients needed. The individual rights debates or the socioeconomic side of it was not dominant. Medicalizing the debate avoided the controversial debate that we today call pro-life/pro-choice debate.
MP's and the government have frequently stated that they wish to avoid opening the debate, as if it was a settled issue. But with bill c-484 and the continuing efforts of what apparently is a small minority to get abortion banned, and another chunk of the Canadian population in a sort of middling-against position it's clear it is not. Just because you can't see something doesn;t mean it's not there. So good debate in the public eye on this issue in a is really necessary- women's well- being is at stake.Would that some (i.e many Liberals and Conservatives) politicians weren't so worried about getting elected.

[ 27 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
kim2
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14468

posted 27 July 2008 10:52 AM      Profile for kim2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?"

These 42 percent are regular, everyday men and women who think abortion shouldn't be available anywhere up to passing the baby through the birth canal. This doesn't have anything to do with restricting females access to abortion.

Andrew Coyne wrote a very interesting article in McCleans about this topic.

"Alone among developed countries, Canada has no abortion law. Is 'settling' for a non-decision any way for a democracy to behave?"

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080709_112194_112194


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 July 2008 11:14 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores: So good debate in the public eye on this issue in a is really necessary- women's well- being is at stake.
Respectfully, I disagree. I believe that all that needs to be said and done is that it needs to be well stated, often, that women cannot be compelled to give their body into the service of another person, for any reason, and that what a woman does with her own body is NO ONE else's business.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 27 July 2008 11:35 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kim2:

Andrew Coyne wrote a very interesting article in McCleans about this topic.


I think that Andrew Coyne's opinion on abortion will have credibility when Andrew Coyne has to face the decision about having an abortion. But not before then.

Ah, Maclean's! That bastion of pro-woman and pro-feminist thought and theory!

From the article, re Morgentaler and the OC:

quote:

Members of Parliament spoke out against it by the dozen.

Wow! By the dozen you say?!? Hold still so I can count all of you!

quote:

Several members of the Order returned their pins.

Yeah, the child-abusing priest who's currently under investigation, that's such as loss.

How interesting indeed that Mr. Coyne is so very concerned with the way in which the abortion laws were struck down 20 frikkin years ago. The right has had all this time to weasel around. Hmm, the timing, what's that about? Harper, you think? And Bill C-484? Were the Liberals not conservative enough on this issue, were the big tough conservatives like Coyne too scared to bring this up when the Liberals were in power? What-the-fuck-ever.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 July 2008 12:06 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kimi I believe you were asked, to stay the hell out of discussions regarding woman's rights to choose. But I leave that to Michelle to deal with and will respond to your post.

quote:
Originally posted by kim2:
Andrew Coyne wrote a very interesting article in McCleans about this topic.

"Alone among developed countries, Canada has no abortion law. Is 'settling' for a non-decision any way for a democracy to behave?"


It is the only way for a democracy to behave, in actual fact, as it is acknowledging woman's full equality in not being forced/compelled to give her body into the service of another.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 July 2008 01:23 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
So good debate in the public eye on this issue in a is really necessary- women's well- being is at stake.

Did we ever have a really good debate as to why people shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily sell themselves as slaves to others?

I certainly don't recall one.

Let's have that debate. After all, people's well-being is at stake.

And what about sodomy? It was decriminalized in 1968, but was there really a broad public debate? I don't recall one either. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Let's have that debate now. After all, the well-being of queers is at stake.

How am I doing, Pride?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 July 2008 06:36 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly unionist, thanks for pointing this out, even though it should've been glarringly obvious that women's rights to self determine what is right for themselves, should not be up for debate, in any manner.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 28 July 2008 07:08 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
i may have missed this in the polling data but it appears that they polled men and women.

I wonder how a similar women only poll would be responded to.

Do men push the results one way or the other?


The complete polling results, including breakdowns between female and male responses, can be found here. Below I repeat the gender breakdowns. I believe that the male and female responses are within the margin of error of each other.

The gender breakdowns are as follows:

Question: What is your personal feeling about abortion?

1. Abortion should be permitted in all cases. F 44%. M 48%.
2. Abortion should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than now. F 21%. M 17%.
3. Abortion should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. F 24%. M 20%.
4. Abortion should only be permitted to save the woman’s life. F 5%. M 8%.
5. Not sure. F 6%. M 7%.

Question: Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?

1. Abortion should be legal under any circumstances. F 50%. M 48%.
2. Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. F 42%. M 43%.
3. Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. F 5%. M 6%.
4. Not sure. F 4%. M 2%.

Question: In Canada, abortions are provided on request to Canadian citizens and permanent residents, and are funded by the health care system. Which of these statements comes closer to your own point of view?

1. The health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested. F 42%. M 44%.
2. The health care system should only fund abortions in the event of medical emergencies. F 45%. M 44%.
3. The health care system should not fund abortions at all. F 4%. M 4%.
4. Not sure. F 9%. M 8%.

Question: In your view, should women under the age of 18 require the consent of their parents or legal guardians in order to have an abortion?

