Talk:Abortion in Canada

Untitled

Old Pages:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Paul Martin

Former Prime Minister and Liberal leader Paul Martin has indicated he would protect a woman's right to choose, but to what degree he would go in forcing his party to do so is not clear.

Paul Martin is no longer the Liberal Leader. --72.140.175.249 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy centres

As far as I can tell, everything in the crisis pregnancy section after "However, in recent years, a trend has emerged in the United States..." is referring to the situation in the U.S. specifically. This article is about Abortion in Canada, shouldn't it just stick to the actual current situation in Canada? Kilrogg 07:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked in the phone book and none of the CPCs in my area advertise free ultrasounds — just "free pregnancy tests," "counselling," etc. I can't say whether or not CPCs in Canada don't offer free ultrasounds or whether they simply don't advertise this service. I agree, though, that coverage of the CPCs in this article should remain Canada-specific, although it's fine to reference the U.S. situation, as long as U.S.-specific information is clearly indicated as such. -Severa (!!!) 03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim Campbell

Shouldn't Campbell's attempt be mentioned in the article? It wasn't that far off getting through Parliament (a tie in the Senate, I believe). At the moment it reads as though nothing has happened since the Morgentaler case(s). I'm not Canadian, so apologies if I'm missing something obvious, but it seemed like quite a significant thing when I read about it elsewhere, then came here and was surprised to see nothing. 86.136.251.18 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethical considerations for doctors

Since there are no criminal laws, there should be more discussion of the ethical guidance given to doctors by their accrediting orders and other bodies. It seems that ethical decisions made by doctors take the place of what is done by law in most other countries. 169.229.140.69 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not balanced or fair.

There needs to be more from the Pro-life side of the debate, to show both sides of the arguments. The Pro-life section is so small, and barely explains their position. This article should not be politically biased, and should give both sides of the ongoing debate around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.94.170 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd point out that the pro-life section is about the same size as the pro-choice section. Could you elaborate, please, about what specifically is not balanced or fair? justinfr (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There should not be a representation of the ongoing debate around the world as this is an encyclopedic look at abortion in Canada. The first part reflects how it was outlawed early on, and then allowed later in Canadian history. This is not a matter of bias, but a matter of fact of what happened.Joriq (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Massive bias in this sentence "In 1992, Morgentaler's Toronto clinic was firebombed and sustained severe damage. The event occurred at night, so no one was injured, although a nearby bookstore was damaged. Appointments were switched to another clinic in Toronto and no abortions were prevented." 134.153.11.25 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Obvious question: how is this biased? Spotfixer (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for 134.153.11.25. This being said, I removed the paragraph as the wording of that paragraph, and especially the section in which it appeared, implied that the firebombing was committed by abortion opponents. Problem : no one was ever arrested in that case. Therefore any claim regarding why that firebombing was committed is necessarily speculation.

This source confirms that "the perpetrator was never caught".

This Alberta Report article suggests other reasons that could explain why that firebombing was committed.

— ABCXYZ (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that sort of partisan conspiracy-mongering is not any sort of reliable source, so I will be restoring the censored text immediately. Spotfixer (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the whole section on abortion violence is unnecessary. Do you have an article about violence towards pro-lifers? Obviously not.216.185.250.92 (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the modern newspeak, allegedly conservative-orchestrated arson which kills no-one is "firebombing" but flying airplanes into a building and killing thousands is "a disaster." 70.88.233.70 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One other point: the conservative party is "far right," but the liberal party is "center-right"? Conservatives and liberals are both right of "center"? Who is in the center?

This article states that the Liberal Party does not have an official position on abortion. That's outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.18.194 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

History & Legality

There seems to be a lot of overlap between the history and legality sections. I'm going to take a stab at merging/reorganizing them tonight to see if I can come up with something that's clearer. I created this heading in advance, in case there are any suggestions before I begin, and as a place for you all to tear apart my edits later ;) justinfr (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Access throughout Canada

I've twice today reverted the addition of this text (from an IP editor):

There is no legal requirement stating that children must have parental consent to have an abortion. Therefore, children who hit puberty and become pregnant, as early as 12 years old or younger, may have an abortion without their parent's permission. This fact is utilized by abortion providers promotional material, such as the Morgentaler Clinic's website which states "...you do not need parental and partner permission to book an appointment or to have an abortion."

