This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Gun Control and Abortion

#11RedcountPosted 5/5/2013 5:34:25 PM
I don't want to steer the conversation away from Heller and the Wilkinson article, but I should add that, apparently, in 1972, abortion was regarded as basically a "Catholic" issue

Which is basically a stereotype, and leads many to the false assumption that anyone who opposes abortion is some kind of head-in-the-clouds believer in the supernatural.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#12JIC X(Topic Creator)Posted 5/5/2013 5:46:47 PM(edited)
Which is basically a stereotype, and leads many to the false assumption that anyone who opposes abortion is some kind of head-in-the-clouds believer in the supernatural.

It's a statistically demonstrable reality.
I think the main reason abortion's become the issue it is today (note: I get the impression the fervour's died down since the Bush years) is that the Court forced it on the nation, and with precious little real Constitutional justification for doing so.

The very fact, though, that Roe was a 7-2 decision from a court with five Republican nominees on it,* four of whom voted with the majority, kinda proves my point. Most of those guys later remarked that they hadn't considered the case all that controversial when it came up.

*Burger, CJ, Nixon
Brennan, Eisenhower
Powell, Nixon
Blackmun, Nixon
Rehnquist, Nixon
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#13RedcountPosted 5/5/2013 5:50:55 PM
It's an issue in my country, too, although different grounds were used (right to liberty, and right to security of person) in R. v Morgenthaler
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#14JIC X(Topic Creator)Posted 5/5/2013 6:04:34 PM(edited)
Redcount posted...
It's an issue in my country, too, although different grounds were used (right to liberty, and right to security of person) in R. v Morgenthaler


I'm as Canadian as you are, man.

Strictly speaking, you've misunderstood what the second Morgentaler case actually did. Although Justice McIntyre saw things differently, the plurality decision does not stand for the proposition that section 7 of the Charter protects a right to abortion services, per se.

All the plurality decided is that the old "therapeutic abortion committee" regime was, as a matter of administrative law, unfair in a manner that implicated the Charter-protected interests of liberty and security of the person.

They struck it down as unconstitutional on that relatively narrow ground, and Parliament has never replaced it. That's not to say that Parliament couldn't replace it with a Charter-compliant alternative; it's just that the political will's never really existed. If Harper, even with a majority government, won't touch it with a ten foot pole, you know the issue's dead in the water.

(*Edit to emphasize that there was no true majority opinion in Morgentaler. As I recall, it was a 2-3-2 decision.)
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#15RedcountPosted 5/5/2013 6:06:28 PM
I understand the ruling. No, it doesn't explicitly state that abortion is something protected, but I don't see how in hell you could craft a law that wouldn't be struck down.

Also, Harper is not the eternal leader of the Conservative Party. Just because Harper wants to dodge issues doesn't necessarily mean that Conservative voters want the party to do so, nor does it mean Conservative MPs will not speak their voice.

Really, for us Canadian conservatives, Harper is just "the guy who can win", not "the guy we want".
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#16JIC X(Topic Creator)Posted 5/5/2013 6:18:13 PM
I understand the ruling. No, it doesn't explicitly state that abortion is something protected, but I don't see how in hell you could craft a law that wouldn't be struck down.

Well, that's debatable.
The Supreme Court (even though it's not nearly as politicized as its American counterpart) is clearly much more conservative now than it was in the 80s.
That was clear even before Harper's last three appointments.

I can imagine a range of abortion regulations that would survive Charter scrutiny. Like, certainly any late-term restriction would, so long as it had some sort of "life or health of the mother" exception.

There's also this old chestnut:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Note: the second Morgentaler case was a section 7 decision.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#17RedcountPosted 5/5/2013 6:43:28 PM
Yes, yes, we all know about the notwithstanding clause. And how it's taboo at the federal level.

The whole "health of the mother" exception would probably take into account "mental health", which could again end up being anything that infringed on her 'aspirations".

Oh, I have little hope for change. It doesn't mean I'll stop advocating for what's right, though.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#18JIC X(Topic Creator)Posted 5/5/2013 6:53:12 PM
Yes, yes, we all know about the notwithstanding clause. And how it's taboo at the federal level.

It's taboo at the provincial level, too, but it's there.
The Court didn't irrevocably tie Parliament's hands on this issue. Section 33 says that Parliament could totally ban abortion tomorrow if it wanted to, the Charter notwithstanding.

The whole "health of the mother" exception would probably take into account "mental health", which could again end up being anything that infringed on her 'aspirations".

Well, it's useless to ponder this in the abstract, or to guess how the courts might deal with currently nonexistent legislation. Parliament would have to act in some way before this even could become an issue.

Oh, I have little hope for change. It doesn't mean I'll stop advocating for what's right, though.

That's every man's right.
...Even though you happen to be wrong.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#19SubDeityPosted 5/5/2013 9:45:06 PM
Mainline and evangelical protestants didn't become staunchly opposed to it until after Roe.

This is not true. Mainline Protestants were significantly anti-abortion (after all, they're the ones who got it abolished) but were trending towards allowing it (as part of the general post-WW2 decay of Protestantism). The evangelicals were more tolerant of it and trended the opposite direction.

Also, the party that appointed the justices is a pretty weak argument in general. Like most social issues at the time abortion had not yet become fiercely partisan (and it wouldn't for several years after Roe; Hyde was fighting his own party as much as the Democrats to get his amendment passed).
---
"Hamas isn't really a terror organization." -Terran [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.
#20JIC X(Topic Creator)Posted 5/6/2013 10:38:32 AM(edited)
Also, the party that appointed the justices is a pretty weak argument in general. Like most social issues at the time abortion had not yet become fiercely partisan (and it wouldn't for several years after Roe; Hyde was fighting his own party as much as the Democrats to get his amendment passed).

This basically affirms my point.
I've said that Roe essentially ignited the culture war.* I don't expect that the abortion issue would be nearly so controversial today had the Supreme Court not wrenched the issue out of the ordinary political process by constitutionalizing it.

*I'm probably not exactly right on this.
Maybe it was a conflict whose time was already at hand. Eagleton dropped his famous "acid, abortion, and amnesty" line about a year before Roe was decided, after all.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus