8 Responses to “Canada’s religious right wants Supreme Court judge removed”

1. 1 KK  on Aug 16th, 2008 at 6:29 am

   http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=415216

   ===Pro-choice’s guinea pigs===

   Barbara Kay, National Post Published: Wednesday, April 02, 2008

   The birth of my fourth granddaughter two weeks ago — healthy, a good weight — was the occasion for joy and relief in equal measure.

   My daughter’s pregnancy had first been fraught with ominous signs of imminent miscarriage. Then the worry was a probable extremely pre-term birth (at 24 weeks’ gestation, her high-risk specialist ominously murmured, “Let’s try to get you to 28 weeks … “). Even on bed rest she was offered only 5% odds of going 37 weeks (she made it to 39!).

   This was our family’s first experience with an abnormal pregnancy. In the course of the unwanted adventure I acquired an education in the risks associated with prematurity, today a feature of one in eight births.

   The most harrowing risk of an extremely pre-term birth (XPB) — under 28 weeks gestation — is cerebral palsy. The risk is about 38 times higher in XPB than in the overall newborn population.

   Sometimes XPB is just bad luck. Sometimes it isn’t. According to obstetrician Barbara Luke’s classic Every Pregnant Woman’s Guide to Preventing Premature Birth, “If you have had one or more induced abortions, your risk of prematurity with this pregnancy increases about 30%.” After two, a woman’s chance of an XPB doubles. A woman who has had four or more abortions runs nine times the risk of XPB, an increase of 800%.

   Studies of black American women throw the problem into bold relief. Black American women, although only 12% of the American population, undergo 35.2% of all abortions. In 1987 it was reported in The New England Journal of Medicine that black American women with two previous abortions had a 91% higher relative risk of a subsequent pre-term birth.

   As far back as 1967, Dr. Malcolm Potts — himself a robust defender of abortion — writing in The Eugenics Review, noted: “There seems little doubt that there is a true relationship between the high incidence of therapeutic abortion and prematurity. The interruption of pregnancy in the young (under 17) is more dangerous than in other cases.”
   (Of the approximately 120,000 abortions performed annually in Canada, the repeat rate is more than 29%, and amongst teenagers repeats are four times as high as for older women.)

   This concession by Potts, who actually believed in eugenics, well before the organized and militant ideological polarization on abortion we’re so familiar with, gives the lie to pro-choicers insisting such claims are “scare tactics” fabricated by pro-life activists.

   But you won’t find a future-pregnancy prematurity risk on pro-choice Web site fact sheets. The National Abortion Federation’s states: “Comprehensive reviews of the data have concluded that a vacuum aspirational procedure in the first trimester poses virtually no risk to future reproductive health.”

   Since “suction” is the standard abortion method, I wondered if abortion clinics give actual potential clients a more nuanced picture. So I asked a friend in her 30s to do some sleuthing in person.

   “Johanne” visited two abortion clinics in Montreal.

   The Morgentaler clinic does not offer consultations prior to abortions. One signs the consent form and proceeds directly to the abortion. A consultation was only reluctantly arranged at Johanne’s insistence.

   Johanne asked a number of questions, including: “Is there a risk associated with a second abortion?” Answer: “No, and the proof is that [the woman] is fertile … One, two, three abortions, there are no risks.”

   At the Clinique Medicale de l’Alternative, Johanne was received with less suspicion. As at the Morgentaler, there is no consultation prior to the abortion. (I stress this because where prior counselling is offered, as in Sweden, fewer women choose to abort).

   Johanne asked a doctor there the same questions, and again, was there a risk to future pregnancies associated with a second abortion? “No, a woman can have one, two, three, four, five abortions with no problem… ”

   In response to Nazi atrocities in human experimentation, the Nuremberg Code was adopted in 1964. The code insists on animal studies before exposing human beings to any procedure. All surgical procedures in Canada have been tested on animals. Except one. There are no published animal studies on vacuum aspiration abortion.

   So the fact that women are guinea pigs is something else you won’t see on the pro-abortion fact sheets or on consent forms. What other abortion risks are women not being warned about? Too many to mention in one column, that’s for sure.
   bkay@videotron.ca

2. 2 cricket  on Aug 17th, 2008 at 5:37 am

   There is very little point weighing in on a discussion with anti-abortion groups.

   This grandmother’s daughter had a good outcome. That is good news.

   Should a baby have been born early and subjected to the extreme intervention of the NICU then who would have been there to tell the family about the true outcome?

   There is little joy in raising a special needs child. Much of the damage is not evident until later - severe retardation (pardon the politically-incorrect term but ‘develpmental delay’ is too white-washed). There is grief when a baby dies. There is grief when a pre-term infant lives that can be life-long. It’s horrible when your child is frequently ill and subjected to medical intervention. There is no way to describe the sorrow when you watch their struggle to do the simple things their peers do. As they get older you do too and you realize that their quality of life depends on you and what money you have to care for them. There are not a lot of wealthy families with special needs children. It shakes one to the very core of their being knowing that when you die they have to depend on the kindness of strangers for their care.

   We all know that such ‘kindness’ is fraught with the same kinds of abuse and neglect one finds in nursing homes.

   Just as sad is the abuse suffered by children whose parent(s) cannot or do not have the parenting skills to raise them or give them a loving, healthy environment.

   So when I read an article like the one posted above, God forgive me, but I get very angry. I have had friends who suffered emotional damage from their abortions. But God is good and kind and forgiving and they were able to repent, let go and move on.

