Talk:Abortion in Canada

message: Former Prime Minister and Liberal leader Paul Martin has indicated he would protect a woman's right to choose, but to what degree he would go in forcing his party to do so is not clear.
Paul Martin is no longer the Liberal Leader. --72.140.175.249 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Martin

message: As far as I can tell, everything in the crisis pregnancy section after "However, in recent years, a trend has emerged in the United States..." is referring to the situation in the U.S. specifically. This article is about Abortion in Canada, shouldn't it just stick to the actual current situation in Canada? Kilrogg 07:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked in the phone book and none of the CPCs in my area advertise free ultrasounds — just "free pregnancy tests," "counselling," etc. I can't say whether or not CPCs in Canada don't offer free ultrasounds or whether they simply don't advertise this service. I agree, though, that coverage of the CPCs in this article should remain Canada-specific, although it's fine to reference the U.S. situation, as long as U.S.-specific information is clearly indicated as such. -Severa  (!!!) 03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crisis pregnancy centres

message: Shouldn't Campbell's attempt be mentioned in the article? It wasn't that far off getting through Parliament (a tie in the Senate, I believe). At the moment it reads as though nothing has happened since the Morgentaler case(s). I'm not Canadian, so apologies if I'm missing something obvious, but it seemed like quite a significant thing when I read about it elsewhere, then came here and was surprised to see nothing. 86.136.251.18 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Campbell 

message: Since there are no criminal laws, there should be more discussion of the ethical guidance given to doctors by their accrediting orders and other bodies. It seems that ethical decisions made by doctors take the place of what is done by law in most other countries. 169.229.140.69 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical considerations for doctors 

message: There seems to be a lot of overlap between the history and legality sections. I'm going to take a stab at merging/reorganizing them tonight to see if I can come up with something that's clearer. I created this heading in advance, in case there are any suggestions before I begin, and as a place for you all to tear apart my edits later ;) justinfr (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History & Legality 

message: The article should maybe give information on how Humanae Vitae was received in Canada. As I recall, it was almost unanimously rejected, with even the Bishop's Conference publishing the semi-dissident Winnipeg Statement as a response to the grave amount of protest which acccompanied the encyclical. ADM (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction and Reception of Humanae Vitae

message: The article should maybe mention the role of the Globe and Mail in the campagin for the decriminalization of abortion. There is an interesting essay here by Father Alphonse de Valk on the debate that led to the 1968 Trudeau law, much of which was orchestrated by the Toronto newspaper.  ADM (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of the Globe and Mail

message: This section begins:
:Polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose the idea of making abortion completely illegal. However, polls also indicate that a majority of Canadians favour some legal restrictions on abortion.
I question whether this is a reasonable summary for the section and suggest it be removed.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed it.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  opinion polls 

message: I have found myself repeatedly adding the same material to several different pages in the abortion project, usually under the history subsections of these pages. At the suggestion of RexxS, I have decided to start a new wikipage, History of Abortion Law (tentative title).  This would allow a reduction of the currently unwieldy size of some of the already existing pages, as we can then reduce the history subsections to a smaller summarization, with a link to the new page. The rough draft is residing here: User:Ermadog/Abortion history .
As this is only a rough draft, I do not want any direct editing of this page at this time. Instead, please add contributions to the discussion page. Please look over the following material. most of which will be incorporated into the new page, before suggesting additional material:
*Abortion debate#Political debate - some "rights talk" is relevant to the "history of abortion law debate"
*Beginning of human personhood#Historical perspective also Overview and Fetal Personhood in Law
*Born alive rule#History 
*History of abortion#Legal:History of abortion law  also, some points in the social history section.
*Abortion Law#History
Any discussion of the direction of this project should be made on my talk page, under the category "Your addition to Abortion"
Anyone finding better quality  references or citations is welcome to post them to the discussion page. I'll find a way to incorporate them, even if I have to relegate them to a Notes section. In particular, I am looking for material on abortion law and relevant philosophy from the ancient East, as well as from the Persian Vedas. Corrections to my brief discussion of Hinduism and Buddhism are welcome. Particularly, where exactly in the Vedas can the doctrine of reincarnation be found? I have heard it is of fairly late vintage.
Anyone finding history subsections in any other abortion page not listed here, please post links to my discussion page. Ermadog 
I expect to have a good first draft available in a few days. Until then, I keep a current copy of the current page on my hard drive. Any editing at all at this stage will be treated as vandalism. I will delete the whole page and replace it with my copy. Once I publish it to Wikipedia, of course, the standard rules of editing apply.Ermadog (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new page 