1. Yes. F 53%. M 53%.
2. No. F 35%. M 37%.
3. Not sure. F 12%. M 11%.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 28 July 2008 08:12 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting. Looks like the men are a tad more progressive on this issue than the women (according to the poll).
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 28 July 2008 08:25 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think that a woman's right to self-determination is up for debate either. My point is that we have no abortion law and we should have one to ensure women's acess to abortion.But this won't happen so long as the government is scared shootless to adress the issue. A lack of acess does affect women's well-being.
These debates are already going on, they're just not reported by the media.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 28 July 2008 08:48 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Interesting. Looks like the men are a tad more progressive on this issue than the women...
Well, Stargazer, I guess that's easy enough when it's women's bodies and not theirs that bear the brunt of "sexual liberation".
I have often noticed that the right to abortion was by far the one that elicited the most support among even midly progressive men. Make no mistake, I entirely and actively spport that right.
But looking at the one woman's issue that men usually champion in the light of those that they don't, I have to acknowledge that the (unrealized) promise of abortion on demand still makes it somewhat easier for men - in their mind, at least - to insist on sex on demand, not use contraception and not take responsibility for accidental offspring. Which I think is part of the reason to choose this issue to champion and pass on others. So, "progressive"...? I am not sure.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 July 2008 09:09 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:I don't think that a woman's right to self-determination is up for debate either. My point is that we have no abortion law and we should have one to ensure women's acess to abortion.
No, actually, you do believe it is up for debate, as you believe there should be abortion laws.

What are you failing to get about any abortion laws = impingement upon a woman's Charter Right to NOT be compelled to give their body into the service of another person? That is what self-determination is, NOT being compelled in anyway, shape, or form to give one's body/self into the service of another person, for any reason!

quote:
But this won't happen so long as the government is scared shootless to adress the issue.
There is NO issue that needs addressing!

quote:
A lack of acess does affect women's well-being.
Access has nothing to do
with abortion laws, and everything to do with Universal Access in the Health Act and its not being enforced. And that is the actual, and only, issue, that needs to be addressed.

ETA: A response to the edited add on, of:

quote:
These debates are already going on, they're just not reported by the media.

What debates, with whom, and about? And how dare they debate a woman's Charter Rights!

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 28 July 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
No, actually, you do believe it is up for debate, as you believe there should be abortion laws.
What are you failing to get about any abortion laws = impingement upon a woman's Charter Right to NOT be compelled to give their body into the service of another person? That is what self-determination is, NOT being compelled in anyway, shape, or form to give one's body/self into the service of another person, for any reason!


A law protecting fetuses that are at or past viability would not infringe on a woman's right to not be compelled to give her body in the service of another person for any reason. As long as the woman has the choice to have it removed when SHE CHOOSES.

Martin, I agree with you. I think a certain percentage are progressive, but a lot of men probably see it as an easier way to have zero responsibility when it comes to sex, to not have to use contraception and to not be on the hook for child support.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 28 July 2008 09:16 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with remind. An "abortion law" couldn't decree accessibility - as the unimplemented Canada Health Act is supposed to do for an acknowledged essential medical service. It could and would only decree any number of conditions conditions allowing the State or any doctor or a would-be father to deny access to a woman. This is how such laws function in other countries - decreeing a cut-off gestation period, for instance, or any kind of rigmarole (such as mandatory counseling or parental approval) that a woman gets forced into before being allowed the service. More to the point, this is how such laws they are argued for here when people throw up scare scenarios - e.g. abortions at 8 1/2 months - to get people to nod their heads saying "There oughta be a law!", which leads to Ghislaine saying that abortions should be outlawed past foetal "viability" and not acknowlewdging that this contradicts women's choice.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 28 July 2008 09:30 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We have an "abortion law." It's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 July 2008 09:37 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
So, "progressive"...? I am not sure.

It might be interesting to compare these polls with public opinion in countries which still ban or severely restrict abortion rights. Is there a gender difference there, and if so, to what extent? My uneducated guess would be that males in those circumstances would oppose abortion in significantly larger numbers. Cf. the Catholic Church hierarchy.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 28 July 2008 09:42 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I agree with remind. An "abortion law" couldn't decree accessibility - as the unimplemented Canada Health Act is supposed to do for an acknowledged essential medical service. It could and would only decree any number of conditions conditions allowing the State or any doctor or a would-be father to deny access to a woman. This is how such laws function in other countries - decreeing a cut-off gestation period, for instance, or any kind of rigmarole (such as mandatory counseling or parental approval) that a woman gets forced into before being allowed the service. More to the point, this is how such laws they are argued for here when people throw up scare scenarios - e.g. abortions at 8 1/2 months - to get people to nod their heads saying "There oughta be a law!", which leads to Ghislaine saying that abortions should be outlawed past foetal "viability" and not acknowlewdging that this contradicts women's choice.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


It does not contradict a woman's choice, as long as the choice of when to have the fetus removed is HERS, not a doctor's. This really affects a tiny percentage of women regardless, but I do not see how it affects a woman's right to her body or her choice - as long as she can go in at any time up until natural birth and say " I do not want to be pregnant any more, get this out of me".


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 July 2008 10:06 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gah! I do not know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, are seriously failing to see what is entailed, or think that others are stupid, and can't see the full spectrum themselves, ghislaine.

Anyhow, there is NO discussion warranted, excpet for increased access.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 28 July 2008 10:18 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Gah! I do not know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, are seriously failing to see what is entailed, or think that others are stupid, and can't see the full spectrum themselves, ghislaine.

Anyhow, there is NO discussion warranted, excpet for increased access.



I am being straitforward and serious. Nothing I said in any way interfers with a woman's right to choose and for her to have the right to stop being pregnant at any time.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 July 2008 10:22 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess it is choice b) then.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 July 2008 10:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Access has nothing to do with abortion laws, and everything to do with Universal Access in the Health Act and its not being enforced. And that is the actual, and only, issue, that needs to be addressed.

This is the succinct and plain truth and should be repeated, as is, every time anyone wants to initiate a "debate" about abortion.

Canada has done extremely well with no law (other than the Charter, as Catchfire points out) for 20 years. Public support for choice has only increased. There should no more be a law regarding abortion than regarding tonsillectomy.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 28 July 2008 10:39 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ghislaine: Nothing I said in any way interfers with a woman's right to choose and for her to have the right to stop being pregnant at any time.
Yes, many of the things you said do just that. You want to "ensure that fetuses that are viable human beings on their own are not being destroyed". You "disagree that it should be okay if the fetus is past viability". You want "a law protecting fetuses that are at or past viability". All of these (repetitive) statements contradict a woman's free choice to abort - even if you nonsensically pretend that it doesn't because her CHOICE trumps fetal rights - past such an entirely questionable deadline. Questionable because some people would sadistically argue that even a one-hour embryo is viable on its own if one toys with the definition of "on its own". I know *you* don't but, for the woman involved, a one hour or 23 weeks cutoff point of her rights amounts to the same NO!
And most Canadians - including legislators - won't have that.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 28 July 2008 11:00 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Yes, many of the things you said do just that. You want to "ensure that fetuses that are viable human beings on their own are not being destroyed". You "disagree that it should be okay if the fetus is past viability". You want "a law protecting fetuses that are at or past viability". All of these (repetitive) statements contradict a woman's free choice to abort - even if you nonsensically pretend that it doesn't because her CHOICE trumps fetal rights - past such an entirely questionable deadline. Questionable because some people would sadistically argue that even a one-hour embryo is viable on its own if one toys with the definition of "on its own". I know *you* don't but, for the woman involved, a one hour or 23 weeks cutoff point of her rights amounts to the same NO!
And most Canadians - including legislators - won't have that.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]



But I maintain that no law can or should (and would not withstand a Charter challenge anyways) force a woman be pregnant or carry a child against her will. I am not saying that a woman has to stay pregnant or will be refused. Just that when a fetus is removed past the age of viability it is kept alive, rather than killed. We currently do this for preemies.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 July 2008 11:09 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about you fuck off with your rather than killed, BS Ghislaine? Frankly, I am really sick and tired of your anti-choice BS here. In fact, I know you are being deliberately obtuse, at best.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 July 2008 11:11 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
I am not saying that a woman has to stay pregnant or will be refused. Just that when a fetus is removed past the age of viability it is kept alive, rather than killed. We currently do this for preemies.

Well then, Ghislaine - and please listen carefully - would you like to see viable foetuses included in the same law that currently protects preemies?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 28 July 2008 11:18 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well then, Ghislaine - and please listen carefully - would you like to see viable foetuses included in the same law that currently protects preemies?



No, as the law that currently protects preemies is the criminal code law defining a human being as someone who takes their first breath, correct?

What would be wrong with a law stating that past somewhere in the range of 24 weeks (determined by medical professionals) a fetus is removed and kept alive and treated as a preemie rather than being aborted. It would state that no doctor has a right to force a woman to stay pregnant, etc. etc. The Supreme Court ruling is based on the Charter section that no person can be forced to use their body against their will in the service of others. Such a law would not contrevene the Charter.

If you do not agree with the Charter as such, perhaps you agree that some sort of abortion law specifically stating a woman has a right to abort at any stage is necessary?

And no, I am not being deliberately obtuse. It is images of late-term abortions that people use to try and represent all abortion and to try and convince the public that a woman does not have a right to choose.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 July 2008 11:42 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Request is sent to moderators to remove ghislaine from this thread and forum, at the least.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 July 2008 11:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Done.

Ghislaine, you are to stay out of any thread concerning abortion, for good. If you post in any further threads on abortion, you will be removed from the board as a whole.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leavingsoon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15384

posted 28 July 2008 12:52 PM      Profile for leavingsoon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Im posting this and then you can ban me, i understand.

But as i read the forum a fair bit and this bothered me i thought i'd waste you're time for just a moment.

First of all, it's disgusting to me that any person male or female would advocate abortions at any stage of pregnancy. I'm most certainly pro choice, but damn make the choice within some reasonable time limit otherwise it becomes obscene. I know it almost never happens very late term, but why would anyone want to allow that for anything but serious medical concerns is more than i can understand. I just can't see how being this extreme as to accept nothing but abortions anytime is good for anyone.

