USSC strikes down Roe v Wade

[Czar]

What nonsense are you talking about now?
This was 2013, before they lost the Senate. Once they lost the Senate it became a moot point once McConnel made clear he would never allow a vote on a replacement.
At that point retiring would have accomplished nothing and once Trump was in place it would accomplish even less.
The fault was hers (and, let's be honest, Breyer's but we don't mention him as much because he was pretty mediocre so he gets forgotten) for not retiring then.

Who knows what her thought process was back in those days. Neither you or me. I guess she was in her late '70's and feeling fine. Perhaps she just believed in going to death. A lot of them have. And then it is the people's choice through their elected representatives.

I am glad you think the Right wing's appeal to violence do you feel is fradulent. It should be considered that in a democratic society.
What aspects of the Nazi comparison do you consider fradulent?

How about you give in exact detail what part of the comparison you consider valid. Seeing as it is the fraudulent lefties that keep making the comparison. Until you do, it is unproven and in my opinion....fraudulent.

But lets see Valcazar put his credibility on the line. Remember though, I suspect most things you post will have a parallel from those on the left. That is the fraud, the complete hypocrisy. Start with the violence....seeing as you brought it up.

 

[Darts]

I'm still trying to see your point.
We believe the woman has a right to choose.
Is your argument "No, not if she chooses something I don't agree with?"
Here is an example:
Woman decides to abort because the fetus is the "wrong" gender.

What parts do you think need to be improved?
Section 12 can be improved to reduce the 12 weeks to 8 or less.

The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 allows for a termination:

• under section 9, where there is a serious risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, a pregnant woman, after examination by two medical practitioners;
• under section 10, in cases of emergency, where there is an immediate serious risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of a pregnant woman, after an examination by one medical practitioner;
• under section 11, where two medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth; and
• under section 12, where there has been a certification that the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks, and after a period of three days after this certification.

 

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541090167636770822

 

[HungSowel]

So Poor people should have less kids while reducing the allowable time for an abortion? Those are not compatible ideas.

 

[richaceg]

Perhaps indeed. But it does not solve all problem.

To be frank I am personally not for or against abortion. For me, as a men who do not deliver babies, my role is to stfu and leave that decision to women.

would that free up the man from future child support since the woman can solely make that decision? asking for a friend. I'm not pro or anti abortion either...you gotta be extra "special" to put yourself in a situation where you have to decide that when there are options you can do to avoid getting in that situation....

 

[richaceg]

How Doug Ford's Government Reduces Abortion Access

“In some hospitals, decisions were made to cut a specific number of abortions in a day, or cut the number of times an obstetrician was in the community.”

www.readthemaple.com

Just because it's in the news, doesn't mean it's accurate.

 

[richaceg]

 

[WyattEarp]

But, all the commercials on Canadian TV show the typical Canadian couple as black man and white woman. "Loving" is alive and well on Canadian commercial TV.

Yeah, I noticed that down here too. It's kind of funny.

 

[Uncharted]

No it's not. It's a diversion. It's whataboutism. It's saying that 2 wrongs make a right. It's an excuse for a valid argument even if there is actual hypocrisy..

Social Hypocrisy as an argument is the reason why Gay marriage is now legal. Because it was hypocritical to allow some people to get legally married and not allow other people to get legally married, when all people are supposed to be treated equally under the law.

This is also hypocritical. It is either illegal or legal to willfully kill another human. Not legal up until some arbitrary amount of time after they start to exist. A time that isn't even dictated by science.

 

[Uncharted]

Because it's her body.

At least to the time when the foetus is viable and can be delivered, it's still part of the woman's body.

Not according to the science of DNA. Genetically, it is a completely different unique and distinct human entity from the moment of Conception. It may be taking up residence in her body, but that embryo is not her body. It is its own.

 

[Uncharted]

You're just wrong. Read Morgentaler.

You're also wrong about other stuff. The provinces have no power to enact criminal law in Canada.

I will post my sources again.

What is the legal status of abortion in Canada?

There are growing concerns about access to abortion in Canada after the leak of a draft document that suggests U.S. Supreme Court justices are planning to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling south of the border. CTVNews.ca looks at the legal protections around the procedure...

www.ctvnews.ca

Quoted from the article.
"As it stands, there are currently no Canadian laws that explicitly guarantee access to abortion as a right.


