Public Policy, Rights, and Abortion Access in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada's 1988 decision to invalidate federal criminal law restrictions on abortion is often portrayed as paving the way for unregulated “abortion on demand” in Canada. This depiction belies the patchwork of regulatory barriers to access in place at the provincial level and obscures a host of litigation for improved funding and access across the country. This article explores the policy and legal landscape surrounding abortion access since 1988. Our findings suggest that provincial policies and lower court judgments have shown considerably different interpretations of what the Court's landmark ruling requires. In part, this is a result of a problematic distinction that the Court's reasoning makes between “negative rights,” which are protections against state interference, and “positive rights,” which would require the state to take action or provide funding to ensure access. We examine the implications of this distinction from both a rights and policy perspective, ultimately arguing that courts are not the only, or best, body through which to realize positive rights. Instead, we argue that legislatures need to take seriously their obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".