Anyway, its too bad people can't talk about these issues here, i know this is a bastion of feminist thought only. Rightfully so, it's your house, but that still doesn't make your ideas reasonable or ethical.

anywhoo, sorry if i bothered anyone, ill be leavingsoon


From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 July 2008 01:00 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leavingsoon:
First of all, it's disgusting to me that any person male or female would advocate abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

Thanks for dropping in.

No one here advocates abortions. That you should say so indicates your bad faith (I would say ignorance, but you don't sound ignorant, and you claim to have "read the forum a fair bit").

That's why the debate itself is wrong. It opens the door to gross falsifications and character assassination, like the one you just committed.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 July 2008 01:02 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leavingsoon:
Im posting this and then you can ban me, i understand.
You are ignorant, rude and a liar.

quote:
First of all, it's disgusting to me that any person male or female would advocate abortions at any stage of pregnancy. I'm most certainly pro choice,
NO, you are NOT, your first sentence gives lie to that pro-choice notion that you proclaim. You are a liar.

And frankly, I am disgusted by people who would try to take away woman's Charter equality rights!

quote:
Anyway, its too bad people can't talk about these issues here, i know this is a bastion of feminist thought only.
Fuck you, the loss of Charter equality rights are NOT up for debate here, nor should they be anywhere else!

quote:
Rightfully so, it's your house, but that still doesn't make your ideas reasonable or ethical.
Apparently you do not know what reasonable and ethical is, or you would NOT have lied, not have barged into someone else's home, and you would not have levelled BS.

quote:
anywhoo, sorry if i bothered anyone, ill be leavingsoon[/QB]
Passive agggressive lie.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 July 2008 02:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, it's not a lie. It's true. leavingsoon is leavingsoon. Actually, now.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 29 July 2008 09:00 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With regards to access, this is something that has been delegated to the provinces, so wouldn;t it be a question sof each provinces enforecment practices ? Since I really don't agree with the idea of abortion being dealt with by criminal law, federally that would mean a hodge podge of provicial laws...

[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 July 2008 09:18 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:With regards to access, this is something that has been delegated to the provinces, so wouldn;t it be a question sof each provinces enforecment practices ?
Yes, and no, the federal government can insist that the Canada Health Act universal access criteria has to be met by each and every province, or transfer payments for health care could be held back.

quote:
Since I really don't agree with the idea of abortion being dealt with by criminal law,
Again I repeat, abortion does NOT have to be dealt with, let alone have anything to do with criminal law. What do you NOT get about human equality rights PFRD?

quote:
federally that would mean a hodge podge of provicial laws...
This really makes no sense.

And there is NO hodge podge of provincial laws, nor would there be under any circumstance, actually!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 29 July 2008 04:44 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, and no, the federal government can insist that the Canada Health Act universal access criteria has to be met by each and every province, or transfer payments for health care could be held back.

And the government doesn't address issues of access because abortion is as the poll reveals, at least somewhat controversial to some (i.e people have different opinions,pro-life and pro-choice camps dispute each others claims about abortion,try to maintain or limit access respectively- this sort of makes it a debate, even if the poll indicates pro-choice is dominant).
With regards to the hodge podge bit (lunch was ending and my typing is bad, sorry), I meant that since it is a medical procedure covered under medicare and not under criminal law (after all, a woman's right to control her body isn't up for debate,and is not criminal, thus should not be in the criminal code. I am pro-choice remind.) If any laws were put into place explicitly stating the legality of abortion it would have to be provincial laws. Under all the above circumstances (and doing a little more reading) I guess an abortion law does not make much sense.

[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 29 July 2008 05:58 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have found this thread extremely informative. It's helped me to more fully understand the issue, the principles involved, and the feelings involved.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 July 2008 09:21 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:If any laws were put into place explicitly stating the legality of abortion it would have to be provincial laws.
The provinces could not maske laws in respect to abortion, they would never pass Charter challenges. And I see you still do not get Charter Rights.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 30 July 2008 01:47 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just a few points to add re the argument about time limits. There's a real and logistical side to this related to access.

Women outside major urban centers, or women in PEI which does not perform any abortion procedures (I don't know if there are other provinces like that) the clock starts from the time from finding out through a blood test that she's pregnant (can be 6-8 weeks), the choice to abort the pregnancy, to the time to arrange travel, time off from work/school, to the appointment itself. So much more time can pass than those of us in urban centers realize. Any time restriction leads to less access, which is the real issue on the ground now: making all hospitals perform abortions on demand.

There are still huge barriers for low-income women, but having access at all hospitals would be a start.

As for the 42%, I think the moralizing folks who yammer on about "what woman is worthy of having a justified abortion" fall into this category. I read somewhere about some right wingnut who talked about a very specific demographic, identifying age (young), race (white) and provable virginity prior to the vicious sexual assault that resulted in her getting pregnant as the only circumstances he would see an abortion being okay. Maybe I read that on babble? Anyways, whatever.

The good news is the 5% who say never, are small.

