brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (11/10/84)
As all those in Canada who follow the abortion debate know, Dr. Henry Morgentaler was found not guilty Thursday of charges of conspiracy to procure a miscarriage (the name of the anti-abortion law). He was tried by jury. This is the 4th time the governent has attempted to prosecute this man and the 4th time he has been acquitted. For Americans not familiar with Canada (ie. most) abortion is officially illegal here. To get an abortion it must be approved by a board of three doctors who certify the abortion is necessary to the health of the mother. It must be done at a hospital. In practice, however, this approval is usually quite easy to get and many abortions are done. Dr. Morgentaler fought this law by opening abortion clinics with other doctors in several provinces. Each time he has been brought to trial by the government, and each time he has been found not guilty. He was found not guilty by a jury - and that's no surprise because there's no way that even a randomly chosen jury would ever agree unanimously that a crime has been done BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. And our system says that to convict somebody of a crime, a jury must be unanimous and certain. You would need a stacked right-to-life jury to get any other verdict. All of which shows that you can't make abortion legal and still have our legal system. Congratulations, Dr. Morgentaler! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/10/84)
>For Americans not familiar with Canada (ie. most) abortion is >officially illegal here. To get an abortion it must be approved by >a board of three doctors who certify the abortion is necessary to the >health of the mother. It must be done at a hospital. In practice, My understanding is that TACs (Therapeutic abortion commitees) must have at least 3 doctors on them. Qualified hospitals are not required to establish TACs under the law, thus providing unequal access to abortions. The existence of TACs within each hospital is determined by the board members of the hospital, who are usually influential people in the community. The most effective pro-life tactic to date has been to make sure that they have a majority on hospital boards, thus making abortions unavailable in some hospitals. >however, this approval is usually quite easy to get and many abortions >are done. Dr. Morgentaler fought this law by opening abortion clinics >with other doctors in several provinces. Each time he has been brought >to trial by the government, and each time he has been found not guilty. > Correction: He first opened a clinic in Quebec in the early 70s and was tried for that 3 times, and won each time. So now abortions are very easily available in Quebec. But this is not so in other provinces. In the maritimes, abortions are very hard to get e.g. in newfoundland/labrador five hospitals are listed as having TACs, but only one actually performs abortions. In PEI there is also only one TAC and it is in the endangered species list: for 3 years in a row right-to-life groups had attempted to remove it and were very narrowly defeated (10 votes out of 933). This TAC hasn;t performed abortions since 1982 anyway. Although on a different scale, the situation is similar in some western provinces. In Ontario abortions are usually easily accessible, but there are long delays (which endanger the mother's health, and makes having an abortion more difficult emotionally as the fetus gets older; also the older the fetus the "wronger" it is to abort, I think). I also heard at some point during the trial that in Ontario, saline abortions are performed when other less dangerous abortions could be performed. I didn't get enough details, so I don't know whether this was refering to first-trimester abortions or not. I would hope not! A very high percentage of clients in the abortion clinics in Quebec are from out of province, and this is one of the reasons Dr Morgentaler decided to open up two more clinics in the rest of Canada, a few months ago. He opened one in Toronto, and one in Winnipeg. The idea was to challenge the canadian abortion law in the rest of Canada as in Quebec. So he knew fully well that he would be arrested and he was. The non-guilty verdict returned was for the charge in Ontario, so he still has to stand trial in Winnipeg, and will not necessarily win either. It is not clear yet whether the ontario verdict will be appealed or not. In the meantime, this means that free-standing abortion clinics might now be opened in Ontario and will be free of legal hassles. >He was found not guilty by a jury - and that's no surprise because there's >no way that even a randomly chosen jury would ever agree unanimously that >a crime has been done BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. And our system says >that to convict somebody of a crime, a jury must be unanimous and certain. >You would need a stacked right-to-life jury to get any other verdict. > Well, actually, it is very clear that he was guilty. He intentionally broke the law, and there is no doubt about that. But there is apparently a "necessity" provision in the canadian legal code which specifies that when it was a case of real "necessity" it is sometimes ok to break the law (I suppose homicidal self-defense is covered by this). As far as I know this provision is the one that was used to aquit Dr Morgentaler. If anybody has more details on this, please post them, it would be interesting to hear them. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley