The Runaway Supreme Court


1892, Canadian Parliament legislated that  abortion was criminal  under section 251 of the criminal code. This legislation held until 1969. In 1969 Parliament under Pierre Trudeau amended the criminal code, section 287 and section 237. The amendment allowed abortion up to twelve weeks gestation, and removed the criminal sanctions on the doctor and woman acquiring the abortion. The effect was that hospitals could perform abortions with the approval of a ‘therapeutic abortion committee’, a specified group of doctors who would decide if the circumstances were reasonable for an abortion. The 1969 ruling turned abortion into a medical issue instead of a judicial one. Regardless of the legalization of abortion with permission, Emily Stowe, the second woman to practice medicine in Canada was put on trial for giving abortion medication to a young patient. The trial was widely publicized in order to make a point. Abortions were not acceptable. Feminists now claim Emily as a persecuted hero for their ‘faith’.
The Supreme Court struck down Trudeau's law in 1988 under Brian Mulroney. Mulroney’s Parliament then introduced Bill C-43 that was opposed by pro lifers and abortion advocates alike. It would have allowed for abortions in certain circumstances, generally leaving the abortion decision between a woman and her physician. It was specified that it could only be procured if it was medically necessary, and it penalised physicians who aborted healthy children. It also broadened the time frame during which an abortion could be procured. The Supreme Court struck it down because it was thought to infringe upon Section 7 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms, which is a woman's right to life, liberty and freedom.  
Chief Justice Brian Dickson writes: "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."
According to abortion advocates, there were too many gatekeepers. In an effort to give women unlimited access to abortion, the Supreme Court did not recognize any law Parliament tried to put in its place. By striking down all laws regarding abortion the Supreme Court has left Canadians to wonder whether or not the practice should be criminal, or unlimited or whether it should be regulated.
    The Supreme Court has ruled on common cases in favour of abortion, but does not make legislation, because it is not a legislative branch of government. A few cases where they ruled are these:

July 1989: Tremblay v. Daigle

1991: Regina v. Sullivan and Lemay

1996: The Drummond Case

Abortion debate has been largely been silenced by the Supreme Court who unlawfully and unconstitutionally implied that abortion is a woman's health issue. It is not. It is a human rights issue.
Turning it into a public health debate has largely dislodged the pro-life community, who do not oppose public health, but do oppose the slaughter of the preborn.  

Provinces have taken matters into their own hands. This link provides some helpful information on the Provinces, though I’m not certain of its accuracy due to the information given about the legality of abortion which is inconsistent with my findings. Just because there is no current law does not mean it is legal. In fact, the reality that there is no current law means the nation lawless. Lawless nations do whatever is right in their own eyes. It also does not account for the alleged 766 late term abortions provided in Canada over the last five years. Each Province differs on accessibility of abortion, but it is accessible in all Provinces. Abortion advocates complain that it is only accessible in large cities, and only free if procured in a hospital. It is now widely accepted as Universal Health Care, and there is no Federal Legislation protecting the right to life, liberty and freedom for a preborn child. Abortion is a profound interference with a child's body. The court chose to ignore preborn human rights, calling them invalid and unconstitutional, and it continues to do so to this day.


Sources:







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Vaccines and Parental Rights

Depression Is Not Your Master, Jesus Is.