Morgentaler vs New Brunswick

On April 2, the Coalition for Life and Health, a coalition of 15 pro-life groups, was denied intervenor status in the Morgentaler vs New Brunswick case. Henry Morgentaler is suing New Brunswick for failing to pay for abortions at his private clinic, and the Coalition had applied to intervene.

On April 2, Justice Russell ruled that “The intervenor’s focus is on the morality of abortion...On the other hand, this action is about the spending of taxpayers’ money.” He also ruled that the Coalition had no more direct interest than any other taxpayer and that the Coalition had no special expertise to bring to the court. He said, “should the standard of care become a substantive issue...the Province is in a position to bring evidence to bear on this topic.”

In a summary statement, Ruth Ross, executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, said “The Coalition believes that it represents those taxpayers and citizens from New Brunswick and across Canada that have an interest in the use of public funds and therefore, a direct interest in the subject matter.” She said that many people would be adversely affected if Morgentaler is successful: firstly, the taxpayers who would be paying for unrestricted abortion on demand, contrary to their consciences; secondly, those who are “themselves the issue of unwanted pregnancies would be deeply injured by a public policy that says, in effect, they should not have been born”; and finally, those thousands of New Brunswick children whose deaths would be publicly financed and who will have no voice without the Coalition.

She went on to say that the Plaintiff does not represent the interests of all women of the province, nor all those faced with an unwanted pregnancy. “Rather, the Plaintiff as the alleged owner of a private abortion facility stands to profit from the extension of public funding to those facilities.”

By intervening, the Coalition would be able to provide expert witness on the impact of abortion on women’s health and be able to represent many post-abortive women and pregnant women faced with emotional, economic, sociological or other difficulties related to pregnancy, the Coalition stated in its Factum. “The claim of the Plaintiff to a right to abortion and the public funding of abortion on demand cannot be considered in a vacuum. It must be considered in a factual context that includes consideration of the health and rights of women and the status or rights of the pre-born child.”

Ms. Ross says that grounds for appeal include numerous errors made by the Judge. For example, he misunderstood the evidence before him; he misapplied the law related to interventions; and he mistakenly determined that the Province was able to represent fully the public interest.

The Coalition filed an appeal on May 3. The appeal process is likely to take several months. The lawsuit is on hold pending this appeal. —BM