Law Archives - Page 34 of 39 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

GS Banwell

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
In the part of the home counties in which I practise as a consultant gynaecologist abortion in early pregnancy is in fact available on request, contrary to the intentions of Parliament. . .Since it can (be shown statistically that in terms of the risk of death termination in early pregnancy for a healthy woman is a lesser risk than that of bearing a child, the legal case for abortion on request was established. . . Doctors who decline to abort a woman in early pregnancy and who do not plead conscientious objection are liable to criminal prosecution under the current Act . . .The Abortion (Amendment) Bill merely seeks to reword the code using phrases such as, “grave” or “serious” risk. Rather than constitute a threat to professional freedom, it would release doctors from the duplicity inherent in the present badly worded Act.

Banwell G. (Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1975;3(5975):99.

(Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Points from letters

CCS Slorach

Extract
Did you choose deliberately to disregard the fact that in every case of proposed abortion two patients are involved, the mother and the child? The whole tenor of your article, backed up with suitable quotations from the Lane Report, seems to favour abortion on demand.

Slorach C. (Points from Letters) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1975 Jun 14;2(5971):620.

(Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion

Wendell W Watters

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
I regret that my previous letter (Can Med Assoc J 111: 900, 1974) did not make clear the distinction between people whose individual value system would not allow them to participate in abortion themselves and people who would prevent anyone from participating in abortion. I sincerely hope we never have laws that prevent the former from following the dictates of their own conscience . . . he is entitled to call embryos anything he wishes. But those of us who call tadpoles “tadpoles” and not immature frogs, acorns “acorns” and not oak trees, prefer to call fetuses “fetuses”. . . With regard to Dr. Baunemann’s letter, the persistent attempt on the part of the self-styled pro-life people to force an association between the Nazis and the advocates of abortion Jaw repeal is wearing a bit thin. . . .History shows that antiabortion laws (phenomenologically, compulsory pregnancy laws) were always introduced to stimulate population growth; and such policies of demographic aggression usually preceded acts of other kinds of aggression. Hitler was a fervent crusader for compulsory pregnancy.

Watters WW. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Mar 08;112(5):558.

Abortion: an open letter (CMA President)

Bette Stephenson

Extract
The CMA is not in favour of “abortion on demand”; indeed we are very concerned with the very large and growing number of abortions being performed. . .Our primary aim is to improve family planning programs and, in every way possible, reduce unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion. . . We believe there is a great need to clarify government policy regarding the abortion laws and for much more meaningful leadership from the federal and provincial governments and the medical profession of Canada to evolve an effective, comprehensive national family planning program. . . .Contrary to a frequent misinterpretation that the CMA is pro-abortion, the association, in fact, is much more strongly pro-prevention of the problem of unwanted pregnancy. If the news media had publicized that important portion of my presentation to the Empire Club regarding the need for effective educational and family planning programs as widely as it did that part related to the problems of abortion, you would have gained a much more accurate view of the policies of the association.

Keywords:

Stephenson B. Abortion: an open letter (CMA President). Can Med Assoc J. 1975;112(4):492. Available from:

(Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion

PG Coffey

Extract
The country that liberalizes abortion creates an atmosphere that encourages abortion. . . Is abortion really no different than any other operation? The people who see no difference are the same people who see all the difference in the world between feticide and infanticide. . . .Dr. Watters refers derisively to the “pro-life” group as the “Canadian Crusaders for Compulsory Pregnancy. . . Is it so difficult to understand that in certain circumstances principles come before expedients? . . . Killing has always been one of the most tempting ways for man to achieve his immediate ends. The numerous complications that may result from abortion, especially the long-term ones, provide good medical reasons for encouraging a pregnancy to continue.

Coffey PG. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Feb 08;112(3):283.

Hill-Burton Hospitals After Roe and Doe: Can Federally Funded Hospitals Refuse to Perform Abortions?

