Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy, and is governed by the Canadian Health Act. While some non-legal barriers exist, Canada is one of only a few countries with no legal restrictions on abortion. Rules and accessibility vary across provinces.
Prior to 1969, all abortions were illegal in Canada. In 1969, the Criminal Amendment Law, 1968-69 legalized abortion, as long as the physician's committee signed that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled at R. v. Morgentaler that the existing law is unconstitutional, and struck the law of 1969. Without legal delay, most abortions are done at an early stage.
In 2005, 97,254 abortions were reported in Canada; It is estimated that this figure "represents about 90% of all Canadian abortions involving Canadians". This number has dropped since at least 1998.
Video Abortion in Canada
History
Illegal
Abortion was strictly prohibited in Canada in 1869. As in other countries, illegal abortions are still committed, and some cases allege that this led to the death of women. The early example received much attention during the trial of the abortion Emily Stowe (1879). Other cases like that, Azoulay v. The Queen , reached the Supreme Court in 1952. In both cases, the alleged abortion provider was ultimately relieved of responsibility for the woman's death. Pro-choice activists such as Marilyn Wilson, former executive director of the Canadian Abortion Rights League, said: "Illegal abuses are common, but often because of poor safety, and several hundred women per year die from unsuccessful abortions."
The movement to liberalize Canadian abortion laws began in the 1960s. Former Ontario Chief Coroner Morton Shulman recalls that in the 1960s, abortion could be done legally just to save a mother's life, so practically no legal abortion. He stated that wealthy pregnant girls were sent to trusted doctors who had an abortion for cash. He estimates that this doctor does twenty to thirty abortions per week. Women who are not rich are allowed to have an abortion on themselves or go to what he calls a "nurse" of abortion. Their method generally pumps Lysol into a woman's uterus. High mortality rate and infection rate more than 50%. He added, "By the time I became Chief Coroner, I had had an unpleasant experience seeing the bodies of a few dozen young women who had died from this amateur abortion."
Partial relaxation of abortion rules
Chief Coroner Shulman decided to publish the results of Canadian abortion law. He instructed his coroner to call a public hearing into every abortion death. She described a case she believed to be a turning point, namely Lottie Leanne Clarke, 34, a mother of three, who died of a massive infection in 1964 after an illegal abortion despite medical treatment and antibiotics. During an examination of his death, the jury suggested that the law on therapeutic abortion be revised. Dr Shulman added that the federal government committee should review questions about abortion and the law. The newspaper publishing an editorial recommends reforming the law of abortion. In 1965, Justice Minister Guy Favreau wrote to Dr. Shulman that the recommendation will be considered in the program to amend the Criminal Code. The amendment finally follows the recommendation of a coroner jury.
In 1967, Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced a bill that included amendments to section 251 of the Criminal Code prohibiting abortion. The bill, known as the Criminal Code of Criminal Law, 1968-69, was adopted on May 14, 1969, and was reserved for abortion when the health of women was in danger determined by three doctors of the hospital committee. However, abortion remains in the Criminal Code, unlike US law where, after Roe v. Wade in early 1973, the US Supreme Court stated that the constitutional rights of pregnant women for privacy prohibit these countries criminalizing abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.. This same bill also legalizes homosexuality and contraception, and will be the subject of one of Trudeau's most famous quotes: "The state has no business in the nation's bedrooms."
Section 287 (251) of the Criminal Code is an abortion provision drafted by Trudeau and ratified in 1969. Prior to 1969, taking steps to cause abortion was a crime that could be imprisoned for life. However, Trudeau's bill makes an exception for abortion done in the hospital with the approval of a therapeutic abortion committee of three doctors at the hospital. The committee should state that pregnancy is likely to endanger the life or health of a pregnant woman. The term health is not defined, and the therapeutic abortion committees are free to develop their own theory when the possible dangers of "health" (which may include psychological health) will justify therapeutic abortion.
badgley Report
In 1975, the Abortion Law Operations Committee was appointed "to undertake research to determine whether the procedures provided in the Criminal Code were to operate in a fair manner in Canada", and to make recommendations "on the operation of this law rather than policy recommendations which underlie ". The Committee, known as the Badgley Committee after the Chair, was reported in January 1977. It was found, quite simply, that "the procedure established for the operation of the Abortion Law does not work fairly in Canada". Mostly, this is because the intent of the law is unclear or agreed upon. Access to abortion as set forth in the Criminal Code is not available for many women due to variations in the distribution of hospitals and physicians, and whether the Abortion Therapy Committee is established and in the doctor's interpretation of "health" for women, age of consent, and parental notification requirements. The report recommends better family planning to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies; but their main conclusion is that abortion services are not delivered as needed.
Continuous access difficulties
In 1982, there were 66,319 legal abortions in Canada. Interpretations of the 1969 law vary widely between doctors and hospitals, which causes uneven access. The standard is the physical or mental health of the mother, decided by the Abortion Therapy Committee at the hospital. However, there is no requirement for a hospital to have a TAC to evaluate a woman. Only about a third of hospitals have it. Some committees take a liberal stance and allow most of the demand, while others block almost all requests. Access to legal abortion is very easy in major metropolitan areas, but is much more difficult outside of big cities. In the province of Prince Edward Island, the only Therapeutic Abortion Committee was closed, and there was no legal abortion in the province after 1982. The Abortion Therapy Committee often took days or weeks to make their decisions, pushing the pregnancy further than it had otherwise. Women are not seen by the committee, and have no right to appeal the decision. Advocates for abortion rights believe that choice should be made by women, rather than doctors panel.
Due to lack of facilities in smaller provinces and rural areas, women are often forced to travel to large cities at their own expense. In Newfoundland, there is only one gynecologist who has an abortion. Many women have to buy expensive plane tickets to Toronto or Montreal for an abortion. Other women choose to travel to the United States, where abortion is available in many private clinics after Roe vs. decision. Wade. In 1982, 4,311 Canadian women traveled to the United States for an abortion.
Morgentaler challenges the law
In deviating from the law, Dr. Henry Morgentaler began an abortion at his clinic without the approval of the Therapeutic Abortion Committee and was against the law. In 1973, Morgentaler publicly declared that he had committed 5,000 unauthorized abortions from a three-doctor committee, even to the point of recording himself conducting operations.
The Quebec government brought Morgentaler to court twice, and both times the jury refused to punish him despite his public confession that he had committed abortions. The government appealed one free man, and the appeal court overturned the jury's verdict. Morgentaler was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Public condemnation of the appeals court's decision led to the federal government's passing of the law (commonly known as the Morgental Amendment) which prevented the appeals court overturning an innocent jury's verdict. Morgentaler was again freed at the third trial, causing the Quebec government to declare the law unenforceable.
Morgentaler's struggle encouraged the national movement to reform Canada's abortion laws. In 1970, as part of the Aboriginal Caravan, 35 women were chained to a parliamentary gallery in the House of Commons, closing Parliament for the first time in Canadian history.
After being released from prison in Quebec, Morgentaler decided to challenge the law in other provinces. For the next 15 years, he opened and operated a private abortion clinic across the country in direct violation of the law. After the fourth jury's release in 1984, the Ontario government appealed the decision. The Ontario High Court ruled out the release and ordered a retrial.
Morgentaler, in turn, appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In an important decision, the Court declared in 1988 that all state abortion laws were unconstitutional. The Court notes that "[f] directs a woman, under threat of criminal sanctions, to bring a fetus for a term unless she meets certain criteria not related to her own priorities and aspirations" and that the law "affirms that the capacity of women to reproduce is to submit, on its own control, but for the state "is essentially a violation of women's right to the security of that person, guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
The court also found that the procedural requirements for obtaining an abortion, as set out in law, were very disturbing. Only hospitals that are accredited or approved can have abortions, which impose barriers to local access. The law also states that women who want an abortion are asked to consult a "therapeutic abortion committee" (TAC), a committee of at least four doctors appointed by the board of members of the hospital. The court found that TAC was severely deformed, in part due to long delays caused by the TAC and that in many hospitals, the TAC was simply a paper committee and did not actually approve of abortion.
Supreme Court Decision
In 1988, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada at Morgentaler et. Al. v. Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada , indexed by the court as R. v. Morgentaler , declared the entire Section 251 of the Criminal Code no force or effect because it violated Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Section 7 states that: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived, except in accordance with fundamental principles of justice."
The majority of Courts have stated that "the system structure that regulates access to therapeutic abortion is clearly unfair, it contains so many potential obstacles to its own [exceptional] operations that it creates will in many practical circumstances be unavailable to women who will prima facie escape." Barriers which are noticed include all-male TACs, doctors who do not want to refer TAC problems, and geographical and financial differences in treatment. Thus, the provision was held to violate fundamental principles of justice and beaten, leaving Canada with a legislative void to this day.
The majority of the courts in Morgentaler did not find that there was a substantive right to an abortion under Section 7, as this was only explicitly stated by Wilson. The court feels no need to consider whether the substance of section 7 implies the right to an abortion, but instead makes a decision on procedural grounds.
