Conservative MP brings abortion back into the spotlight

[punked]

That is NOT what the Supreme Court said. Not even close. In fact, Andrew Coyne had a good summation of the issue in his column today.

Citing Bertha Wilson: This did not require the Court to pronounce on when human life begins. Rather, following the example of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, she suggested the fetus be viewed as a “potential life,” whose interests acquire greater legal weight the more fully it has developed. This view, she wrote, “supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages. In the early stages the woman’s autonomy would be absolute… Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions.” Just when such conditions could be imposed she left “to the informed judgment of the legislature.”

Andrew Coyne

Slow you role friend Wilson wrote her own decision on the case but she was the 5th vote out of 7, meaning her opinion wasn't the deciding one Dickson, Lamer, Beetz, and Estey all agreed so Wilson's opinion wasn't the tie breaker. HER THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER don't change anything. It is disingenuous to cite her opinion acting like with out her the ruling would be different. It would not have.

Edited April 28, 2012 by punked

[Argus]

Bertha Wilson wrote her own decision, it is true. However, the two other decisions written by those who struck down the law appear to have focused, in large part, on the procedural issues associated with obtaining the abortion. Ie., they decided that the procedures were too complex and time consuming, and thus both endangered the woman's life and made it difficult for her to obtain an abortion in smaller centers.

To my knowledge none of those who voted to strike down the law actually suggested that any law governing abortions would go against the Charter. They merely wanted the law to be such that the right to an abortion would not be unduly delayed, esp during the earlier stages of pregnancy. Or in Wilson's case, she wanted no regulation during the early stages of pregnancy, for she believed that abortion rights out to be absolute during that period.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Argus

[punked]

Bertha Wilson wrote her own decision, it is true. However, the two other decisions written by those who struck down the law appear to have focused, in large part, on the procedural issues associated with obtaining the abortion. Ie., they decided that the procedures were too complex and time consuming, and thus both endangered the woman's life and made it difficult for her to obtain an abortion in smaller centers.

To my knowledge none of those who voted to strike down the law actually suggested that any law governing abortions would go against the Charter. They merely wanted the law to be such that the right to an abortion would not be unduly delayed, esp during the earlier stages of pregnancy. Or in Wilson's case, she wanted no regulation during the early stages of pregnancy, for she believed that abortion rights out to be absolute during that period.

That was the case you do know that right? The argument they were ruling on was if section 251 of Criminal Code of Canada violated section 7 of the Charter. Judges don't just get to look at a law and decide of they like it or not they rule on what is presented to them. The whole case was about if limiting abortion violated a womens right to "life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.".

They found forcing a women to have a child deprives them of the decision to lead a different like, basically in non legal terms. You need to go back and re examine the case. Which has been ruled on and outside of changing the Charter is not up for debate.

[Argus]

That was the case you do know that right? The argument they were ruling on was if section 251 of Criminal Code of Canada violated section 7 of the Charter. Judges don't just get to look at a law and decide of they like it or not they rule on what is presented to them. The whole case was about if limiting abortion violated a womens right to "life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.".

They found forcing a women to have a child deprives them of the decision to lead a different like, basically in non legal terms. You need to go back and re examine the case. Which has been ruled on and outside of changing the Charter is not up for debate.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The question was not 'if limiting abortions' violated their rights. It was about whether that law, as written, and as implemented, violated their rights. Nor have you presented anything but your opinion to support that view. The existing law was not up to snuff but that doesn't mean another law, largely governing access to abortions in the later stages of pregnancy, and without the complex and time consuming mechanisms required to grant an abortion, would be tossed out.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Argus

[cybercoma]

That is NOT what the Supreme Court said. Not even close. In fact, Andrew Coyne had a good summation of the issue in his column today.

Citing Bertha Wilson: This did not require the Court to pronounce on when human life begins. Rather, following the example of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, she suggested the fetus be viewed as a “potential life,” whose interests acquire greater legal weight the more fully it has developed. This view, she wrote, “supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages. In the early stages the woman’s autonomy would be absolute… Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions.” Just when such conditions could be imposed she left “to the informed judgment of the legislature.”

Andrew Coyne

What you wrote here doesn't contradict what I said. The court made no ruling on when human life began. What they did say is that abortion is a moral decision to be made between a woman, her doctor, and whatever faith she has.

[cybercoma]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The question was not 'if limiting abortions' violated their rights. It was about whether that law, as written, and as implemented, violated their rights.