message: Abortion has been decriminalized - removed from the Criminal Code - but is still subject to the same regualtions as any other medical procedure re: licencing, malpractice, etc. I think the term "not regulated" introduces POV in the form of a Poisoning the well logical fallacy; because, it implies a complete laxity of standards of care that are currently held in other fields of health care.
More importantly, it ignores the fact that a legal void exists. If you look at my contributions to Abortion debate#Canadian Judicial Involvement, you will see a mention of the 1989 attempt to re-criminalize abortion in Canada. You'll notice that failed by a single vote, and probably only because the Senate happened to be mad at the reigning government at the time. Unlike the US, R v Morgentaler simply removed abortion from the criminal code. It did not affirm abortion as a fundamental right, as did Roe Wade. 
Also, I included mention of Dobson v Dobson; because, it establishes a precedent: courts cannot impose a duty of care on a woman for her fetus. This means women cannot currently be sued for "fetal abuse", as is happening in the States. Not without parliamentary legislation, anyway.
If these additions could be included here, they could be deleted from there, allowing us to shorten that article a little.Ermadog (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep seeing a lot of reference to abortion being legal, removed from the Criminal Code, "struck down", etc. The fact remains that the abortion laws of 1969 are represented in Section 287 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I know this is semantics, isn't that the final arbiter of what is legal and not legal? How can we say something is legal if it exists in the Criminal Code? (Even if subsequent court rulings have deemed the sections unconstitutional and unenforceable). Bulbous (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/criminal-code-outdated-justice-discrimination-1.3853810  and http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/index.html "Some Canadian Criminal Code provisions are no longer in force because the Supreme Court of Canada and appellate courts found that they violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These laws stay in the Criminal Code until they are amended or repealed by Parliament." One of the causes of the current cleaning up the Criminal Code is that in a recent high-profile murder case a second degree murder finding was reduced to manslaugher because the judge refered to a no longer valid section of the Criminal Code. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/vader-manslaughter-conviction-1.3829472 Meters (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decriminalized v unregulated.  

message: A link to Tremblay v. Daigle should be added in the 'See also' section. 70.31.17.242 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add legal references 

message: According to http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-223-x/2008000/5202129-eng.htm, the rate is about 14.6 per 1000, not 30 per 100. --153.106.60.198 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate statistic in summary 

message: This sentence in the intro paragraph contradicts the other two: "Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces." Sadsaque (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar / logic 

message: Back when it was illegal, what was the punishment for women and/or whoever performed the abortion? --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punishment when illegal 

message: Would it be possible to have access to this page to make an edit to it? Or could someone else put "citation needed" on this statement: "Without legal delays, most abortions are done at a very early stage."
Thanks.
Paul Schratz20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a ref, but I think the sentence is badly flawed. See below. Meters (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Request

message: On "Access by province" it claims the Canada Health Act has been interpreted to require funding for abortion clinics. Which government? Which Parliament? What year? Has this position changed or remained constant for how long? citation needed.
136.159.47.96 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 16:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014 

message: I was looking for a requested lede citation for "Without legal delays, most abortions are done at a very early stage." I found 2012 Canadian Institute for Health Information  statistics that show hospital abortions by gestational age (does not include clinic or Quebec results): 70.4% in first trimester, 29% by 8 weeks, 17.4% unknown. So, the statement is correct if "very early" means first trimester; however, "very early" is undefined. I don't know what is considered "early" abortion. let alone "very early", but first trimester does not strike me as very early. There's also an implicit assumption about the effect of the lack of legal delays. I'd be happier to see the entire sentence removed. Anyone want to argue for keeping it? Meters (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quebec data is in the report, but not in that table. It appears that Quebec does not report the age of the mother or the length of the pregnancy. The sentence could always be rewritten to exclude the cause/effect assumption and the undefined "very early", but there's no point. The intent was clearly as a followup to the lack of criminal laws. We need a reliable source that comments on the effect, not the statistics. Meters (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation request in lede 