   People who ‘lock into’ a cause like pro-life, pro-choice, a church, a political party and see nothing outside that cause have their reasons. I have my reasons for avoiding contact or conversation with them. The world is not black and white. While they truly believe they are doing God’s work then so be it.

   Had the outcome been different in the above situation then that family would have needed to rally and support each other for the years ahead. In time it would become harder and harder, the outside world less welcoming and tolerant and inviting, the financial and emotional struggles exhausting.

   39 weeks with medical intervention can give a positive outcome. It can also give the illusion of a perfect child. For their sake and the sake of this little girl I sincerely wish them all the best.

3. 3 Bene Diction  on Aug 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am

   There is litte point, I agree somewhat, it’s an emotionally driven political debate.

   The APA study on the psychological impact of abortion.

   http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.html

4. 4 KK  on Aug 18th, 2008 at 6:22 am

   Critic unimpressed by top judge’s explanation on Morgentaler

   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080818.ORDER18/TPStory/National

   Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin says she did not vote on nomination of abortion activist to Order of Canada
   KIRK MAKIN

   JUSTICE REPORTER

   August 18, 2008

   QUEBEC CITY — A move by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin to stifle a controversy about her role in the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler has done nothing to clear her of misconduct allegations, one of her chief critics said yesterday.

   “If Canadians cannot count on non-political, non-ideological justice from the Supreme Court of Canada, it compromises the whole justice system,” Charles McVety, president of the Canadian Family Action Coalition and president of the Canada Christian College in Toronto, said in an interview yesterday.

   Chief Justice McLachlin told reporters at the Canadian Bar Association annual convention on the weekend that critics mistakenly believe that she voted in favour of Dr. Morgentaler receiving the award. She said that she purposely did not cast a vote at an Order of Canada committee meeting where his name was proposed.

   “There has been a lot of misinformation on this issue,” Chief Justice McLachlin said.

   “Some idea was put out by I don’t know who - a rumour or some source - that the chair leads the discussion. That is just not the case. My view is I’m there to ensure that the meeting runs well and fairly, and that the vote is taken fairly - not to weigh in in favour or against a particular candidate.”
   She noted that, because of her position as chief justice, she is required by law to chair the Order of Canada advisory committee. “It’s not something I chose to do.”

   However, Dr. McVety, whose organization launched a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council about the Chief Justice’s conduct in the Morgentaler matter, said her explanation implicates her even more deeply in misconduct. “We were quite astonished to read reports of what she had said,” Dr. McVety said.

   “We never accused her of voting. We accused her of disregarding the constitution that she is bound to serve. By expressing her approval of the process, she is expressing approval of Morgentaler’s activism on abortion.”

   Dr. McVety said that as the chair of a committee that is instrumental in conferring honours on individuals, some of whom may represent controversial causes that could come before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice’s independence is automatically compromised.

   Dr. Morgentaler, an outspoken critic of a system that restricted abortions only to women who obtained the permission of hospital abortion committees, was charged, tried and acquitted three times for breaking the law. The abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1989 as being unconstitutional.

   The Morgentaler controversy erupted last month after the government released a list of those who will receive the Order of Canada this year. Supporters were ecstatic that the physician’s lifelong fight for abortion rights would be recognized with the country’s highest civilian honour. However, critics denounced the decision, focusing much of their anger at the Chief Justice’s role on the nomination committee.

   Chief Justice McLachlin told reporters that since becoming part of the committee, her policy has always been to refrain from voting on nominees. “I feel reasonably comfortable about the process, doing it the way I have outlined that I do it, and not getting involved in voting for a particular candidate or advocating for a particular candidate,” she said.

   Within moments of her comments, Manitoba Chief Justice Richard Scott, who is chair of the Canadian Judicial Council’s disciplinary committee, said that her defence would likely derail at least a portion of the misconduct complaint.

   “In light of the role that she has assigned to herself, I’d be surprised if many people would have a problem with the way that she carries out that particular role,” Chief Justice Scott added.

   In years to come, he said, the federal government may need to reconsider whether judges should be required to chair various commissions, such as those that decide provincial electoral boundaries.

   “These are historical things that judges have done over the years because of our reputation for independence and impartiality,” he said.

   “At some point in time, I think that we have to look at those kind of roles, as our society changes and people become more aware of the distinct role that the three branches of government had.”

5. 5 Chet Scoville  on Aug 18th, 2008 at 7:29 am

   McVety’s complaint makes no sense of any kind. She is required by law to chair the committee. The has not assigned herself any kind of role. She is not disregarding any constitutional decree. She’s doing what the law says she must.

6. 6 Mé  on Aug 20th, 2008 at 5:30 am

   I will guess that McVety’s ancestors, like most of ours, would have drowned or killed an infant if it were discovered to have some kind of disability. Back then, it would probably been called a sacrifice rather than murder. The people doing it would have been devoutly religious.

7. 7 David MacKenzie  on Aug 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 am

   Surely, the central point of all this is that the committee, which is empowered to find recipients which Canadians can be generally pleased with, failed in its selection of Dr. Henry Morgentaler.

   They knew that it would be morally and nationally divisive, and yet they were undeterred. Frankly, they deserve the negative publicity. And they deserve the accountability, as well.

   Now, if the committee doesn’t care about divisiveness, and simply is looking for Canadians who’ve impacted their world regardless, then I don’t want to hear any complaints when Benny Hinn is nominated…

1. 1 Chief Justice McLachlin and The Canada Family Action Coalition at Bene Diction Blogs On Pingback on Aug 20th, 2008 at 2:58 am

Leave a Reply