Henry Morgentaler
June 17, 2005 4:17 PM Subscribe
After decades of advocacy for Canadian women's right to choose (including opening several abortion clinics decades before they were legal, and spending 10 months in jail for having performed an abortion, and his case was the groundbreaking 1988 Supreme Court decsion that threw out all the criminal law related to abortion in Canada) prominent Canadian abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler recieved an honourary degree this week from the University of Western Ontario. In his own words.
delmoi: abortions were somewhat legal in Canada going back to 1969. Here's a timeline.
posted by furtive at 4:41 PM on June 17, 2005
posted by furtive at 4:41 PM on June 17, 2005
Yay! Abortion! Let's make it not only legal but mandatory!
posted by tkchrist at 4:44 PM on June 17, 2005
posted by tkchrist at 4:44 PM on June 17, 2005
Upon further inspection, looks like it wasn't as legal as one would hope back then (unless you're Bevets).
posted by furtive at 4:44 PM on June 17, 2005
posted by furtive at 4:44 PM on June 17, 2005
Yay! Abortion! Let's make it not only legal but mandatory!
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Sorry, punchdrunk after two days of being at a conference.
posted by jokeefe at 5:39 PM on June 17, 2005
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Sorry, punchdrunk after two days of being at a conference.
posted by jokeefe at 5:39 PM on June 17, 2005
Let's make it not only legal but mandatory!
Only for Catholics.
Okay, and Mormons (but not for male fetuses; they can't have too many little boys).
posted by wendell at 6:07 PM on June 17, 2005
Only for Catholics.
Okay, and Mormons (but not for male fetuses; they can't have too many little boys).
posted by wendell at 6:07 PM on June 17, 2005
What's the conventional-ish wisdom/range of viewpoints on abortion rights in Canada today? Is it as absolutely polarizing as it is in the U.S.? Morgantaler's been through plenty, it appears (see the 10 months in prison and the garden shears and the clinic bombing), but what are the current dividing lines and how clear-cut and motivated are they?
posted by gramschmidt at 6:29 PM on June 17, 2005
posted by gramschmidt at 6:29 PM on June 17, 2005
He sounds like a great guy. And it's great that some understand that all injustices should be fought, not just the ones that affect us personally--that what helps others helps us all.
posted by amberglow at 7:24 PM on June 17, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:24 PM on June 17, 2005
What's the conventional-ish wisdom/range of viewpoints on abortion rights in Canada today? Is it as absolutely polarizing as it is in the U.S.? Morgantaler's been through plenty, it appears (see the 10 months in prison and the garden shears and the clinic bombing), but what are the current dividing lines and how clear-cut and motivated are they?
The status quo seems to have a good deal of inertia to it, but here, as elsewhere, the religious fundies are just finding their collective voice (taking a cue from down South) so that could conceivably change. The courts have played hands-off, as they should, except to say that a medical procedure that is supposed to be available (for women whose health is at risk) but in fact isn't available because they have to jump through so many hoops, isn't an exception to the criminal prohibition at all -- it is a fictitious exemption. And they couldn't (or wouldn't) in this case go crafting new law, so down went the criminal prohibition and down it has stayed.
Personal op: I don't think it's been a balance of powers out here. Yes, several times a year the pro-lifers get out on the streets of Ottawa and hold up their billboards depicting aborted fetuses, but I don't get the sense that they have enough support -- yet -- to initiate a new prohibition. And Cotler (our Justice minister) is mad about human rights. So much so that he and good ole Anne McClellan are expected to butt heads nearly continuously while Martin remains in power (she's a conservative liberal and our curent solicitor general as well as head of emergency preparedness, which is quite the powerful double-whammy).
