Canada – Anti-abortion group’s Charter rights not infringed by city decision on bridge lights, judge says

Alberta March for Life Association filed judicial review after request to light High Level Bridge was denied

Nicholas Frew · CBC News
Posted: Oct 11, 2021

An Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge has sided with the City of Edmonton, ruling that its decision to deny an anti-abortion organization's application to light the High Level Bridge did not infringe on its freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In a decision dated Oct. 7, Justice K.S. Feth dismissed an application for judicial review from the Alberta March for Life Association (AMLA) and its vice-president Jerry Pasternak, stating they were unable to prove the city infringed on their Charter rights and that the city was biased.


Decriminalisation of abortion in Nepal: Tabooed yet crucial debate

Mar 02, 2021

Abortion should prima facie be decriminalised with certain exceptions (sex selective abortion, harm to mother's body with intent to hurt foetus and others) as a crime. Decriminalisation does not mean deregulation, and the issue of abortion must be treated as a medical procedure, where the well-being of the women is placed at the centre.

Nepal adopted reproductive health rights as a fundamental right for the first time in its interim constitution 2007 (2063 B.S) under article 20(2) 'Rights of Women'. This was carried forward by the new, existing constitution, 'Constitution of Nepal 2015 (2072 B.S)' under Article 38(2). Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the (2067 B.S) case of Laxmi Dhikta vs Nepal Government clearly defined abortion as an integral aspect of reproductive health rights and women's human right and went on to say that "it is contradictory and incompatible that the issue of abortion which has emerged as a new right is still placed under the strict criminal procedure in the Penal Code (2020) under the Chapter on Homicide", and ordered to regulate the issue of abortion by promulgating separate specific legislation.


Finally, New Brunswick is being sued for unlawful restrictions on abortion access

by Martha Paynter  
Jan 18, 2021

On January 7, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association filed a lawsuit against the Higgs government in New Brunswick, challenging the constitutionality of the province’s restrictions to publicly-insured abortion services. Section 2.a.1 of Regulation 84-20 of the N.B. Medical Services Payment Act, enacted in 1984, states that abortion is “deemed not to be entitled services” for provincial payment unless it is provided in an approved hospital facility. Other services similarly banned from public payment include cosmetic surgery and breast augmentation. The regulation effectively excludes abortion care provided by Clinic 554, the former Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton, from public coverage. The federal government has reprimanded New Brunswick for being the only province in the country that refuses to fund clinic-based abortion, a move that violates the Canada Health Act.

As a registered nurse working in abortion care and research, I recognize there are many potential advantages to going to a clinic for abortion care, such as a welcoming environment; more specialized staff; and reduced travel time, since many clinics also provide related services like ultrasounds and bloodwork collection. But in New Brunswick there are two additional, critical benefits.