Talk:Abortion in Canada/Archive 2

message: To whoever reformated the other section that i had put in (and others worked on) it looks great the way you bulleted it. I hadn't thought of doing it that way.Thanks makes it look much more professional....did i forget to mention the main suspect had been charged with killing the doctor killed in the US and it was taken out for reason or did i miss that fact...curious as ever...--Marcie 12:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformating Other Section looks great

message: Well to whoever it was that asked the question, if you put a read through the talk page you will get an idea of the fact that it can be changed but it is very unlikely that it will.
When the law on abortion was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada they made it clear that it could be possible to write a law on abortion (and i think they made clear some things that couldn't be included). Then Justice Minister (later Prime Minister) Kim Campbell put forward a new law on abortion (which was really bad even as they go, she tried to get it the most restrictive possible i think). It passed in the House of Commons but it lost in the Senate by a tie vote. Legally a government could write a law on abortion and have it passed. Politically it would be suicide (even the same government didn't go for a second try after they saw what opinion was on the first new try).
I would say that a women's right to choose freely came somewhat later in Canada but that it is more complete and secure than in the US. There are currently discussion going on about what type of testing is ethical in making a choice for an abortion and should be allowed or made illegal (there was a Royal Commission on the topic of New Reproductive technologies, information ethics and that...i can find you the link if you want...i read it for university and it was interesting). Its clear gender is not considered OK, although its one that can be hard to enforce. Those would be the only sorts of laws that i think would be able to pass in Canada.
Finally the ruling was on a different basis than in the US and was based more on women's rights than on privacy (although it included privacy, but it was the right or women to have medical privacy....but it was only part). Even a total shakeup of the Supreme Court wouldn't allow a large change, such as may happen in the US...although from a case in the late 90's with planned parenthood in the US i understand the right of the women to choose was strengthened over the Roe decisions.
I know i'm likely wasting my time here folks...i thought i'd put something in, in case the person cared and would come back...maybe they are new and don't know about the talk page...the change didn't look much like the usual vandilism we have (for example it was a question of could this change which isn't rude or extreemly opiononated in my view)
--Marcie 18:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality of abortion, Can it be changed

message: Re: your first paragraph, I guess I lost my original point, because that does make sense.
As for access, I agree that the courts found it unjust, but not because the access was limited, only because the law prevented access. This is going to be a sticky point with me because health care in general is not nationally accessible. This stems from a personal experience. However, what really bothers me is that such a big fuss is made about abortion not being accessible. Prior to the decision, was abortion access limited because of the economic feasibility of having a clinic in that area, lack of demand, etc or strictly because the law prevented it? Since we will never know, I think we should be careful in how we portray it. To the courts, it didn't matter at all if the feasibility/etc was the case, only that the law imposed a barrier. If there is still problems with access to abortion clinics today, then that paints a sorry picture for the national health care system in general, considering that an abortion is a relatively straightforward procedure. If there's no access to abortion clinics, then access to any kind of "complex" (for lack of a better word) health care is probably as equally limited. I should point out that I'm not disputing this as a fact. What troubles me is that someone who isn't aware of the state of our health care system gets the impression that *only* access to abortions is limited, like there is some kind of resistance to the idea in Canada or that people who want abortions are still being persecuted. That's really not the case. Make a point that this lack of access isn't exclusively reserved to abortions, or something like that and I'll be happy. 
I just think it's important to keep in mind that the Morgentaler decision intentionally skirted many issues because it wasn't necessary to address them in order to repeal the law and that we shouldn't infer anything about those issues as being settled or decided by the court, even if it was mentionned. By the way, a lot of what you quoted above should be used in the article. --jag123 07:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Access problems

message: I just wanted to say Jag that the erasure of the new text you had put in was an accident (i came across the fact that Tony had put it back in and what was there). Although we may not agree on all things its not my style to try and erase a whole bunch of new stuff because i'm trying to restore OLDER stuff unless it obviously vandalism (ie someo of the stranger stuff you see). Its the first time i did a revert and i'm sorry it occured--Marcie 15:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidental erasure of Jag123 new text