message: First sentence of article seems wrong: "Abortion in Canada is not limited by criminal law but by the Canada Health Act."  The Canada Health Act says that provinces could lose federal transfers if they don't provide abortion services, but that is not a limit on abortion.  It might be better to say something along the lines of "Abortion in Canada is not limited by criminal law but by provincial health legislation/regulations and medical association guidelines." TheTigerTrainer (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree we should fix it....will do so after a few more comments make sure we all read the new sources the same way. -- Moxy (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada Health Act reference seems wrong 

message: This doesn't go anywhere to a statement of the number. Plus the statistic isn't tracked anymore by StatsCAN. It really shouldn't be stated unless it is strongly supported. 99.236.238.220 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The StatsCAN reference(currently 6) 

message: I've added a "citation needed" tag after the statement that the federal government has held that the Canada Health Act requires provincial funding of abortion clinics. Where is the federal statement that it has to be in clinics?  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada Health Act requires provincial funding of clinics? 

message: There's been a few edits recently to add "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" to the section on the Pro-life movement.  I've deleted them because they don't strike me as neutral terms, and therefore infringe NPOV.  That's not to say those terms can't be added;  rather, to do so, there needs to be a citation to a good source, showing that those terms are in fact used generally (and not just by opponents of the pro-life movement).  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just link the term our community has decided to use for the name of the page.... and let that link and page explain the other terms used thar goes into detail that is simply not needed here.--Moxy 🍁 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional terms to describe pro-life movement 

message: "Anti-abortion" is fine, so I'm putting that back. I think WP preference is for "abortion-rights" over "pro-choice"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: There is no abortion law in Canada, but its subdivisions and professional bodies have regulations restricting the procedure to various grounds or gestational limits.Abortion Coverage by Region, National Abortion Federation Canada.
Region	Weeks
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
:I don't think the heading above the table is supported by the citation.  NAF seems to be an association of medical providers.  Their webpage doesn't state the source of the time limits in the second column of the table.  That's not to say that those time limits don't exist;  just that the citation doesn't support that they come from provincial law, or medical regulators. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, the map entry for NWT on the NAF site says that the NWT plan will cover abortions after 20 weeks, but the woman has to travel outside of NWT, so I don't think the entry on the table for NWT is accurate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I put this in my sandbox....O well. I agree with every point made..... I grabbed it because this is the chart thats currently  in the abortion laws article. Going to fix it up at some point in the future.Moxy- 01:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, has there been any progress in updating this chart? 24.212.142.79 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: \ Can you point out any changes needed? Current source here Moxy- 02:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart

message: Is there a way to define this stat on a per capita basis or ratio?  Eg number of abortions per 100,000 women?  Without that context, the bare stat isn’t of much value for comparative purposes, for readers from other countries than Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  approximately 85,000 abortions 

