Mendicino counters gun control criticism with new strategy of making stuff up
, it was not setting out to completely strip all mention of abortion from Canadian law … even if that was the eventual result. The court mostly just struck down a Criminal Code ban on elective abortions, and then passed the issue to Parliament to design a less-severe national law on abortion.
The reasoning was that the ban was a violation of Canada’s just-passed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its guarantees on “security of the person.” “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus an infringement of security of the person,” it read.
However, after the Senate rejected a Mulroney government attempt at a new law, no government has tried again to introduce one. As a result, Canada is one of the few countries on earth with no abortion law of any kind. While no hospital ethics board would ever greenlight the induced abortion of a healthy fetus at nine months, there’s nothing illegal about it.case gave left-wingers a chance to complain that the Supreme Court was legislating from the bench.
“The evidence … shows that many patients on non‑urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times,” it read., and would have dramatically shaped the provision of medical care in the rest of the country except that the court was ultimately split on whether being stuck on a waiting list was also a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Critics of judicial activism often point to this case due to the allegation that justices employed a particularly creative interpretation of the Constitution to arrive at their decision. And just like the euthanasia decision, this decision also reversed a pretty recent Supreme Court ruling deciding that collecting bargaining