And replaced it with simply:

Abortions in Canada are legal for all females, and anyone over the age of 12 years of age can legally have an abortion in a clinic setting without parental consent.

My objection is that the first version sounds judgemental, non-NPOV, and asserts that clinics are promoting abortions to children. I think that the more neutral version is better. Does anyone else have thoughts? --Dawn Bard (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your amendment. The language in the other version definitely comes off as judgmental. Ronniecat (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. There is no such thing as a national law regarding the age of consent for obtaining an abortion in Canada. There are many claims out there and they often contradict each other. See for instance the following links :

http://www.bloorwestwomensclinic.com/faq.asp

http://www.morgentaler.ca/faq.html

http://www.cfsh.ca/Sexual_Health_Info/Abortion/abortion-FAQs.asp

http://www.kidshelpphone.ca/en/informed/sub_gipreg.asp?sec=3&sb=2

Unless someone can find the legal age of consent for each province with appropriate sources (i.e., legal sources) it seems to me that we should remain silent on this issue. — ABCXYZ (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The following paragraph has no references or proof:

Third-trimester abortions are not generally available[citation needed]. For instance, in Quebec, there is currently no doctor who will perform a third-term abortion unless the health of the woman is in great peril or there is a genetic disorder. Currently the province sends women who seek to have third-term abortions performed to the United States. Quebec is currently actively looking to hire a doctor to do third-term abortions, but has not been successful as of October 2004.

I live in Quebec and have heard of women having third-trimester abortions in the province. As far as I know, there was no genetic disorder and the women's health was not at risk. I would like to see a reference or citation for the above paragraph as I suspect it is not true. To my knowledge, thrid-trimester abortions are available in Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.167.20 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Reaction and Reception of Humanae Vitae

The article should maybe give information on how Humanae Vitae was received in Canada. As I recall, it was almost unanimously rejected, with even the Bishop's Conference publishing the semi-dissident Winnipeg Statement as a response to the grave amount of protest which acccompanied the encyclical. ADM (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Well, what I think it abortion is wrong and should be illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.85.170 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Globe and Mail

The article should maybe mention the role of the Globe and Mail in the campagin for the decriminalization of abortion. There is an interesting essay here by Father Alphonse de Valk on the debate that led to the 1968 Trudeau law, much of which was orchestrated by the Toronto newspaper. [1] ADM (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

opinion polls

This section begins:

Polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose the idea of making abortion completely illegal. However, polls also indicate that a majority of Canadians favour some legal restrictions on abortion.

I question whether this is a reasonable summary for the section and suggest it be removed. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed it. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In this section the terms pro-choice and pro-life are used. These are loaded terms that are not appropriate in academic setting. Unless the polls are specifically about those terms, pro-abortion and anti-abortion should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joriq (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody find the "Gallup poll" that gets referenced here without citation? I'd put in a citation needed, but the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.22.112 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for new page

I have found myself repeatedly adding the same material to several different pages in the abortion project, usually under the history subsections of these pages. At the suggestion of RexxS, I have decided to start a new wikipage, History of Abortion Law (tentative title). This would allow a reduction of the currently unwieldy size of some of the already existing pages, as we can then reduce the history subsections to a smaller summarization, with a link to the new page. The rough draft is residing here: User:Ermadog/Abortion history .