While abortion was decriminalized in Canada in 1988 as a result of the landmark R. v. Morgentaler case in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a federal law, no legislation was ever passed to replace it, and the issue remains an ongoing topic of political conversation in this country."

" To protect abortion rights in the future under all governments, constitutional law expert and University of Ottawa professor Daphne Gilbert told CTV's Your Morning the federal government would have to make an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, she said this likely would not happen.


'They'd have to try to amend the charter to have an explicit right to abortion in the Constitution, and I think that's a pretty unlikely scenario,' Gilbert said in an interview.


Gilbert said it is more likely instead that the Liberals will make good on their election promise to strengthen the Canada Health Act to ensure that provinces have to comply with "equality of access to abortion" across the country."

I'll take the word of a constitutional Law professor over someone who couldn't even understand the ramifications of the Johnny Depp Civil court ruling.

 

[Leimonis]

So Poor people should have less kids while reducing the allowable time for an abortion? Those are not compatible ideas.

poor should have more kids to perpetuate poverty and cheap labour

 

[toguy5252]

I will post my sources again.

What is the legal status of abortion in Canada?

There are growing concerns about access to abortion in Canada after the leak of a draft document that suggests U.S. Supreme Court justices are planning to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling south of the border. CTVNews.ca looks at the legal protections around the procedure...

www.ctvnews.ca

Quoted from the article.
"As it stands, there are currently no Canadian laws that explicitly guarantee access to abortion as a right.


While abortion was decriminalized in Canada in 1988 as a result of the landmark R. v. Morgentaler case in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a federal law, no legislation was ever passed to replace it, and the issue remains an ongoing topic of political conversation in this country."

" To protect abortion rights in the future under all governments, constitutional law expert and University of Ottawa professor Daphne Gilbert told CTV's Your Morning the federal government would have to make an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, she said this likely would not happen.


'They'd have to try to amend the charter to have an explicit right to abortion in the Constitution, and I think that's a pretty unlikely scenario,' Gilbert said in an interview.


Gilbert said it is more likely instead that the Liberals will make good on their election promise to strengthen the Canada Health Act to ensure that provinces have to comply with "equality of access to abortion" across the country."

I'll take the word of a constitutional Law professor over someone who couldn't even understand the ramifications of the Johnny Depp Civil court ruling.

You are correct but it is a purely academic distinction. There is no law prohibiting abortion and accordingly Canadians have that right. We do not need a law to give us rights. in the absence of a law prohibiting an act it is legal.

By the way I agree that an amendment to the Charter is not going to happen.

 

[Uncharted]

You are correct but it is a purely academic distinction. There is no law prohibiting abortion and accordingly Canadians have that right. We do not need a law to give us rights. in the absence of a law prohibiting an act it is legal.

By the way I agree that an amendment to the Charter is not going to happen.

As such, there is nothing preventing the Provinces from limiting or removing access to Abortion services. This is why Justin wants to strengthen the Health Canada Act.

 

[toguy5252]

As such, there is nothing preventing the Provinces from limiting or removing access to Abortion services. This is why Justin wants to strengthen the Health Canada Act.

I agree but then it gets back to the original charter challenge that overturned the laws prohibiting. This also gets into the division of jurisdiction between the Feds and provinces. The bigger risk is not that provinces will outlaw it but rather pass laws which may be within their jurisdiction to make it more difficult to get and/or pay for.

 

[jalimon]

would that free up the man from future child support since the woman can solely make that decision? asking for a friend. I'm not pro or anti abortion either...you gotta be extra "special" to put yourself in a situation where you have to decide that when there are options you can do to avoid getting in that situation....

No that does not free up the father from anything. It's part of the decision the women has to make. Is the father willing to have (take care of and support) a baby?

 

[mandrill]

I will post my sources again.

What is the legal status of abortion in Canada?