Right now, the big fish on the table is same-sex marriage, and the Liberals in power (barely) are trying to ram it through as fast as they can, while the Conservatives bribe and threaten to stall the process. It seems that a slim majority of Canadians are against, but that doesn't stop Martin, who doesn't want a referendum on it. Really FAR more straightforward since just about every lawyer I know, whether they support SSM or not agrees that the Charter supports it, so there you go. It's a constitutional right. Abortion -- not so straightforward, but this government's advisors and policy-makers certainly aren't looking for change.
posted by dreamsign at 10:03 PM on June 17, 2005
The status quo seems to have a good deal of inertia to it, but here, as elsewhere, the religious fundies are just finding their collective voice (taking a cue from down South) so that could conceivably change. The courts have played hands-off, as they should, except to say that a medical procedure that is supposed to be available (for women whose health is at risk) but in fact isn't available because they have to jump through so many hoops, isn't an exception to the criminal prohibition at all -- it is a fictitious exemption. And they couldn't (or wouldn't) in this case go crafting new law, so down went the criminal prohibition and down it has stayed.
Personal op: I don't think it's been a balance of powers out here. Yes, several times a year the pro-lifers get out on the streets of Ottawa and hold up their billboards depicting aborted fetuses, but I don't get the sense that they have enough support -- yet -- to initiate a new prohibition. And Cotler (our Justice minister) is mad about human rights. So much so that he and good ole Anne McClellan are expected to butt heads nearly continuously while Martin remains in power (she's a conservative liberal and our curent solicitor general as well as head of emergency preparedness, which is quite the powerful double-whammy).
Right now, the big fish on the table is same-sex marriage, and the Liberals in power (barely) are trying to ram it through as fast as they can, while the Conservatives bribe and threaten to stall the process. It seems that a slim majority of Canadians are against, but that doesn't stop Martin, who doesn't want a referendum on it. Really FAR more straightforward since just about every lawyer I know, whether they support SSM or not agrees that the Charter supports it, so there you go. It's a constitutional right. Abortion -- not so straightforward, but this government's advisors and policy-makers certainly aren't looking for change.
posted by dreamsign at 10:03 PM on June 17, 2005
as an american, i resent your exploration of issues that affect only canadia. please return to topic, toute de' suite: USA! USA!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:24 AM on June 18, 2005
posted by Hat Maui at 1:24 AM on June 18, 2005
What's the conventional-ish wisdom/range of viewpoints on abortion rights in Canada today?
I think the range is approximately the same as it is in the US, but the religious objectors don't seem to have as much influence and traction in Canada as they do in the US. None of the parties are making noise about introducing new criminal law on the subject. Probably because of opinion polls like the National Post 2002 poll in which 78% of Canadian polled answered yes when asked "Should women have complete freedom to decide whether to have an abortion". Source
But Canadians are far from all being pro-choice. And though there are no legal impediments to getting an abortion, actual access varies widely depending on the part of the country you are from. There's one tiny province (PEI) that doesn't have any abortion clinics in it, and there's one province (New Brunswick) that still won't cover the cost of the procedure.
Canadians opposed to abortion choice have the most success here through eroding access by restricting (province by province) when in pregnancy abortions can be done, and if the health care wil pay for the procedures as well as the threats and intimidation tactics that their counterparts in the US use.
We also have the anti-abortion rallies with big placards showing third tierm abortions - which are not actually available in Canada without serious life-threatening medical reasons for them. And Doctors that perform abortions still get threats and the clinics have occasionally gotten bombed and all that crap. And of course, if you live in a major city it's fairly simple to get an abortion. But the smaller the place that you live the harder it is to find a doctor that will do it, or the emotional support you may need.
posted by raedyn at 10:46 AM on June 18, 2005
I think the range is approximately the same as it is in the US, but the religious objectors don't seem to have as much influence and traction in Canada as they do in the US. None of the parties are making noise about introducing new criminal law on the subject. Probably because of opinion polls like the National Post 2002 poll in which 78% of Canadian polled answered yes when asked "Should women have complete freedom to decide whether to have an abortion". Source
But Canadians are far from all being pro-choice. And though there are no legal impediments to getting an abortion, actual access varies widely depending on the part of the country you are from. There's one tiny province (PEI) that doesn't have any abortion clinics in it, and there's one province (New Brunswick) that still won't cover the cost of the procedure.
Canadians opposed to abortion choice have the most success here through eroding access by restricting (province by province) when in pregnancy abortions can be done, and if the health care wil pay for the procedures as well as the threats and intimidation tactics that their counterparts in the US use.
We also have the anti-abortion rallies with big placards showing third tierm abortions - which are not actually available in Canada without serious life-threatening medical reasons for them. And Doctors that perform abortions still get threats and the clinics have occasionally gotten bombed and all that crap. And of course, if you live in a major city it's fairly simple to get an abortion. But the smaller the place that you live the harder it is to find a doctor that will do it, or the emotional support you may need.
posted by raedyn at 10:46 AM on June 18, 2005
please return to topic, toute de' suite: USA! USA!
The Wisconsin Assembly approved a ban on the so-called morning-after pill on state college campuses, a restriction that would be the first in the nation if approved.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:51 AM on June 18, 2005
The Wisconsin Assembly approved a ban on the so-called morning-after pill on state college campuses, a restriction that would be the first in the nation if approved.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:51 AM on June 18, 2005
while the Conservatives bribe and threaten to stall the process.
Wow, what with the $1/4 billion AdScam and tapes of Liberals trying to bribe Conservatives... I'm thinking you don't have any evidence, right dreamsign? Or at least no evidence that's in the $1/4 billion range, right? Yeah. Thought so.
It's a constitutional right
I hate to way it but the charter does not really mention sexual preference.
Here is the section that gets *close* to what you want:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
"sex" in 15. (1) is about the only thing that comes close, and I am pretty sure people in this country don't want it redefined to mean sexual preference, lest it not cover equality for all genders as it does now.
And furthermore, the charter has about as many swiss cheese exits as the 401. Witness Quebec and Bill 101 for the quality of Canada's Charter of Rights. It can't even guarantee freedom of speech, nevermind sexual preference.
In other news, University of Western Ontario has lost millions of dollars of donations over this. Suits them well, IMHO.
I might be the only atheist against abortion, but here I am. Ready to be called Paraiah.
posted by shepd at 11:01 AM on June 18, 2005
Wow, what with the $1/4 billion AdScam and tapes of Liberals trying to bribe Conservatives... I'm thinking you don't have any evidence, right dreamsign? Or at least no evidence that's in the $1/4 billion range, right? Yeah. Thought so.
It's a constitutional right
I hate to way it but the charter does not really mention sexual preference.
Here is the section that gets *close* to what you want:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
"sex" in 15. (1) is about the only thing that comes close, and I am pretty sure people in this country don't want it redefined to mean sexual preference, lest it not cover equality for all genders as it does now.
And furthermore, the charter has about as many swiss cheese exits as the 401. Witness Quebec and Bill 101 for the quality of Canada's Charter of Rights. It can't even guarantee freedom of speech, nevermind sexual preference.
In other news, University of Western Ontario has lost millions of dollars of donations over this. Suits them well, IMHO.
I might be the only atheist against abortion, but here I am. Ready to be called Paraiah.
posted by shepd at 11:01 AM on June 18, 2005
Wow, shepd... that was remarkablyl... uninformed.
Wow, what with the $1/4 billion AdScam and tapes of Liberals trying to bribe Conservatives
Wow, you can do better than that for a derail. The Liberals do X so that makes the Conservatives doing Y alright?
If you didn't get it, there was no political slant to my post. I bet you think there was. Read it again.
The Conservatives have been threatening -- to bring down the minority government.
The Conservatives have been bribing -- to pass the budget if the Liberals will agree to stall the SSM process.
What rock have you been living under? Nowhere did I say that either of these actions was not ok. It is the opposition's job to threaten and bribe (legally).
I hate to way it but the charter does not really mention sexual preference.
I hate to tell you but Charter jurisprudence is WAY off the actual language of the Charter, so start boning up on caselaw or drop the subject.
1. s.15 rights are determined in terms of "analogous grounds" for anything not on the list. "Sex" is the closest thing? Sexual orientation isn't on the list either, in case you hadn't noticed, but under Charter jurisprudence, you CANNOT discriminate on that basis.
2. s.15 does not mention analogous grounds. Let this be your first lesson in literal interpretation of literal, especially consititutional, laws. What section 15 DOES say is
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
I am a federal legislative drafter. You can take it from me, or you can go learn this yourself, that "in particular" denotes mere examples of an open-ended list. It does not mean: "this is a closed list, except with regard to new items which bare a sufficient resemblance to those already listed as to be considered included". The search for "analogous grounds" is entirely a judge-made proposition. But that's where we're at.
3. Read the sentence before "It's a Constitutional right". Really FAR more straightforward since just about every lawyer I know, whether they support SSM or not agrees that the Charter supports it, so there you go. Not the same as a court by far, but federal lawyers,working in human rights, constitutional law, public policy, et al. I also worked in human rights for some time. These are not political opinions. They are legal opinions. They could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet the firm on it.
What I was saying is that the abortion issue doesn't have a clear legal answer, which makes it an entirely different kettle of fish. You may not like the legal answer to the SSM question. You may think that there is a different legal answer. But if so, then you are very definitely in the legal minority. If you want to discuss political opinions, well, that's different.
Sorry to the rest of you for the long post.
posted by dreamsign at 12:10 PM on June 18, 2005
Wow, what with the $1/4 billion AdScam and tapes of Liberals trying to bribe Conservatives
Wow, you can do better than that for a derail. The Liberals do X so that makes the Conservatives doing Y alright?
If you didn't get it, there was no political slant to my post. I bet you think there was. Read it again.
The Conservatives have been threatening -- to bring down the minority government.
The Conservatives have been bribing -- to pass the budget if the Liberals will agree to stall the SSM process.
What rock have you been living under? Nowhere did I say that either of these actions was not ok. It is the opposition's job to threaten and bribe (legally).
I hate to way it but the charter does not really mention sexual preference.
I hate to tell you but Charter jurisprudence is WAY off the actual language of the Charter, so start boning up on caselaw or drop the subject.
1. s.15 rights are determined in terms of "analogous grounds" for anything not on the list. "Sex" is the closest thing? Sexual orientation isn't on the list either, in case you hadn't noticed, but under Charter jurisprudence, you CANNOT discriminate on that basis.
2. s.15 does not mention analogous grounds. Let this be your first lesson in literal interpretation of literal, especially consititutional, laws. What section 15 DOES say is
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
I am a federal legislative drafter. You can take it from me, or you can go learn this yourself, that "in particular" denotes mere examples of an open-ended list. It does not mean: "this is a closed list, except with regard to new items which bare a sufficient resemblance to those already listed as to be considered included". The search for "analogous grounds" is entirely a judge-made proposition. But that's where we're at.
3. Read the sentence before "It's a Constitutional right". Really FAR more straightforward since just about every lawyer I know, whether they support SSM or not agrees that the Charter supports it, so there you go. Not the same as a court by far, but federal lawyers,working in human rights, constitutional law, public policy, et al. I also worked in human rights for some time. These are not political opinions. They are legal opinions. They could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet the firm on it.
What I was saying is that the abortion issue doesn't have a clear legal answer, which makes it an entirely different kettle of fish. You may not like the legal answer to the SSM question. You may think that there is a different legal answer. But if so, then you are very definitely in the legal minority. If you want to discuss political opinions, well, that's different.
Sorry to the rest of you for the long post.
posted by dreamsign at 12:10 PM on June 18, 2005
Egads. Poor form for a drafter. That's what I get for whipping out a response.
posted by dreamsign at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2005
posted by dreamsign at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2005
« Older Dvorak Blogs? | Some great portraits Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I think it's intresting that the US was ahead of Canada on this one.
posted by delmoi at 4:29 PM on June 17, 2005