As this is only a rough draft, I do not want any direct editing of this page at this time. Instead, please add contributions to the discussion page. Please look over the following material. most of which will be incorporated into the new page, before suggesting additional material:

• Abortion debate#Political debate - some "rights talk" is relevant to the "history of abortion law debate"
• Beginning of human personhood#Historical perspective also Overview and Fetal Personhood in Law
• Born alive rule#History
• History of abortion#Legal:History of abortion law also, some points in the social history section.
• Abortion Law#History

Any discussion of the direction of this project should be made on my talk page, under the category "Your addition to Abortion"

Anyone finding better quality references or citations is welcome to post them to the discussion page. I'll find a way to incorporate them, even if I have to relegate them to a Notes section. In particular, I am looking for material on abortion law and relevant philosophy from the ancient East, as well as from the Persian Vedas. Corrections to my brief discussion of Hinduism and Buddhism are welcome. Particularly, where exactly in the Vedas can the doctrine of reincarnation be found? I have heard it is of fairly late vintage.

Anyone finding history subsections in any other abortion page not listed here, please post links to my discussion page. Ermadog

I expect to have a good first draft available in a few days. Until then, I keep a current copy of the current page on my hard drive. Any editing at all at this stage will be treated as vandalism. I will delete the whole page and replace it with my copy. Once I publish it to Wikipedia, of course, the standard rules of editing apply.Ermadog (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Decriminalized v unregulated.

Abortion has been decriminalized - removed from the Criminal Code - but is still subject to the same regualtions as any other medical procedure re: licencing, malpractice, etc. I think the term "not regulated" introduces POV in the form of a Poisoning the well logical fallacy; because, it implies a complete laxity of standards of care that are currently held in other fields of health care.

More importantly, it ignores the fact that a legal void exists. If you look at my contributions to Abortion debate#Canadian Judicial Involvement, you will see a mention of the 1989 attempt to re-criminalize abortion in Canada. You'll notice that failed by a single vote, and probably only because the Senate happened to be mad at the reigning government at the time. Unlike the US, R v Morgentaler simply removed abortion from the criminal code. It did not affirm abortion as a fundamental right, as did Roe Wade.

Also, I included mention of Dobson v Dobson; because, it establishes a precedent: courts cannot impose a duty of care on a woman for her fetus. This means women cannot currently be sued for "fetal abuse", as is happening in the States. Not without parliamentary legislation, anyway.

If these additions could be included here, they could be deleted from there, allowing us to shorten that article a little.Ermadog (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I keep seeing a lot of reference to abortion being legal, removed from the Criminal Code, "struck down", etc. The fact remains that the abortion laws of 1969 are represented in Section 287 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I know this is semantics, isn't that the final arbiter of what is legal and not legal? How can we say something is legal if it exists in the Criminal Code? (Even if subsequent court rulings have deemed the sections unconstitutional and unenforceable). Bulbous (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/criminal-code-outdated-justice-discrimination-1.3853810 and http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/index.html "Some Canadian Criminal Code provisions are no longer in force because the Supreme Court of Canada and appellate courts found that they violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These laws stay in the Criminal Code until they are amended or repealed by Parliament." One of the causes of the current cleaning up the Criminal Code is that in a recent high-profile murder case a second degree murder finding was reduced to manslaugher because the judge refered to a no longer valid section of the Criminal Code. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/vader-manslaughter-conviction-1.3829472 Meters (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Add legal references

A link to Tremblay v. Daigle should be added in the 'See also' section. 70.31.17.242 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition to 'access by province' or 'pro-choice movement'

Could the editor please include a reference to the PEI Reproductive Rights Organization which is a PEI lobby group vying for equal access to reproductive care?

References

Inaccurate statistic in summary

According to http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-223-x/2008000/5202129-eng.htm, the rate is about 14.6 per 1000, not 30 per 100. --153.106.60.198 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• You're comparing two different statistics here: the one in the intro is abortions per 100 pregnancies. The one in the StatsCan report is abortions per 1000 women (probably between 15 and 55) per year. --Monado (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

grammar / logic

This sentence in the intro paragraph contradicts the other two: "Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces." Sadsaque (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Punishment when illegal

Back when it was illegal, what was the punishment for women and/or whoever performed the abortion? --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation Request