There are growing concerns about access to abortion in Canada after the leak of a draft document that suggests U.S. Supreme Court justices are planning to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling south of the border. CTVNews.ca looks at the legal protections around the procedure...

www.ctvnews.ca

Quoted from the article.
"As it stands, there are currently no Canadian laws that explicitly guarantee access to abortion as a right.
While abortion was decriminalized in Canada in 1988 as a result of the landmark R. v. Morgentaler case in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a federal law, no legislation was ever passed to replace it, and the issue remains an ongoing topic of political conversation in this country."
" To protect abortion rights in the future under all governments, constitutional law expert and University of Ottawa professor Daphne Gilbert told CTV's Your Morning the federal government would have to make an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, she said this likely would not happen.
'They'd have to try to amend the charter to have an explicit right to abortion in the Constitution, and I think that's a pretty unlikely scenario,' Gilbert said in an interview.
Gilbert said it is more likely instead that the Liberals will make good on their election promise to strengthen the Canada Health Act to ensure that provinces have to comply with "equality of access to abortion" across the country."
I'll take the word of a constitutional Law professor over someone who couldn't even understand the ramifications of the Johnny Depp Civil court ruling.

What TOguy said.

The provinces cannot criminalize abortion, as they have no criminal jurisdiction under the Canadian constitution. The feds cannot criminalize abortion, because Morgentaler says that you cannot criminalize abortion. If a province indirectly attempted to outlaw abortion by enacting health care legislation that prohibited doctors from performing abortions, that too would be unconstitutional. Because Morgentaler. It would be an indirect attempt to prohibit abortion.

That might leave open a scheme wherein a province might discontinue coverage for abortion under the province's health care legislation, thus making it a privately purchased service. If it was deliberately made unaffordable, that too would trigger Morgentaler. Or if the health of the mother or foetus was gravely in danger and it was a privately purchased service, that would likely trigger Morgentaler. There is no suggestion that any province intends to do any of this shit. Access to abortion is not a live debate in this country, as it is in the US.

There is no explicit section in the Canadian Constitution that says you have a right to an abortion. It is considered part of the general right to privacy that a Canadian enjoys. Morgentaler clearly prevents any government interfering with access to abortions. There are many constitutionally guaranteed rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Charter. This is one of them.

 

[Dutch Oven]

I agree but then it gets back to the original charter challenge that overturned the laws prohibiting. This also gets into the division of jurisdiction between the Feds and provinces. The bigger risk is not that provinces will outlaw it but rather pass laws which may be within their jurisdiction to make it more difficult to get and/or pay for.

You raise a good point. Even if abortion under defined circumstances is not criminal in Canada, that does not mean that: a) citizens have a legal "right" to force hospitals or clinics to offer abortion services, or b) that any doctor who has not agreed to perform abortions, in his contract of employment or as part of a hospital privileges agreement, MUST perform abortions, or c) that any Province MUST publicly fund abortion services (or fund ALL abortion services, or fully fund ALL of the cost of abortion services).

Just as it is in America, whether abortions are legal is a wholly different issue than whether anyone has a RIGHT to a publicly funded abortion. People often fail to recognize that no medical service can ever be a right if people can't be forced to become doctors and doctors cannot be forced to perform abortions. (Slavery, after all, is clearly illegal.) Right now, the Canadian media are doing their level best to confuse the public about these two issues.

 

[mandrill]

would that free up the man from future child support since the woman can solely make that decision? asking for a friend. I'm not pro or anti abortion either...you gotta be extra "special" to put yourself in a situation where you have to decide that when there are options you can do to avoid getting in that situation....

The guy would clearly still be on the hook 100%.

 

[mandrill]

You raise a good point. Even if abortion under defined circumstances is not criminal in Canada, that does not mean that: a) citizens have a legal "right" to force hospitals or clinics to offer abortion services, or b) that any doctor who has not agreed to perform abortions, in his contract of employment or as part of a hospital privileges agreement, MUST perform abortions, or c) that any Province MUST publicly fund abortion services (or fund ALL abortion services, or fully fund ALL of the cost of abortion services).

Just as it is in America, whether abortions are legal is a wholly different issue than whether anyone has a RIGHT to a publicly funded abortion. People often fail to recognize that no medical service can ever be a right if people can't be forced to become doctors and doctors cannot be forced to perform abortions. (Slavery, after all, is clearly illegal.) Right now, the Canadian media are doing their level best to confuse the public about these two issues.

The Charter limits government powers. It doesn't force individuals to perform certain services on demand.

There's a fairly good argument that failure to FUND abortion services would be unconstitutional, if the health or life of the mother or foetus is in danger.