The Contradictory Relationship Between Law and Abortion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 1-25-2008 Better Never Than Late, But Why?: The Contradictory Relationship Between Law and Abortion Shelley A. M. Gavigan Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Source Publication: Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today: 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler: Symposium. National Abortion Federation, 2008. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Part of the Medical Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Gavigan, Shelley A. M. "Better Never Than Late, But Why?: The Contradictory Relationship Between Law and Abortion." in Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today: 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler: Symposium. National Abortion Federation, 2008. p. 29-34. Print. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today SYMPOSIUM Toronto, Ontario January 25, 2008 Co-hosted by the National Abortion Federation and the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 20th Anniversary of R v. Morgentaler Symposium Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today On January 25, 2008, in Toronto, Ontario, to representatives from government the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto and women’s advocacy organizations. (U of T) and the National Abortion Examining abortion from a variety of Federation (NAF) co-hosted an perspectives, participants addressed the interdisciplinary symposium to celebrate significance of the event and the difference the 20-year anniversary of Regina v. the R. v. Morgentaler judgment has since Morgentaler, the Supreme Court case in made to women, providers and the politics which the criminal law on abortion in of abortion in Canada. Canada was held unconstitutional. This reader, prepared in collaboration with The symposium brought together more the Women’s Health Research Institute, is than 100 participants, from legal scholars, a compilation of the day’s presentations at abortion providers and journalists this commemorative legal conference. This document is the property of the National Abortion Federation. Permission to reproduce this document is granted for use without fee and without formal request provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as NAF copyright and the title of the document specified. Copies may not be made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage. An electronic version of this document can be downloaded from the NAF Canada website at: (http://www.prochoice.org/canada). Better Never Than Late, But Why? The Contradictory Relationship Between Law and Abortion Shelley A. M. Gavigan, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University I am honoured to have been invited to be this generation of law students about this a panelist in such distinguished company decision and its importance? One has at this important event. I am particularly to hope that they are not relying on the attracted to the invitation in the title of mainstream media for their introduction— the Symposium to reflect upon the 1988 or misinformation—about the Morgentaler decision of the Supreme Court of Canada case? Clearly this Symposium is an in R. v. Morgentaler.26 In reflecting upon important event, intended as it is to re- the case, its significance and legacy, I want insert abortion and reproductive rights on to talk about the importance of history, our collective agendae. the contradictory nature of law and the I was speaking last week about today’s enduring importance of ideology. Symposium to a friend who graduated I take this liberty of insisting upon the from Law School in 1989. She said her time importance of historical experience and at law school was marked by preoccupation perspective and I do so because I am of the with the issue of abortion law and that view that it is due entirely to my historical, for her and women law students of her as opposed to current, engagement with the generation, the 1988 Morgentaler decision critically important issues of abortion and was a defining moment of victory. I law that I have been honoured with this remember it so well, and so personally. invitation. On the early evening of January 28, 1988, almost two weeks after our daughter’s first Reflections on the Importance birthday celebration, we had bundled her of History into her stroller and joined hundreds of kindred spirits in a spontaneous rally in I was reminded recently of the importance front of the then still standing Morgentaler of history and how quickly something clinic on Harbord Street in Toronto to “becomes” history by my own lapse in celebrate the decision of the Supreme Court precision: I asked my research assistant historic decision. Women, abortion and to pull the Supreme Court’s Morgentaler law had become the issue around which decision for me, which she dutifully did: I politicized when I embraced feminism the Supreme Court’s R v Morgentaler in my twenties, to the great chagrin of 1993 decision.27 Of course, this was my my Irish Roman Catholic father and my fault—I had not been clear enough. But French Roman Catholic mother who was a it then occurred to me that my smart maternity ward nurse. For the next twenty feminist research assistant may not have years my political and academic work known there had been other, indeed, a focused on abortion. As a law student in few other, Morgentaler decisions.28 To my a seminar on Advanced Administrative feminist colleagues in the academy I ask, Law, I tried to research the processes are we confident that we are teaching and practices of therapeutic abortion committees in Saskatchewan hospitals. This 26 [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; [1988] SCJ No. 1. 27 R v. Morgentaler [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463 proved to be difficult research, as it was 28 e.g. Morgentaler v The Queen (1975) 30 C.R.N.S nigh unto impossible to find any working 209. 29 committees. Like many Canadian feminists The historical record of coercive and of my class and generation, I marched in restrictive abortion law in the Anglo- countless International Women’s Day and Canadian context is filled with relatively pro-choice demonstrations. Who can forget few criminal prosecutions and far more how cold our feet got in those frosty March expression of women’s resistance. One 8 marches on Women’s Day before the need think no further in our recent history arrival of global warming? We marched and than of an ordinary young woman, Chantal carried signs that demanded the state get Daigle, thrust unwillingly into the national its laws off our bodies, repeal abortion law news in 1989 when her former boyfriend and drop the charges, again and again and attempted to prevent her from terminating again. her pregnancy—neither the first nor last I studied the legal history and context of the man to attempt to do so, neither the first 31 criminalization of English abortion law, the nor last man to fail in the Canadian courts. genesis of the statutory prohibition in 1803, During that summer, under the watchful the demise of the relevance of quickening eyes of an entire nation, Daigle resisted and the ousting of the jury of matrons, and her former boyfriend, the Canadian anti- the extension of the criminal law’s scope choice movement, the courts, among over the entire period of pregnancy.29 I others. Daigle reminded us that “women’s studied the issue of the criminal liability individual and collective struggles for of the non-pregnant woman attempting choice and self-determination may have the self-induce a miscarriage of a non- been constrained, but have never been existing pregnancy which took me into the wholly confined nor determined by the snakes and ladders of the law of impossible legal and judicial processes.”32 attempts. But, there was not much ‘action’ in the criminal cases—one encountered The Contradictory Nature of Law abortion in criminal legal history principally in homicide, where a woman It was also in this work into the social had died, and her lover, friend, doctor, and legal history of abortion that I began midwife was prosecuted for willful murder. to develop an understanding of the contradictory nature of law, including When I turned to social history and criminal law, and what I later characterized women’s history, I found a different story. as the “fragile, incomplete and Indeed, it was in the course of this research contradictory” nature of legal victories,33 that I learned my most profound political including the decision we are invited to and intellectual lessons: to appreciate the reflect upon today. As but one illustration, importance of women’s agency and self- determination, and the ways in which in bringing on the menses’: The Criminal Liability the abortion context they had defied the of Women and the Therapeutic Exception in law and medical men: I found the voices Canadian Abortion Law” (1986) 1 C.J.W.L. 279. 31 Daigle v. Tremblay [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; for of women who said to doctors, “Nonsense, earlier unsuccessful ‘father’s rights’ injunction doctor, there is no life yet…” and “Doctor, I applications in Canada, see Whalley v. Whalley et al do not believe it is a crime.”30 (1981), 122 D.L.R. (3d) 717 (B.C.Co.Ct); Medhurst v. Medhurst et al (1984), 9 D.L.R.