Would it be possible to have access to this page to make an edit to it? Or could someone else put "citation needed" on this statement: "Without legal delays, most abortions are done at a very early stage." Thanks. Paul Schratz20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Schratz (talk • contribs)

Found a ref, but I think the sentence is badly flawed. See below. Meters (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

On "Access by province" it claims the Canada Health Act has been interpreted to require funding for abortion clinics. Which government? Which Parliament? What year? Has this position changed or remained constant for how long? citation needed. 136.159.47.96 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation request in lede

I was looking for a requested lede citation for "Without legal delays, most abortions are done at a very early stage." I found 2012 Canadian Institute for Health Information statistics that show hospital abortions by gestational age (does not include clinic or Quebec results): 70.4% in first trimester, 29% by 8 weeks, 17.4% unknown. So, the statement is correct if "very early" means first trimester; however, "very early" is undefined. I don't know what is considered "early" abortion. let alone "very early", but first trimester does not strike me as very early. There's also an implicit assumption about the effect of the lack of legal delays. I'd be happier to see the entire sentence removed. Anyone want to argue for keeping it? Meters (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest just removing all subjectivity and reporting: 2012 Canadian Institute for Health Information statistics show hospital abortions by gestational age (does not include clinic or Quebec results): 70.4% in first trimester, 29% by 8 weeks, 17.4% unknown. However, it now appears Quebec data has now been added, but clinic data is still missing, and I don't see any references to terms/trimesters/months. So I'd agree the sentence isn't of any use. (talk)Paul Schratz (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Quebec data is in the report, but not in that table. It appears that Quebec does not report the age of the mother or the length of the pregnancy. The sentence could always be rewritten to exclude the cause/effect assumption and the undefined "very early", but there's no point. The intent was clearly as a followup to the lack of criminal laws. We need a reliable source that comments on the effect, not the statistics. Meters (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Canada Health Act reference seems wrong

First sentence of article seems wrong: "Abortion in Canada is not limited by criminal law but by the Canada Health Act." The Canada Health Act says that provinces could lose federal transfers if they don't provide abortion services, but that is not a limit on abortion. It might be better to say something along the lines of "Abortion in Canada is not limited by criminal law but by provincial health legislation/regulations and medical association guidelines." TheTigerTrainer (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree we should fix it....will do so after a few more comments make sure we all read the new sources the same way. -- Moxy (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The StatsCAN reference(currently 6)

This doesn't go anywhere to a statement of the number. Plus the statistic isn't tracked anymore by StatsCAN. It really shouldn't be stated unless it is strongly supported. 99.236.238.220 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Canada Health Act requires provincial funding of clinics?

I've added a "citation needed" tag after the statement that the federal government has held that the Canada Health Act requires provincial funding of abortion clinics. Where is the federal statement that it has to be in clinics? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional terms to describe pro-life movement

There's been a few edits recently to add "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" to the section on the Pro-life movement. I've deleted them because they don't strike me as neutral terms, and therefore infringe NPOV. That's not to say those terms can't be added; rather, to do so, there needs to be a citation to a good source, showing that those terms are in fact used generally (and not just by opponents of the pro-life movement). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Just link the term our community has decided to use for the name of the page.... and let that link and page explain the other terms used thar goes into detail that is simply not needed here.--Moxy 🍁 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

"Anti-abortion" is fine, so I'm putting that back. I think WP preference is for "abortion-rights" over "pro-choice"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Chart

There is no abortion law in Canada, but its subdivisions and professional bodies have regulations restricting the procedure to various grounds or gestational limits.

