Polarization On Abortion In Canada

Historical context of Canadian society’s polarization on abortion originates in the latter half of the nineteenth century. In 1892, Canada criminalized abortion and all forms of contraception due to moral and religious objectives of protecting the unborn child as well as the health and safety of the mother. The Criminal Code made the advertisement and publication of information on both abortion and contraceptives as well as the actual use of contraceptives criminal acts. The act of performing or receiving an abortion was also recognized as an indictable offence, punishable by up to life imprisonment. In defiance of these legal obstacles, many women continued to seek abortions, despite legal prohibitions and significant health risks associated

The objective of this protest was to remove the legal restrictions placed on abortion by the Criminal Law Amendment Act that prevented some women from safely terminating their pregnancies. Members of the Caravan travelled from Vancouver to Ottawa, congregating hundreds of women to rally for two days upon Parliament Hill. Although the Caravan did not directly succeed in amending the abortion legislation, it served as an important element of second-wave feminism and as a model for future “pro-choice” movements across the

Henry Morgentaler was a significant actor in the movement towards abortion liberalization. In 1967, Morgentaler testified before the House of Commons of a woman’s unrestricted right to safe, legal abortions. Although he did not directly succeed in amending legislation, he continued to challenge the law through numerous legal cases in subsequent years. Morgentaler finally acquired the legal tools necessary to succeed in 1982 through the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1988, Morgentaler appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Canada. This case, known as R v. Morgentaler, was a major turning point towards the liberalization of abortion legislation. Morgentaler argued that section 251 of the Criminal Code created unequal cross-country access to safe, legal abortions and was a violation of the “life, liberty and security of the person” outlined in section 7 of the Charter. The court’s decision was split 5-2 with the majority assenting to Morgentaler’s claims. Justices Brian Dickson and Antonio Lamer’s reasoning concluded that, “[f]orcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus 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 a violation of security of the person.” As such, the ruling of this case struck down the existing abortion law as unconstitutional and redefined abortion as a healthcare issue. This placed the onus of