[drift]
But this poll does bring up a few things. Have you noticed that when the polls say things we (progressives) like that support our views, we use them to make our point, but when the polls do not we say "Polls are crap."?
[/drift]

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 30 July 2008 07:15 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For those of you who read French, there is a great 16-page dossier - "L'avortement, un droit menacé" - summarizing abortion rights and lack thereof here and in various countries around the world (especially Brazil) in the current issue (Summer 2008) of A BABORD magazine*, a Quebec Left-wing publication. If you think papal pronouncements are irrelevant, think again...

*Subscriptions are a steal at 35$ (25$ - students, 50$ - institutions) for five 52-page issues: 5819 de Lorimier, Montréal Qc H2G 2N8


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 30 July 2008 08:45 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With regards to polls it's also important to know how they were conducted, and how the questions are written as this can elicit a certain response than if things were done differently.

Remind, what charter right are you speicfically refering to- I am not altogther very familiar with that document as I have never read it. Security of the person ? The clause about gender equality ?
Also, if health is the realm of the provinces, would it be acceptable for the federal government to try to get provinces to make abortion available by withholding transfer payments ? Wouldn't that be trying to enforce something that is outside their responsibility ?

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 July 2008 09:08 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:...what charter right are you speicfically refering to- I am not altogther very familiar with that document as I have never read it. Security of the person ? The clause about gender equality ?

Both those 2 and freedom of conscience and privacy, as well as the criminal code which states no person can be compelled to give their body into the service of another, which was formerly only true for men. And the Charter equality rights back this criminal code premise of self determination.

quote:
Also, if health is the realm of the provinces, would it be acceptable for the federal government to try to get provinces to make abortion available by withholding transfer payments ?
It is the provinces responsibility to dispense health services, on a unbiased universal basis, the Health Act itself is under the providsion of the federal government. And yes it would be accepotable for the feds to withhold money, if the provinces were failing to meet the Health Act provisions.

quote:
Wouldn't that be trying to enforce something that is outside their responsibility?

No, it is their responsibility, and when thinking about this further, the Canadian College of Physians and Surgeons, may also be able to be pressured into making sure their members are conducting themselves within the Health Act provisions.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 30 July 2008 10:42 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The MacLeans article was interesting. But no political party is going to stick its neck out to be guillotined here.

Canada's abortion law (or, rather the total lack of an abortion law) is pretty well the most liberal on the planet, and its very likely to remain so, considering how vocal the pro-choicers are in this country.

Here's an exercise, how many countries allow for abortion in every juristiction, at any term in pregnancy, without the permission of a doctor? Very, very few I'd bet, even amongst industrialized ones.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 31 July 2008 06:26 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
The provinces could not maske laws in respect to abortion, they would never pass Charter challenges. And I see you still do not get Charter Rights.

Actually, provincial anti-abortion laws have been found to violate the division of powers for infringing on the federal parliament's power over criminal law, rather than being struck as violating the Charter.

Further, a caution that the decisions respecting abortion laws and the Charter have all been focused quite specifically on the exact provisions in place. It is not at all clear that the Charter itself provides an unfettered right to abortion. There is constitutional room for laws restricting access to abortion, which is why it really matters what politicians think and say on the issue.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 July 2008 07:07 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Point of clarification, it was stated above, that it was the Charter and the Criminal Code that upholds abortion rights and that access was the only issue here. But thanks for running in and telling us, women, what has already been stated, and what is openly known, and has been discussed here at length both in this thread, and before, the grey.

And what is your point west coast greeny?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 31 July 2008 11:50 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That the answer the question of this thread from your perspective is "very, very well".

On abortion, Canada is way more liberal than the vast majority of countries (I would do that exercise), and more liberal than even most industrialized countries; and its likely to remain that way, because social conservatives and social moderates have a very hard time opening up debate on the issue.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 July 2008 11:58 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
That the answer the question of this thread from your perspective is "very, very well".
Actually, the answer would be "not really well", as access is still an issue.

quote:
On abortion, Canada is way more liberal than the vast majority of countries (I would do that exercise),
For what purpose would anyone do it? It doesn't matter what other nations are doing in respect to their abortion laws, and what Canada isn't doing.

quote:
and more liberal than even most industrialized countries; and its likely to remain that way, because social conservatives and social moderates have a very hard time opening up debate on the issue.

There is no issue, except access, to have a debate upon.

And I, for one, am very pleased that Canada is a leader among nations in "some" human rights cases, like abortion and SSM. And I am even more pleased/happy that there can be no debate, as there shouldn't be, ever, a debate about human rights.

[ 31 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 August 2008 09:13 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thing that always makes me wonder what the hell anti-abortionists are smoking is their bald claim that pregnant women should be prohibited from getting an abortion just because they know better.

This kind of patronizing attitude is precisely what gets up my nose about 'em - especially when the epitome of hypocrisy is displayed by male anti-abortionists. Since when did they get the right to tell a woman to not get an abortion? I don't see any of them offering to take part in some mad genius's highly experimental male pregnancy program where the baby can be transplanted, because that's what it'll take before I change my firm opinion that any man who is anti-abortion is automatically a sanctimonious hypocrite of the highest order who will gladly tell a woman what to do but will never ever offer to bear her burden.