message: Hello,
I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia articles, but I found a clear error in this article. This final sentence in the second paragraph: 
The ruling found that the criminalization of abortion and legal restrictions violated a woman's right to “life, liberty and security of the person” guaranteed under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms established in 1982.[8]
First of all, the citation [8] has nothing to do with abortion rights. The citation has to do with euthanasia / assisted dying laws. The previous pages, 246/247, do discuss the legal status of unborn children, but in the context of the current inconsistent judicial framework. The author on page 246 contrasts one supreme court ruling from 1997 that established that "The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights" - which he contrasts on the following page with the existing prohibitions on banning gender selection in implantation of human embryos, while also having no legal prohibition on sex-selective abortions. The whole point of this section is that Canada's jurisprudence in these matters is inconsistent. 
Speaking more specifically about the 1988 case that sentence references: this is not an accurate history of that ruling and is directly contradicted by material further down the page:
"Second Morgentaler challenge: 1988" states that "The majority of the court in Morgentaler did not find it necessary to consider whether there was a substantive right to abortion under Section 7. Justice Wilson was of the opinion that such a right existed, but the other judges in the majority made their decision on procedural grounds, relating to the insufficiencies in the committee process." 
The opinion of one justice in a Supreme Court case does not create a legal precedent establishing a substantive right to abortion under the Charter.
The incorrectly-cited sentence in the article summary gives one the impression of just the opposite, that Section 7 does create a substantive right to abortion, but that has never been specifically established by the courts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.120.131 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for raising this issue.  I reviewed the passages of the citation and agree that it did not support the proposition stated in the sentence.  I deleted that citation and substituted a reference to the 1988 Morgentaler decision.  However, I do not agree that the sentence in the lead is inaccurate.  All 5 judges in the majority agreed that s. 251 of the Criminal Code infringed women's rights under s. 7 of the Charter.  In the three sets of reasons given, they differed in their analysis for how s. 7 was infringed, but they all agreed that the first constitutional question should be answered "Yes":  s. 251 infringed s. 7 of the Charter.  They also agreed that question 2 should be answered "No":  the infringement could not be justified under s. 1.  The subsequent discussion in the article explains the difference in approach, but it is clear that s. 251 infringed s. 7 of the Charter. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citation 

message: I'm not sure if this would be a better way to open the article, but I can't change it anyway since the article is locked for some reason.
Abortion is fully decriminalized in Canada, having been completely removed from their criminal codes. Therefore it is legal at any point during pregnancy, regardless of the reason, and it is available on request during the first 25 weeks, or throughout the first two trimesters. It is a publicly funded medical procedure under the federal Canada Health Act, and is paid for by the provincial and territorial healthcare systems. First legalized in 1969 under certain conditions, abortion has not been subject to criminal restrictions since 1988, when the Supreme Court found the previous laws to be unconstitutional. Following a failed attempt to create new laws shortly thereafter, no serious attempt has been made to enact any new abortion legislation since. While there is no legislation specifically concerning abortion, it is nonetheless subject to any laws regarding healthcare in general, and can only be legally performed by a licensed medical professional. Although abortion is legal throughout pregnancy, it is regulated by provincial healthcare guidelines set out by the governing medical bodies, and physicians are expected to maintain a standard of ethics. Every province has a gestational age limit, and no province offers abortion on request at or beyond 25 weeks, which is the approximate point of fetal viability. Any abortion after this point may only be performed if a physician determines it to be medically necessary. While these restrictions exist, they are not set into law, making Canada one of only a few nations with no criminal restrictions on abortion. Over 90% of abortions take place during the 13 weeks, or the first trimester, while virtually all abortions beyond that point are due to medical complications. Despite the lack of legal restrictions, Canada has a fairly low abortion rate compared to other countries, having declined steadily since decriminalization. One of the largest remaining issues is access to services, as many rural communities have no providers nearby.
174.88.6.249 (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very repetitive and is covered in other parts of  the lead already. Moxy- 11:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: « but I can't change it anyway since the article is locked for some reason » The article is under « confirmed extended protection » due to patterns of vandalism. You need to have been editing for at least 30 days, and have at least 500 edits, to be able to edit it. See WP:BLUELOCK for more information. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: The article states that British Columbia has a gestational limit of 24 weeks (saying “No providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days”), but then right next to that has another source from a specific clinic in British Columbia saying that they offer abortion up to 25 weeks. (And that statement on the main source seems to also be contradicted by the source on Quebec which is described as saying that abortions “beyond 30 weeks” used to have to “be performed in the US with all expenses paid by the Quebec government” but apparently have been available in Quebec since 2020.) 2600:100A:B1E2:2B0A:2414:8730:E191:B801 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy on British Columbia’s gestational limit 

message: "the abortion train" which was a movement of pro-choice activists who went from Toronto to Ottawa in 1971 to push for legalisation. 70.49.18.153 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree....Abortion Caravan. If. no one jumps on this I'll take a look in a couple days. Moxy🍁 22:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  you should have a mention of