Eugene L Berl

Extract
Conclusion
Public hospitals, by reason of the mandate of Roe and Doe, cannot categorically refuse to perform abortions. Similarly, under the state action doctrine, hospitals receiving federal funds pursuant to the Hill-Burton Act cannot refuse to perform abortions, notwithstanding the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973. The inter-relationsip of state and the hospital in the Hill-Burton program, with all the rights, duties and obligations incidental thereto, and the fact that the state and the hospital are joint participants in a state project undertaken for the benefit of the public, support the finding of state action. The Roe prohibition against state interference in a woman’s abortion decision, to be more than a mere cipher, must extend beyond state abortion statutes to the unwarranted refusal to perform abortions by hospitals with which the state is intimately involved.

Berl EL. Hill-Burton Hospitals After Roe and Doe: Can Federally Funded Hospitals Refuse to Perform Abortions? New York U Rev Law & Social Change. 1974;4(1):83-97.

(Correspondence) CMA policy on abortion

CMAJ

Extract
While the CMA has recommended the removal of the requirement for hospital therapeutic abortion committees from the Criminal Code, it has supported the retention of the balance of sections 251 and 252. The purpose of this stand is to retain the more serious implications of a violation of the Criminal Code as compared with a violation of provincial medical acts regarding the performance of abortions by non-qualified persons or by qualified physicians outside approved hospitals. This policy also reflects the association’s opinion that some provincial medical acts, and the means of enforcing them, are less than adequate.

CMAJ. (Correspondence) CMA policy on abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1974 Nov 02;111(9):905.

(News) CFPC discusses changing world of the family physician

David Woods

Extract
Dr. Doran said that there are now 12 centres in Canada where genetic amniocentesis is performed, including his own group in Toronto which has done 195 in less than three years. The overall goal of the technique, he said, is to reduce genetic disease by therapeutic abortion (technically illegal under the present Criminal Code) and eventually by prevention.

Woods D. CFPC discusses changing world of the family physician. Can Med Assoc J. 1974 Oct 05;111(7):717-719.

Constitutional Law: Private Hospital May Refuse to Perform Abortion

Betty Berger

Extract
Conclusion
It is evident that the abortion question in relation to private hospitals is being fought on two grounds. One ground is state action. The other is freedom of religion and moral conviction. Decisions are beginning to indicate that public hospitals may have to perform abortions if they have the facilities. On the other hand, decisions such as Bellin, indicate that courts may not find sufficient state action when a private hospital is involved even if that hospital has received public funds. Even if they do, Bellin indicates that the right of conscience may protect the private hospital which is also sectarian and opposed to abortion on religious and moral grounds.’ Furthermore, the United States Congress has established a policy that receipt of funds from Hill-Burton or any other programs covered by the Health Services Extension Act of 1973 should not force a hospital to provide personnel and facilities for abortions. In addition, the first amendment protects the rights of individuals and groups to refuse to do what their religion prohibits. Abortions are generally a convenience and not a matter of life and death if not performed in the private hospital. In the balance of convenience versus first amendment freedoms, courts are unlikely to let convenience prevail. Private hospitals have sold neither their rights nor their private status..

Berger B. Constitutional Law: Private Hospital May Refuse to Perform Abortion. Saint Louis U Law J. 1974;18(3): 440-460.

(Correspondence) Inquiry into British law on abortion

PE Shea

Extract
Alan Massam’s article “Abortion Act gains outweigh drawbacks – British inquiry” (Can Med Assoc J 110: 1301, 1974) is a disturbing example of slanted journalism, aimed at further poisoning the minds of the bulk of doctors who sit on the fence in the abortion issue. . . .Mr. Massam, and apparently the inquiry, attempt to subtly convince us that abortion is a socially, morally, legally acceptable fact of life and we need only concern ourselves with its details. . . . Surely all our human rights are secondary to the right to life. This is the basic principle that the inquiry and Mr. Massam choose to ignore.

Shea P. (Correspondence) Inquiry into British law on abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1974 Sep 7;111(5):388.