What also really slays me is when the anti-abortionists say "BUT AREN'T YOU GLAD YOU WEREN'T ABORTED?"

To that, I answer: "If I had been aborted I wouldn't be here having you waste my nerve endings with your bleating, so the point is moot."

Tell ya, I'd be happy to see the GST go back up to 6% if it meant the extra percentage point went straight to compensation of women who for whatever reason needed get an abortion.

We need MORE abortion clinics, not less, and I'm glad Morgentaler was named to the Order of Canada.

[ 02 August 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 August 2008 06:53 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great rant Dr Conway! And obviously, I could not agree more.

Last night on CTV's The National, they were doing a segment on foreign adoptions and how they believe people are undertaking foreign adoptions because in part of there being no regulations on who can, or cannot adopt. Something that I think should be fixed. They also noted there were 76 thousand children in Canada waiting to be adopted.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WendyL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14914

posted 03 August 2008 09:21 AM      Profile for WendyL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bit of a thread drift...

Is that true, remind, that there are no regulations regarding international adoptions? I know only small pieces about the international situation. A friend who has twice adopted internationally had to undergo a home assessment before she was allowed to proceed.

76,000 in Canada waiting to be adopted. That would not include the large number of children in care who are considered "unadoptable" -- children who are not newborn, white, healthy, etc. What a world we live in!

I adopted a child (one of the unadoptables) and in subsequent years obtained service from a psychologist in upstate NY who dealt almost exclusively with issues related to international adoptions. He had much of interest to say.

Are you able to provide me with some links regarding the status of international adoptions?


From: PEI Canada | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 August 2008 09:44 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry wendy I can't, pretty much all I said was stated in last nights CTV National News brief on it. They also stated the amounts of foreign adoptions per year in Canada, mainly from eastern European block countries, and they showed a family who had adopted 6 children. Plus some other factors here in Canada.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 04 August 2008 05:28 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does Canada need a new abortion law as Andrew Coyne suggests? In the years that Canada has had no laws with respect to abortion, I have not heard any complaints about women receiving abortions improperly by qualified doctors. If women were to be seriously injured because of they received abortions by qualified doctors, I would be one of the first to request laws or regulations to protect the safety of the women. Abortion is a health issue between a woman and her doctor. Unless women are treated poorly, there is no need for a new law.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152

posted 05 August 2008 07:54 PM      Profile for ghoris     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just as a point of interest, here in BC we have provincial legislation on this subject (I believe unique in Canada). The Access to Abortion Services Act essentially mandates an "access zone" around any facility or doctor's office which provides abortion services, in which such activities as protesting, sidewalk counseling, intimidation of or physical interference with abortion providers or their patients are prohibited. The scope of the access zone varies depending on the type of building. The Act allows people to be arrested and imprisoned for violating the access zones and even makes them subject to civil damages.

The legislation was brought in by the NDP in 1995. Parts of it were struck down as infringing free speech under the Charter by the Provincial Court, but that decision was reversed by the B.C. Supreme Court which found the restrictions were saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The Supeme Court decision is here if anyone is interested in reading it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WendyL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14914

posted 09 August 2008 12:32 AM      Profile for WendyL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With respect to access to abortion, here is a copy of an email sent to me from Rosella Melanson, ED of the NB Status of Women office:

quote:
Here is the CBC report from this morning, the decision and an interpretation of the decision by Morgentaler's lawyer.
Rosella

N.B. court gives nod to Morgentaler's challenge<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com ffice ffice" />


Last Updated: Friday, August 8, 2008 | 10:54 AM AT


CBC News


Abortion provider Dr. Henry Morgentaler has the legal right to challenge the New Brunswick government's policy on abortion funding, a judge has ruled.

Morgentaler is trying to force the government to pay for abortions done at his private Fredericton clinic. Currently, women pay the $750 fee themselves, while the province only pays for abortions approved by two physicians and performed at an approved hospital.

When the case first went to court in 2007, the province tried to stop it by arguing that Morgentaler did not have the legal standing required to challenge the policy. Instead, the province said, only a woman who had used the abortion clinic had the right to question the government's payment policy.

In a decision made public this week, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench Judge Paulette Garnett rejected the province's argument, saying Morgentaler has the legal right to take the case to court .

"There are many valid reasons why women who have had abortions at the Fredericton clinic would not or could not bring this challenge," Garnett ruled. "Dr. Morgentaler is therefore a suitable alternative person to do so."

The decision is a major victory, said Rosella Melanson, executive director of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

"Dr. Morgentaler seems to have won on all counts," she said. "So finally, it will get to court, hopefully soon."

The government said it is reviewing Garnett's decision before deciding whether it will appeal


Below are my responses to the questions you posed in your prior e-mail. I trust this is the information you require. I am out of the office until August 20th but will be checking e-mail from time to time if there is anything further.

Regards

Darlene

1. What are the key legal issues being explored in this decision?

2. Does the decision have relevance for lawyers across the country?

3. Does the decision raise or clarify any issues?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What are the key legal issues being explored in this decision?