The court did not consider the question of whether unborn babies were included in "everyone" who had the right to life. The court was to hear Manitoba MLA Joe Borowski, but the case was made moot by a decision at Morgentaler, which attacked the provisions to be challenged. In two further cases, Tremblay v. Daigle (who discovered the fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person) and (RV Sullivan 1991 1 SCR 489), relying on a live birth rule, inherited from English common law, to determine that the fetus is not a person; and Sullivan can not be accused of killing the fetus; and Daigle can not seek in court as a fetal guard.
Trying on new law
Following the Supreme Court ruling, Mulroney's government made two attempts to enforce new abortion laws.
In the spring of 1988, the government first tried to find a compromise solution that would provide easy access to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and criminalize that has existed for a long time. The motion in the House of Commons was defeated 147 to 76, voted against by both MPs who opposed easy access to abortion and those who opposed adding the rules of abortion to the Criminal Code.
The decision of the Supreme Court became an important issue in the 1988 federal election later that fall. Both the Conservative Party and the Progressive Liberals are sharply split on this issue and nobody has proposed a concrete platform on the issue of abortion. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney stated he opposed "abortion on request", but gave no details about what it means legally. Liberal leader John Turner stated that MPs should be allowed to choose their conscience, but refused to give his own opinion on the matter. NDP Leader Ed Broadbent has a strong position that abortion is a medical issue, not a criminal matter, and must be submitted to a woman and her doctor. Mulroney's government was returned to the 1988 election.
In 1989, the government introduced a much stricter bill in the House of Commons. If enacted, it would prohibit all abortions unless a doctor decides to live or her health will be threatened. Anyone found to be breaking the law may be jailed for up to two years. House of Commons passed a new bill with nine votes, with a whipped cabinet and most pro-life members supporting it. In June 1990, a teenager from Kitchener, Ontario, was injured during a failed abortion in a man's home. A few days later, a Toronto woman, Yvonne Jurewicz, died of a self-made abortion. These cases are reported in the latest news and cases discussed in Parliament. Ms. NDP Member Marzari said,
For our purposes, although technically the bill has not yet been proclaimed, Bill C-43 is, in the minds of the public and in the minds of women, now law. In fact, when we danced on the pin head and counted ourselves as angels, a woman in Toronto had died - she died bleeding - three weeks ago. His name is Yvonne Jurewicz, he is 20 years old and may be afraid to go to the doctor and afraid to go to the hospital after he tried to thwart himself. This is a sad fact of Bill C-43. While we debate the small points of whether the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor-General of Canada has taken it, we know that young women in this country get the impression they will be considered criminals if they appear in the emergency room. bleeding door.
Parliamentary Reform Party Deborah Gray, who backed the bill, denied that this death, the first known death of an illegal abortion in Ontario in twenty years, could have anything to do with the publicity surrounding Bill C-43's death. But in Ontario, the connection was made. MPP Mr. RF Johnson suggested to the Prime Minister, Mr. Peterson, that Ontario announced that it would not initiate third-party prosecution of women or doctors, to prevent further tragedies and to convince doctors that they can continue to provide services to women. from Ontario.
A few months later, the bill failed in the Senate on a tie vote. Under the rules of the Senate, a tie means a measure defeated. The defeat was somewhat unexpected because it was the first time since 1941 that the Senate, whose members were appointed, had completely lost the legislation passed by the House. Nevertheless, amid controversy surrounding parts of the Goods and Services Tax, the Progressive Conservative government did not want to provoke a will contest with the Senate and announced it would not reintroduce the law. The fact that no next government is re-visiting this decision is what causes Canada's unique situation that does not have an abortion law at all. Abortion is now treated like any other medical procedure, governed by provincial and medical regulations.
Later later
The 1989 Canadian Supreme Court case of Chantal Daigle ( Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 SCR 530) is one of the most publicized cases of abortion in Canada after a law prohibiting abortion was canceled by the Court Great Canada. Former Daigle boyfriend gets an arrest warrant for him having an abortion. While a restraining order was issued in Quebec, it was legally restricting Canada-wide. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that only women can make choices; the father has no legal voice in the choice of a woman to terminate the pregnancy or bring it to completion.
Daigle has had a long-term abortion before the Court's decision. While the case was tracked quickly, progress was so slow that Ms Daigle would be in the third trimester if she waited for the decision to be dropped. The fact that Daigle had an abortion, in the United States, while his case before the Canadian Supreme Court was not published until after the verdict, though it was unexpected. This is different from Roe v. Wade in the United States where Roe took his pregnancy for a certain period of time. The case, however, differs from the Daigle case because it's about whether an abortion is legal. In Daigle's case, the question is whether the male partner has a voice in whether a woman can have an abortion.