The law, which they ruled unduly limited a woman's access to abortions, as written, adn as implemented, violated women's rights. Yeah.

[Argus]

What you wrote here doesn't contradict what I said. The court made no ruling on when human life began. What they did say is that abortion is a moral decision to be made between a woman, her doctor, and whatever faith she has.

Could you perhaps cite that particular statement, for I've found no record of it.

Certainly Bertha Wilson, who ought to know, was suggesting that a law to limit abortion certainly could be constitutional, depending on its wording and the extent of the limitations.

[cybercoma]

Could you perhaps cite that particular statement, for I've found no record of it.

Certainly Bertha Wilson, who ought to know, was suggesting that a law to limit abortion certainly could be constitutional, depending on its wording and the extent of the limitations.

Sure thing. Just take a look at post #8 by Smallc.

Sorry, but we did:

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

Morgentaler et al v. Her Majesty the Queen, 1988 1 SCR 30 at 37

In other words, it's none of your damned business...or mine.

[Argus]

Sure thing. Just take a look at post #8 by Smallc.

That's kind of amusing. Because that cite comes from Bertha Wilson alone. And as you've no doubt noted in reading my cite, it's Bertha Wilson who strongly suggested that abortion could be regulated.

And how is that Bertha Wilson, writing alone, is not an important element in whether abortions can be constitutional when she appears to suggest they can be, but is an impregnable citation of the unconstitutionality of regulating abortion when her words suggest so?

Again, from the Wilson opinion “...supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages. In the early stages the woman’s autonomy would be absolute… Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions.”

Edited April 28, 2012 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

Very timely article for this thread by Andrew Coyne with regards to the actual Morgentaler ruling by the Supreme Court:

Andrew Coyne: The idea we can’t debate abortion is unworthy of a democratic country

..........This did not require the Court to pronounce on when human life begins. Rather, following the example of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, she suggested the fetus be viewed as a “potential life,” whose interests acquire greater legal weight the more fully it has developed. This view, she wrote, “supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages. In the early stages the woman’s autonomy would be absolute… Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions.” Just when such conditions could be imposed she left “to the informed judgment of the legislature.

Yes, that Bertha Wilson: first woman on the Supreme Court, fearless advocate for women’s rights, feminist icon. Though she ruled with the majority of her colleagues that the 1969 abortion law was unconstitutional, it is as clear from her ruling as it is from the others’ that they never intended this to be the last word on the subject. Indeed, they practically begged Parliament to have another go at it. The law in question, they wrote, may have been overbroad, but “it is possible that a future enactment by Parliament that would require a higher degree of danger to health in the latter months of pregnancy, as opposed to the early months” would pass muster. Hint, hint.

That is what the Court actually ruled, as opposed to the mythology that has built up around it. It was an invitation to further democratic debate on a complex moral and legal question, not an absolute edict.

........and much more

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/27/andrew-coyne-the-idea-we-cant-debate-abortion-is-unworthy-of-a-democratic-country/ Edited April 29, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[Guest Derek L]

are you saying the Harper Conservatives are... never... whipped?

this is classic Harper playing both sides of the wedge - throw a bone to the fundies, while presuming to distance himself personally.

Didn’t see your earlier response…

Are they whipped on a private member’s motion? These Tory members can open up their Jesus filled can of abortion and not be worried about a negative reaction from the party………I’m certain there are Liberals and perhaps even NDP members that personally disagree with abortion, and given the option, would side with said Tory members.

So why does the NDP frown upon several of it’s members voting with the Government on the repel of the Long Gun Registry?

You’d almost think hunting rifles and shotguns prevent more Canadian’s from enjoying their lives, than abortion does…..

[punked]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The question was not 'if limiting abortions' violated their rights. It was about whether that law, as written, and as implemented, violated their rights. Nor have you presented anything but your opinion to support that view. The existing law was not up to snuff but that doesn't mean another law, largely governing access to abortions in the later stages of pregnancy, and without the complex and time consuming mechanisms required to grant an abortion, would be tossed out.

I think you really have to follow the history of this ruling. A year later in Tremblay v. Daigle the court found that the fetus is not a person and that you would have to reopen the Charter to make it one. So you can't just pass a law if you want new abortion laws you need to open the charter for that one. No government in Canada is going to bite on that one. Not now and probably not in the next 50-60 years. This one is pretty much set in stone.

[punked]

Didn’t see your earlier response…

Are they whipped on a private member’s motion? These Tory members can open up their Jesus filled can of abortion and not be worried about a negative reaction from the party………I’m certain there are Liberals and perhaps even NDP members that personally disagree with abortion, and given the option, would side with said Tory members.

So why does the NDP frown upon several of it’s members voting with the Government on the repel of the Long Gun Registry?

You’d almost think hunting rifles and shotguns prevent more Canadian’s from enjoying their lives, than abortion does…..

NDP members would be afraid of the base. Remember the only NDP member to vote against gay marriage was not punished by the party but by the members of her own ridding. They refused to re-nominate her to run for the NDP again even as a sitting MP. The base of the party is to be feared in the NDP not the leadership. They are pretty grassroots across the country.

[Guest Derek L]

NDP members would be afraid of the base. Remember the only NDP member to vote against gay marriage was not punished by the party but by the members of her own ridding. They refused to re-nominate her to run for the NDP again even as a sitting MP. The base of the party is to be feared in the NDP not the leadership. They are pretty grassroots across the country.

So, like the long gun registry, NDP members are forced to bow to the wishes of the national “grassroots” as opposed to their on conscience and/or will of their local constituents?

[punked]

So, like the long gun registry, NDP members are forced to bow to the wishes of the national “grassroots” as opposed to their on conscience and/or will of their local constituents?

No only local constituents who have NDP memberships can vote for nomination of an MP. So they have to bow to the will of their local constituents that is the point. In fact is the ONLY party who does this.

[Guest Derek L]

No only local constituents who have NDP memberships can vote for nomination of an MP. So they have to bow to the will of their local constituents that is the point. In fact is the ONLY party who does this.

So explain the NDP MP who left the party over the LGR's scraping. Clearly he’s either voting his conscience and/or the will of his constituents…….I’d see no other reason for him breaking ranks with the party.

[punked]

So explain the NDP MP who left the party over the LGR's scraping. Clearly he’s either voting his conscience and/or the will of his constituents…….I’d see no other reason for him breaking ranks with the party.

No NDP member left over the long gun scrapping. You clearly are confused. An NDP member did leave when he was told that a new long registry would be proposed if we were win government. Which is something the MEMBERSHIP voted for at convention, and is a vote Mulcair must whip because it is what the grassroots of the party voted for. If that member did not like that he should have made a better case at convention. That is fine he should leave a party whose policies he does not support. Unlike the Conservatives and Liberals who just hid when votes come up from their party they do not like. That is the type of government I want, not one who says one thing, does another then pretends they never said the thing to their supporters in the first place.

[Guest Derek L]

No NDP member left over the long gun scrapping. You clearly are confused. An NDP member did leave when he was told that a new long registry would be proposed if we were win government. Which is something the MEMBERSHIP voted for at convention, and is a vote Mulcair must whip because it is what the grassroots of the party voted for. If that member did not like that he should have made a better case at convention. That is fine he should leave a party whose policies he does not support. Unlike the Conservatives and Liberals who just hid when votes come up from their party they do not like. That is the type of government I want, not one who says one thing, does another then pretends they never said the thing to their supporters in the first place.

The membership for voted for a new LGR at the convention? The NDP member that left said this wasn’t the case. You have any evidence?

[Vendetta]

as you have every right to make decisions over your own body yourself.

person has no right to impose their will upon the body of another person.

Unless a person wants to smoke a medicinal herb, then all rights over your own body are out the window.

[punked]

The membership for voted for a new LGR at the convention? The NDP member that left said this wasn’t the case. You have any evidence?

If it wasn't passed at convention then this Member could have put forward a motion at convention and if it passed the whole NDP policy would have to shaped around it. If this member wanted change party policy on the Gun registry there is a mechanism to do that the problem is he would not have the votes. Policy in the NDP is decided by the membership.

[cybercoma]

punked, how many times do I have to poke fun at you? It's riding.

[punked]

punked, how many times do I have to poke fun at you? It's riding.

Damn it I will never get that one.

[Guest Derek L]

If it wasn't passed at convention then this Member could have put forward a motion at convention and if it passed the whole NDP policy would have to shaped around it. If this member wanted change party policy on the Gun registry there is a mechanism to do that the problem is he would not have the votes. Policy in the NDP is decided by the membership.

So did the NDP decide at their last convention to reintroduce another LGR?

[The_Squid]

So did the NDP decide at their last convention to reintroduce another LGR?

Do some research, Start a new thread....

[Newfoundlander]

I was surprised to see Nikki Ashton struggle a bit on The Wet Block on Stephen Woodworth's motion, she was not as strong as she was during the NDP leadership "debates".