Dr. Henry Morgentaler is seeking a declaration that Regulation 84-20, made under the Medical Services Payment Act, discriminates against women, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.7 and s.15. In particular, Dr. Morgentaler is challenging the provinces decision to deem therapeutic abortions unentitled and uninsurable services unless women first overcome strict, qualifying preconditions. At present, New Brunswick requires that two medical practitioners must certify, in writing, that an abortion is "medically necessary". The criteria for determining medical necessity is left to the unfettered discretion of the doctor. Once the referrals are provided, the procedure can only be performed by a certified specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, and then, only in an approved hospital facility. At present, only one hospital in New Brunswick will perform abortions.

Early in the litigation, the Province took the position that Dr. Morgentaler did not have the necessary legal standing to challenge the legislation as a public interest litigant. In particular, the Crown advanced the position that Dr. Morgentaler failed the third branch of the standing test, that it would be more reasonable and effective for a directly affected woman to bring this issue before the Court. The Crown however refused to consent to having the issue of standing determined as a preliminary matter. Instead, it maintained the position that the Rules, as they stood, reserves to the Crown, the exclusive right to challenge the standing of a public interest litigant. The Crown further argued that the Crown should determine the timing of a challenge to standing.

Two legal issues were before the Court in Morgentaler v. The Province of New Brunswick, 2008 NBQB 258. The preliminary issue concerned the operation of Rule 23(2)(b) which permits a defendant to apply to the court to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff does not have the legal capacity to pursue the action. There is no Rule in New Brunswick that directly and appropriately sets out the procedure by which a plaintiff can request a preliminary determination of standing. Further, the Rules governing the admission of evidence on applications under Rule 23.02 severely curtailed the admission of the necessary affidavit evidence.

If the Court agreed to hear the application to determine standing, the second issue was whether Dr. Morgentaler ought to be granted public interest standing.

Justice Garnett first confirmed that Dr. Morgentaler lacks "legal capacity in this instance." She then examined Rule 23(2)(b) and found that it, "relates to a different circumstance and does not apply to nor contemplate the issue of Public Interest Standing.". Having decided that there was no applicable rule, Justice Garnett exercised the court's inherent jurisdiction to permit the issue to be brought before the Court as a preliminary question.

Justice Garnett then proceeded to consider whether Dr. Morgentaler meets the test for public interest standing and concluded that he did. Central to this finding was an acknowledgment that, "there are many valid reasons why women who have had abortions would not or could not bring this challenge". The decision clears the path for Dr. Morgentaler to proceed with his constitutional challenge solid in the knowledge that the case will be heard on its merits.

2. Does the decision have relevance for lawyers across the country?

This decision reiterates the important role of public interest litigants as advocates for those who can not, or will not, challenge the state. It opens the door for lawyers to offer their clients, where the rules don't otherwise permit, the option of eliminating one of the risks of proceeding to trial.

Public Interest Standing is not a creature of statute, nor did it emerge from the rules of the court. It has been granted to litigants on a case by case basis by courts using their inherent jurisdiction to do what is right. In the case of the public interest litigant, courts have found that it is right and just to permit citizens standing to challenge the state where it appears that is acting beyond its authority and where the attorney general has shown no inclination to intervene. The courts have found that in certain circumstances, it is not practical to wait for a directly affected person to challenge the legislation. Without granting standing to a qualified and interested party, ultra vires and unconstitutional legislation could remain immune from judicial scrutiny. In effect, state power could go unchecked. The public and the courts need the public interest litigant, or more specifically, the right public interest litigant.

Faced with a challenge to its legislation, the state may draw upon seemingly endless resources. The same is rarely true for the public interest plaintiff who must balance the risks of committing extensive time, funds and energy of proceeding to trial against the knowledge that at the tail end, they may fail on the issue of standing alone.

More generally, the risk of losing at trial on the issue of standing operates as a general deterrent to every public interest litigant, regardless of the merits of the challenge.

This decision reiterates the principal that the Court determines whether it is fit and appropriate to grant public interest standing, and in so doing remains the master of its own process and resources. It is illogical and wasteful to deny a determination on standing until after a full trial.

The decision also underscores the importance of the public interest litigant. The public relies on such "interested strangers" to advance the rights of those who will not or can not challenge the state on their own. This decision affirms the obvious, that where a litigant knows that standing will be challenged at trial, they should have the right to request affirmation prior to proceeding to trial, to know in advance that their resources will be directed to a hearing that will focus on the impugned legislation, not their right to mount the challenge.

3. Does the decision raise or clarify any issues?

After clearly distinguishing between "legal standing" and "public interest standing", Justice Garnett revisits the third branch of the test for public interest standing. In particular, what role does the existence of alternative plaintiffs play in deciding if a public interest litigant should be able to advance a constitutional challenge?

Repeating the reasoning of Justice Jenkins in Morgentaler v. PEI, [1994] PEIJ No. 16, Justice Garnett considered the "intimate and private nature" of the decision to terminate pregnancy, and found that, "There are many valid reasons why women who have had abortions at the Fredericton Clinic would not or could not bring this challenge. Dr. Morgentaler is therefore a suitable alternative person to do so. "

In so deciding, Justice Garnett underscored the special role of the public interest litigant as an advocate for those who can not, or will not challenge the state. The decision is a reminder that those who suffer discrimination and prejudice at the hands of the state may be vulnerable not only in terms of their ability to access the necessary resources, but for personal and emotional reasons that deserve equal consideration and recognition.

Darlene Jamieson, Q.C.

Merrick Jamieson Sterns Washington & Mahody

Barristers



From: PEI Canada | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
WendyL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14914

posted 19 September 2008 01:33 PM      Profile for WendyL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: WendyL ]


From: PEI Canada | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 26 September 2008 09:31 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The word is out in Quebec that Ken Epp of the multi-party Anti-Choice Caucus on Parliament Hill has assured supporters that C-484 would resurface again in the upcoming Parliament.
Big demo Sunday afternoon in Montreal - I'm going in my Benedict XVI garb!:
quote:
Le projet de loi C-484, intitulé Loi sur les enfants non encore nés victimes d’actes criminels, qui octroie un statut juridique au fœtus, ouvrant ainsi la porte à la re-criminalisation de l’avortement, avait été adopté en deuxième lecture à la Chambre des Communes. Même si C-484 est tombé avec le déclenchement des élections, un député du Caucus Pro-Vie a déjà annoncé que ce projet de loi serait représenté au nouveau parlement. Nous devons donc lancer un message claire aux futurEs éluEs :
Pas d’autres C-484
On ne joue pas avec le droit des femmes !
Dimanche 28 septembre 2008
Au Parc Lahaie
Boul. St-Joseph, coin St-Laurent
Métro Laurier
Ralliement 13h30, départ 14h00
Le 28 septembre 2008,
soyons nombreuses et nombreux à manifester et à signifier clairement qu’on ne joue pas avec les droits des femmes !
Cette manifestation est une initiative de la Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN) et de la Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ), en collaboration avec le mouvement autonome des femmes et le mouvement syndical. Pour en savoir plus sur cette législation qui a l’appui du Caucus Pro-Vie et qui représente une véritable menace pour le droit à l’avortement et le libre choix des femmes, consultez le site http://www.contrec484.qc.ca

[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 27 September 2008 12:38 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't play with women's rights:
quote:
On Sunday September 28, 2008
Defend Women’s Equality
and Reproductive rights!

Women’s reproductive rights are under threat.

Before the federal election campaign began, a series of private member’s bills were introduced that sought to chip away at a woman’s right to choose. Last spring, all of the Conservative MPs (except four) voted in support of Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, which would have moved us toward the re-criminalization of abortion.

What did the Conservatives do in response?
They proposed dead-end solutions to violence against women.
They did not protect women’s right to access to quality public abortion services.



Pancanadian day of action - Don't play with the rights of women.

Vancouver.

Toronto.

Ottawa.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 27 September 2008 06:05 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
September 25th press release, picked up by no English-language media except the CBC and the Toronto Star:
quote:
Representatives from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Canadian Labour Congress, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, Federation du Quebec pour le planning des naissances and Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD) held the press conference, describing themselves as a united front in the mobilization of women voters.

"The bill that went the furthest, Bill C-484 - The Unborn Victims of Crime Act, would have opened the door to re-criminalizing abortion. But members from various parties supported the bill at second reading, and it almost received third and final reading in the Commons before dying on the Order Paper as a result of dissolution. . .

These threats have spurred the coalition to declare September 28 as a National Day of Action against Bill C-484. The current election now presents an opportunity to use the Day of Action to call on parties and candidates to state their commitment to women's rights, especially women's right to choose, and clearly state that they will refuse to introduce any anti-choice bills in next Parliament.

NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION September 28 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Montreal
- Demonstration starting at Parc Lahaie (corner of St-Laurent and St-
Joseph) from 1.30pm
Contact: Nathalie Parent nparent@fqpn.qc.ca or www.contreC484.qc.ca ;
Ottawa
- Rally at Minto Park / Women's Monument from 12pm
Contact: Pro Choice Coalition of Ottawa (PCCO);
jsquires@chebucto.ns.ca
Vancouver
- "Stop the Cons!" - a visual protest at the Vancouver Art Gallery,
Robson Street side, at noon
Contact Joyce Arthur at jharthur@shaw.ca
Toronto
- Rally at 12 noon, at the Bloor Parkette, corner of Bloor and Spadina
Contact: Carolyn Egan c.egan@sympatico.ca



CBC Story Sept. 25.

Toronto Star.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 02 October 2008 09:39 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Personally, having fought for abortion rights and against the re-criminalization of abortion since the mid-80s, I am loath to see any kind of legislation brought forward that opens this can of worms.

That said, I personally believe that third trimester abortions need to meet certain medical criteria: the fetus has died, the mother's life is in immediate danger, the fetus is so damaged that survival outside the womb is impossible, situations like that. I do not, however, think that this needs to be codified in law - it's a matter between a woman and her health care provider.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca