The proposal was surprising, like coming out of nowhere. She gave the impression that Martine Biron had found her in a box of Cracker Jack. Really, it was necessary to “sacralize” the right to abortion in Quebec? “Screw it into the wall” to prevent it from slipping through our fingers?
Remember, it was April 24. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women felt that the right of Quebec women to have an abortion should be reaffirmed. She even planned to enshrine it in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
For the record, April 24 was five days after the government’s embarrassing reversal of the third link. Minister Biron swore that her announcement was not an attempt at diversion… it looked like it.
Because, no, there was no danger in the house. The vast majority of Quebecers agree on this: women have the right to control their bodies. The debate is closed. For 35 years.
The minister therefore gave the impression of attacking windmills. She did more in marketing than in concrete action. Mind you, it didn’t cost him much: no one is against apple pie.
Two months later, Martine Biron realizes that this story may unfortunately cost her more than expected.
For some time now, the minister has been sounding out his support. And the least we can say is that she does not find many. Rather, she managed the feat of alienating the Barreau du Québec, the League of Rights and Freedoms and just about every feminist group in the province…
“A law on abortion? Thank you, but no thank you, Madam Minister”, wrote in The duty1 representatives of some twenty organizations for the defense of women’s rights.
An abortion law, they warn, would be terribly counterproductive.
No one doubts Martine Biron’s good intentions.
But legislating abortion in Canada is the equivalent of feeding wild animals in the forest: a false good idea. We think we are helping them, but we risk upsetting the fragile balance of nature.
In the same way, framing the right to abortion in the hope of strengthening it risks rather weakening it, explains Louise Langevin, professor at the Faculty of Law of Laval University.
Opening this debate, she fears, is opening not Cracker Jack’s box, but Pandora’s. “We don’t know what it’s going to be like. I’m afraid we’ll end up with less. »
Because here is the problem: to legislate to regulate a right, it is also to allow to draw up the limits of them.
The debate is likely to get out of hand in a parliamentary committee. Anti-choice groups will take the opportunity to mobilize and attack the constitutional validity of the law, adds Ms.e Langevin. “It’s going to end up in the Supreme Court. She warns: let’s not wake the sleeping bear…
A year ago today, the United States Supreme Court caused a political earthquake by questioning the federal right of American women to have an abortion.
The shock wave has not finished being felt. Today, 25 million American women of childbearing age live in states that prohibit or restrict abortion.
What is happening there is chilling. Women are flocking to have abortions in states that still allow it. Others cannot afford it. A climate of fear was established. Women and doctors risk prison.
Martine Biron wants at all costs to avoid such a scenario here. It is possible, in theory. Don’t they say that when the United States sneezes, Canada catches a cold? The culture wars that rage there all too often end up breaking out here.
But we are not in the United States. The Supreme Court in Canada may not be perfect, but it is much less politicized than in our neighbors to the south, underlines Mr.e Langevin.
Above all, contrary to what the minister seems to believe, there is no “legislative void” to fill in the area of abortion. Since the Morgentaler ruling in 1988, women’s reproductive autonomy has been enshrined in three other Supreme Court decisions, recalls the professor. “This right is well protected in Canada. »
On Wednesday, Martine Biron hinted that she could renounce an abortion law. She has postponed scheduled meetings with feminist groups who oppose the idea until the fall.
Little by little, the project deflates. So much the better.
When she returns from vacation, the Minister will be able to focus her efforts on what really concerns feminist groups: accessibility. More must be done, so that no Quebecer has to wait for weeks – or ride for hours – before being able to terminate her pregnancy. We need more action, and less marketing.