Region	Weeks
Alberta	24 weeks
British Columbia	24 weeks and 6 days
Manitoba	19 weeks and 6 days
New Brunswick	16 weeks
Newfoundland and Labrador	15 weeks
Northwest Territories	19 weeks and 6 days
Nova Scotia	16 weeks
Nunavut	12 weeks
Ontario	24 weeks
Prince Edward Island	12 weeks and 6 days
Quebec	23 weeks
Saskatchewan	18 weeks and 6 days
Yukon	12 weeks and 6 days

References

I don't think the heading above the table is supported by the citation. NAF seems to be an association of medical providers. Their webpage doesn't state the source of the time limits in the second column of the table. That's not to say that those time limits don't exist; just that the citation doesn't support that they come from provincial law, or medical regulators. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

For example, the map entry for NWT on the NAF site says that the NWT plan will cover abortions after 20 weeks, but the woman has to travel outside of NWT, so I don't think the entry on the table for NWT is accurate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Though I put this in my sandbox....O well. I agree with every point made..... I grabbed it because this is the chart thats currently in the abortion laws article. Going to fix it up at some point in the future.Moxy- 01:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, has there been any progress in updating this chart? 24.212.142.79 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

\ Can you point out any changes needed? Current source here Moxy- 02:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

approximately 85,000 abortions

Is there a way to define this stat on a per capita basis or ratio? Eg number of abortions per 100,000 women? Without that context, the bare stat isn’t of much value for comparative purposes, for readers from other countries than Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect citation

Hello,

I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia articles, but I found a clear error in this article. This final sentence in the second paragraph:

The ruling found that the criminalization of abortion and legal restrictions violated a woman's right to “life, liberty and security of the person” guaranteed under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms established in 1982.[8]

First of all, the citation [8] has nothing to do with abortion rights. The citation has to do with euthanasia / assisted dying laws. The previous pages, 246/247, do discuss the legal status of unborn children, but in the context of the current inconsistent judicial framework. The author on page 246 contrasts one supreme court ruling from 1997 that established that "The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights" - which he contrasts on the following page with the existing prohibitions on banning gender selection in implantation of human embryos, while also having no legal prohibition on sex-selective abortions. The whole point of this section is that Canada's jurisprudence in these matters is inconsistent.

Speaking more specifically about the 1988 case that sentence references: this is not an accurate history of that ruling and is directly contradicted by material further down the page:

"Second Morgentaler challenge: 1988" states that "The majority of the court in Morgentaler did not find it necessary to consider whether there was a substantive right to abortion under Section 7. Justice Wilson was of the opinion that such a right existed, but the other judges in the majority made their decision on procedural grounds, relating to the insufficiencies in the committee process."

The opinion of one justice in a Supreme Court case does not create a legal precedent establishing a substantive right to abortion under the Charter.

The incorrectly-cited sentence in the article summary gives one the impression of just the opposite, that Section 7 does create a substantive right to abortion, but that has never been specifically established by the courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.120.131 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. I reviewed the passages of the citation and agree that it did not support the proposition stated in the sentence. I deleted that citation and substituted a reference to the 1988 Morgentaler decision. However, I do not agree that the sentence in the lead is inaccurate. All 5 judges in the majority agreed that s. 251 of the Criminal Code infringed women's rights under s. 7 of the Charter. In the three sets of reasons given, they differed in their analysis for how s. 7 was infringed, but they all agreed that the first constitutional question should be answered "Yes": s. 251 infringed s. 7 of the Charter. They also agreed that question 2 should be answered "No": the infringement could not be justified under s. 1. The subsequent discussion in the article explains the difference in approach, but it is clear that s. 251 infringed s. 7 of the Charter. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Regulations

Is there any explanation as to where those regulations and restrictions come from? The article doesn't say much other than they exist. It just vaguely explains that they're set by the "governing medical bodies in each province", but with no further information on what those organisations are. And as I'm not finding much other information elsewhere, I can't add anything. It doesn't explain who these licensing bodies are, or what their rules are, or what the penalties are for violating them. This article needs to be more clear. 75.27.37.89 (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/position-papers/61-Canadian-abortion-regulation.pdf Moxy- 13:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The laws of each territory and province create the legal framework for the regulation of the practice of medicine in that territory or province. Those laws typically delegate the power to make regulations to the provincial/territorial College of Physicians and Surgeons, while also passing general regulations. See, for example, the Ontario Medicine Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 30. Regulation of specific procedures is then covered by the licensing provisions of the College, which also can include regulation of how particular procedures are to be performed. Since the College regulations are aimed at the physicians, they're not generally published on government websites; they may be available on the Colleges' websites. Since there are 13 different regulatory systems, and they are generally quite technical, aimed at the medical profession, it would be difficult and counter-productive to try to include them all in this article. Wikipedia articles are meant to be written in summary style: Wikipedia:Summary style, not medico-legal treatises.

The important point, in my opinion, is simply to point out in this article that there are regulations which govern abortions, just like for any other medical procedure, and that those regulations have the force of law. Statements like "Canada has no abortion laws" are misleading, in my opinion, because they make it sound like abortion is entirely unregulated. There are no criminal laws prohibiting abortion in Canada, but there certainly are laws and regulations which govern abortion providers, from the perspective of providing high quality health care. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's important to make that distinction. Saying "we have no laws about abortion" with no further explanation only serves as a talking point for the people who want to claim you can walk into an abortion clinic and "kill a perfectly healthy baby the day before giving birth" because you "changed your mind at the last minute". The last thing we need is to give them textual evidence to validate their beliefs. Trust me, I live in rural Ontario, and we have a lot of those anti choice people around here.

174.88.6.249 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I'm not sure if this would be a better way to open the article, but I can't change it anyway since the article is locked for some reason.

Abortion is fully decriminalized in Canada, having been completely removed from their criminal codes. Therefore it is legal at any point during pregnancy, regardless of the reason, and it is available on request during the first 25 weeks, or throughout the first two trimesters. It is a publicly funded medical procedure under the federal Canada Health Act, and is paid for by the provincial and territorial healthcare systems. First legalized in 1969 under certain conditions, abortion has not been subject to criminal restrictions since 1988, when the Supreme Court found the previous laws to be unconstitutional. Following a failed attempt to create new laws shortly thereafter, no serious attempt has been made to enact any new abortion legislation since. While there is no legislation specifically concerning abortion, it is nonetheless subject to any laws regarding healthcare in general, and can only be legally performed by a licensed medical professional. Although abortion is legal throughout pregnancy, it is regulated by provincial healthcare guidelines set out by the governing medical bodies, and physicians are expected to maintain a standard of ethics. Every province has a gestational age limit, and no province offers abortion on request at or beyond 25 weeks, which is the approximate point of fetal viability. Any abortion after this point may only be performed if a physician determines it to be medically necessary. While these restrictions exist, they are not set into law, making Canada one of only a few nations with no criminal restrictions on abortion. Over 90% of abortions take place during the 13 weeks, or the first trimester, while virtually all abortions beyond that point are due to medical complications. Despite the lack of legal restrictions, Canada has a fairly low abortion rate compared to other countries, having declined steadily since decriminalization. One of the largest remaining issues is access to services, as many rural communities have no providers nearby. 174.88.6.249 (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This is very repetitive and is covered in other parts of the lead already. Moxy- 11:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

« but I can't change it anyway since the article is locked for some reason » The article is under « confirmed extended protection » due to patterns of vandalism. You need to have been editing for at least 30 days, and have at least 500 edits, to be able to edit it. See WP:BLUELOCK for more information. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy on British Columbia’s gestational limit

The article states that British Columbia has a gestational limit of 24 weeks (saying “No providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days”), but then right next to that has another source from a specific clinic in British Columbia saying that they offer abortion up to 25 weeks. (And that statement on the main source seems to also be contradicted by the source on Quebec which is described as saying that abortions “beyond 30 weeks” used to have to “be performed in the US with all expenses paid by the Quebec government” but apparently have been available in Quebec since 2020.) 2600:100A:B1E2:2B0A:2414:8730:E191:B801 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

you should have a mention of

"the abortion train" which was a movement of pro-choice activists who went from Toronto to Ottawa in 1971 to push for legalisation. 70.49.18.153 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree....Abortion Caravan. If. no one jumps on this I'll take a look in a couple days. Moxy🍁 22:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)