In the Morgentaler , the court has determined that, while the state has an interest in protecting the fetus "at some point", this interest can not rule out pregnant women because: "The right to security of a person from a pregnant woman is violated more than that needed to achieve the goal of protecting the fetus, and the means are absurd. "The next two cases discussed" fetal interest ". In Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson, a grandfather trying to act on behalf of a child born with cerebral palsy, supposedly resulting from a car accident in which the mother was the driver. He tried to sue the mother with negligence in driving. The mother supports the lawsuit successfully, because it will give her the funds to raise her disabled child, while her insurance company defends the lawsuit through subrogation. Quoting Kamloops City v. Nielsen, the Court ruled that the court can not impose duties on pregnant women on the fetus because it would interfere with the exercise of its autonomous rights during pregnancy, and difficulties in defining the standard of care in pregnancy. Only the legislature can do this. In Winnipeg Children & amp; Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G. (D.F.), [I997] 3 SCR 925 M, the court ruled that solvent-addicted pregnant women could not commit themselves to cure for treatment.
Maps Abortion in Canada
Access across Canada
Abortion in Canada is provided upon request and is funded by Medicare, for Canadians and permanent residents (as with most medical procedures) in hospitals across the country. Abortion funding for hospitals comes from various provincial governments (their overall health costs are paid in part by the federal government). One-third of hospitals have abortions, and this accounts for two-thirds of abortions in the country. The remaining abortions are conducted by public and private clinics to seek profit.
Medical abortions are available in Canada on a limited basis using methotrexate, misoprostol, and mifepristone. Clinical trials were conducted in 2000 in various Canadian cities comparing methotrexate with mifepristone, after being approved by the federal government. While both drugs have the same overall outcome, mifepristone is found to act faster. After years of trial and debate, RU-486 is approved for use in Canada when prescribed by doctors on July 29, 2015.
Access by province
The Canadian Health Act has been interpreted by the federal government as requiring the province to fund the abortion clinic completely.
In 2004, Dr. Henry Morgentaler launched a judicial battle against the New Brunswick government, seeking that abortion be recognized as a constitutional right under the Canadian Charter. In a review of Rule 84-20 in 2014, the government abolished the requirements for two doctors to certify the medical needs of effective procedures January 1, 2015. The amended rules require that all abortions be done in the hospital.
Until 2004, Manitoba did not finance a private abortion clinic. However, in July 2004 the only private abortion clinic in the province was purchased by a nonprofit organization, which then succeeded in suing the provincial government for paying for the abortion procedure there. In December 2004, the Manitoba Court ruled that the province should pay for all therapeutic abortions. This was rejected in 2005 by the Court of Appeals of Manitoba because Justice trials should not make decisions based on written documents only. The resignation to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected. The same plaintiffs have launched a new court challenge to the government's practice of not paying for a therapeutic abortion outside the hospital.
Quebec used to finance only some of the abortions done at private facilities. A 2006 decision concludes that this practice does not conform to the law that respects RÃÆ'Â Â © gie de l'assurance maladie du QuÃÆ' Â © bec; it was initially decided that abortion at a private facility would only be fully paid if a woman could show that she was trying to get an abortion in the public system and could not get it. In January 2008, the government decided to fund all abortions without any restrictions.
Access in rural and northern areas, and especially in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island (PEI), is often limited by the lack of nearby facilities, which requires women to travel to get an abortion. Some hospitals refuse to have abortions in patients outside the province, which are contrary to the Canada Health Act's portability requirements.
Doctors' referrals are not required, although independent ultrasound is usually necessary. The number of Canadian medical schools that provide instruction in abortion procedures decreases, potentially creating a shortage of skilled medical personnel in this field.
Third trimester abortions are generally not available. For example, in Quebec, no doctor will have a third abortion, unless the woman's health is in grave danger, or there is a genetic disorder. The province sends women seeking a third abortion to the United States. Quebec is actively seeking to hire doctors for long-term abortions, but has not been successful in October 2004.
Access in British Columbia (BC) is governed by the Access to Abortion Services Act , which limits political demonstrations outside the facility of providing abortions, doctors 'offices, and doctors' homes to set distances. Similarly, demonstrations are prohibited in certain "buffer zones" in Ontario under the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act .
Politics
Among the major federal parties, the New Democratic Party, the Canadian Liberal Party, and the Green Party of Canada are all strong pro-choice; While the Conservative Party of Canada has members of pro-choice and pro-life (and has stated that members will be allowed to vote their conscience on every vote regarding abortion), traditionally, Conservative members are more pro-life than pro-choice.
Conservative Party, must wrestle by combining the conflicting social policies of its two predecessor parties, the moderate Progressive Conservative Party and the right-wing Canadian Alliance, which joined in 2003. Many supporters of the conservative Alliance are socially angry at Pro-choice prospects Belinda Stronach won the election leadership in early 2004, while some Conservatives objected during the 2004 federal election against a new party's openness to legislation that would limit the right to abortion. In the March 2005 policy convention, in a narrow election, the party chose not to introduce a law on abortion. (Members can still introduce private member billing on this issue.)
The Liberals, on the other hand, have some pro-life members, but every potential new Liberal MPs have been told by their current leaders that they must vote according to the party's pro-choice policy, rather than according to their own conscience, when it comes to the problem of abortion. Liberal MP Paul Steckle was introduced in June 2006 a bill which, if passed, will have an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy a crime. The bill has not been acted upon since its introduction.
Although the issue of abortion rights has emerged from time to time in Federal elections as a wedge issue, the issue is consistently rated as a low priority for most Canadians. The Canadian Christian Heritage Party claims to be the only pro-life federal political party in Canada, but has never had an elected member for parliament.
Motion 312 was introduced by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth in 2012, calling on the House of Commons committee to determine when human life began, but was defeated 203-91.
In the absence of laws limiting abortion, the pro-choice movement in Canada focuses on establishing abortion as a component of provincial health care plans, to ensure it is available in all areas, especially for those who can not afford it.
Henry Morgentaler is widely seen as an individual personifying Canada's pro-choice movement, but organizations such as the Canadian Abortion Action League (CARAL), Canadians for Choice and the Pro-Choice Network of Action also significantly contribute to advancing the pro-choice movement of Canada. CARAL is folded, and has been replaced by the Canadian Abortion Rights Coalition, whose focus is on the above-mentioned objectives. Feminist or pro-feminist organizations also contribute to promoting a pro-choice approach.
Canadian Affiliate Planned Parenthood, now known as the Canadian Sexual Health Federation, is also a pro-choice, and while referring pregnant women to an abortion provider, it has no history (unlike American colleagues) to engage in litigation in favor of legal abortion.
Pro-life movement
The pro-life movement is concerned that there are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada, and that abortion is funded by provincial health care programs, even if abortion is not for therapeutic reasons. Medical reasons for obtaining an abortion are no longer required in Canada (except in Prince Edward Island) since abortion abolition in 1988 of the Criminal Code.
The pro-life movement in Canada is represented by the Catholic Church, Alberta Pro-life, Campaign Life Coalition, REAL Female Canada, Abortion in Canada, Action Life (Ottawa), Inc., among other organizations.
Attack on a doctor who has an abortion
Three Canadian doctors who had an abortion had been shot. Many of the shootings occurred on or near November 11, which were observed as Memorial Day in Canada, a day to remember the contribution of both men and women of service both in the world war and to peacekeeping operations.
- In 1983, Henry Morgentaler was attacked by a man holding a garden scissor; the attack was blocked by feminist activist Judy Rebick, who stood nearby.
- In 1992, the Toronto Morgentaler clinic was bombed and severely damaged. The incident happened at night, so no one was hurt, even though the nearest bookstore broke down. The appointment was transferred to another clinic in Toronto and no abortion was prevented.
- On November 8, 1994, Vancouver physician Garson Romalis was shot in the leg.
- On November 10, 1995, Dr. Hugh Short from Ancaster, Ontario shot at the elbow.
- On November 11, 1997, Dr. Jack Fainman from Winnipeg was shot in the shoulder.
- On July 11, 2000, Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unknown assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
See also
- Abortion by country
- Human Rights in Canada
- R. v. Morgentaler (1993)
References
External links
- The case of Supreme Court of R v. Morgentaler
- The Supreme Court case of Tremblay v. Daigle
- Leger Poll since September 2001
- Leger Poll since January 2002
- Richer, Karine. Abortion in Canada: Twenty years after R. v. Morgentaler. The Canadian Parliament, Legal and Governance Division. PRB-08-22E.
- Dunsmuir, Mllie Abortion: Constitution and Law Development. Government of Canada. 89-10E.
- List of Abortion clinics in Canada at the Canadian Abortion Rights Coalition
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments