By: Charlotte Burke
Summary
While considerable attention has been paid to the practice of self-managed abortion using pills, there is a notable lack of examination into the regulated systems which control access to abortion pills within formal healthcare system. This gap in research demands a deeper understanding of the needs of individuals who self-manage their abortions using pills outside of these systems of authorization and control, and the legislative methods used to restrict them. The aim of this project is to envision radical abortion legislation in Canada that is ambivalent about state power, even as it took up law’s form – an abortion law that did not look or work like an abortion law because it affirms and supports self-managed abortion using pills. It will challenge the legislative design convention, which would seek to fold the self-managed use of abortion pills into existing regulatory schemes. Further, by drawing parallels with the social deregulation and expansion of informal systems in the realm of illicit drugs, this project will re-evaluate Canada’s current landscape of abortion pill regulation and propose legislation that empowers users’ autonomy in their own reproductive decisions.
Positionality statement
As the author of this paper, it is important to acknowledge my positionality and the lens through which I approach this topic. I was born and raised in the unceded and traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq, and identify as white and gender-queer, all of which shapes my perspectives and experiences. While I have not directly experienced abortion myself, I recognize that reproductive justice is inherently intersectional and influenced by systems of power and privilege. By acknowledging my positionality, I commit to approaching this paper with sensitivity, empathy, and a dedication to amplifying the narratives and needs of those who are often marginalized within the reproductive justice movement and systems of abortion care in Canada.
Introduction
A. Self-Managed Abortion Using Abortion Pills
Self-managed abortion (“SMA”) refers to self-procured and self-administered abortion outside the clinical sphere.1 Since the late 1980s, individuals have sought pills as an effective means of autonomously managing abortion. This began when pregnant Brazilians, faced with restricted access to abortion, discovered that misoprostol, originally developed for treating gastric ulcers, could induce abortion.2,3 The emergence and promotion of the pill’s informal usage by feminist activists has dramatically shaped the SMA landscape, and has been identified as a cause of decline in severe abortion-related morbidity and mortality.4,5
The informed usage of pills in SMA is well-recognized and supported by research as a simple, safe, and highly effective method of abortion.6 Where it is the pills themselves that cause an abortion, SMA has spurred a reconception of what it means to “perform” or “provide” an abortion.7 In effect, SMA subverts traditional power dynamics of care which position formal healthcare systems as gatekeepers of reproductive health.8 This reconceptualization is illustrated in Canada, where abortion pills have been patented as experience – emptying the uterus – as opposed to service oriented.9 Despite the well-evidenced extent to which individuals can safely self-manage use of abortion pills, there is a lack of research and attention paid to the legal regulation of abortion pills.
While the overwhelming evidence substantiating the safety of abortion pills no longer warrants specialist medical care, it is crucial to acknowledge that choosing SMA should never result in individuals feeling unwelcomed or denied access to the formal healthcare system. Regardless of the method individuals choose for their abortion, pathways to and services within medical systems should be readily available to offer clinical backup services to those concerned about an incomplete abortion, the success of their abortion, or who may have a complication. Building positive and collaborative relationships between individuals who choose SMA, and healthcare providers is crucial to ensuring the wellbeing and safety of those seeking abortion and creating a comprehensive approach to reproductive health.10
However, the public health rhetoric of unsafe abortions is still utilized as a tool to limit distribution through informal channels.11 For instance, the fate of access to the abortion pill mifepristone, is currently being brought to issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.12 Mifepristone’s initial approval in the US required the drug to be prescribed in person, over three visits to a doctor, and imposed a gestational limit of 7 weeks.13 However, more recent changes have eased that regimen, allowing patients to obtain prescriptions through telemedicine appointments and to get the drug by mail up to 10 weeks into pregnancy.14 Opponents of mifepristone, seek to challenge its approval, contending that it poses significant health risks warranting stricter regulatory measures be reinstated or even its outright ban.15
In 2005, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) designated mifepristone and misoprostol as essential medicines for abortion care, and support their usage to terminate pregnancy up to 12 weeks.16 However, until 2019, their inclusion came with the qualifier “where legally permitted and culturally acceptable.”.17 Presently, the global availability of abortion pills today varies depending on national legal contexts.18 In some countries where abortion is prohibited, access to medications with abortifacient effects is tightly controlled, while others tolerate informal markets of abortion pills.19 Conversely, in countries where abortion is legally available upon request, regulatory frameworks often restrict supply and access to abortions pills to within formal healthcare systems.20 Consequently, in many nations, abortion pills exist in a paradoxical status – being both an essential life-saving medicine and a controlled substance.
In response to these challenges, the WHO’s latest guidelines for abortion care advocate for reforms in prescription and distribution controls to enhance access to abortion pills for self-administration.21 At the same time, the guidelines also advocate for stringent quality assurance measures in the regulation abortion pills, while simultaneously recognizing the necessity of adopting risk-based approaches to enhance the safety of informal supply channels.22 This acknowledgment reflects the reality that positive, high-quality abortion experiences are occurring outside of traditional healthcare systems.
B. Canadian Regulation of Abortion Pills – Drug Law as Criminal Law
Canada is unique in the world of abortion law as one of few countries without one. In 2023, with the overturning of Roe v Wade in the United States, feminist activists in Canada were offered the political will to create abortion rights legislation. However, activists argued that Canada does not need an abortion law, which could inadvertently open the door to reasonable limits on protection and be the target of government action, amendment, or court challenge.23 For many the legal right to an abortion in Canada is believed to be encapsulated in the Canada Health Act, RSC 1985, c. C-6.24
However, I contend that Canada indeed has legislation which establishes legal limits to abortion. While self-administering abortion pills is generally not illegal in Canada, there is currently no legal means of obtaining these pills within Canada without involving a healthcare professional.25 Individually thus legally self-manage components of the abortion process, but supply and access are restricted to the formal healthcare system. This effectively creates legal barriers to safe SMA options, as individuals seeking or assisting with SMA in Canada risk criminal convictions for offences related to the unauthorized importation or possession of abortion pills.26 Therefore, the criminalization of abortion exists in Canada as a function of drug-related offenses, or drug regulation.27 So, while Canada may not have a specific abortion law, the regulation of abortion pills as a prescription drug in Canada creates a system of control and authorization, which directly impacts the access to abortions.
The mainstream perspective on abortion rights has been traditionally presented within medical and legal frameworks, emphasizing access to abortion pills through formal clinical networks. This approach is based in a belief that regulated systems of control ensure safe abortion, and views SMA as a method of last resort.28 Consequently countries have sought to eliminate informal channels for obtaining abortion pills and expand procurement within formal healthcare settings to better support those seeking SMA.29,30 However, this conventional approach, which seeks to ‘fold’ SMA into existing regulatory regimes of control and authorization, disregards the reality that SMA is a common practice and may be preferred by some individuals as their chosen method of ending a pregnancy.
This project challenges the conventional approach and questions the concept of state authorization of SMA through law, finding it oxymoronic. SMA is by definition a non-authorized use of abortion pills and requires a fundamental shift away from its incorporation within existing regulatory regimes. Canada’s current drug regulations are centered around authorization, making any provision for SMA inherently contradictory to the existing drug framework. This project explores a future where feminist activists said yes to abortion law, and proposes radical abortion law reforms that not only take the shape of viable legislative text but also act as a subversive intervention to unsettle and reimagine the relationship between law and abortion rights.31
The term “autonomous abortion” is used in parts of Latin America, to reflect the purposeful nature of the act of SMA, rather than it solely being a consequence of vulnerability.32 This term is becoming increasingly relevant as it is increasingly acknowledged that the proliferation of informal abortion pills channels is not limited to countries where the legal procurement is prohibited.33 Even in countries where abortion pills can be legally obtained through the formal healthcare system, individuals actively choose to self-source and self-manage their abortions.34 The reasoning for this simple: legal abortion services through healthcare does not automatedly equate to universal accessibility.
The reasons individuals are still opting to risk the consequences of obtaining abortion pills through informal channels, even though access in the formal healthcare system has been legalized for years, are manifold. Limited research on this phenomenon suggests that people experience diverse logistical and personal barriers trying to obtain abortion pills within the formal healthcare system. As a result, SMA may be a preferred option, due to factors such as: long wait times and travel to clinic; work or childcare commitments; lack of insurance eligibility; prior negative experiences or perceived mistreatment by formal health systems; considerations of privacy, autonomy, and confidentiality; and personal preference.35
The methods of accessing alternative supply chains for abortion pills in Canada is not fully understood. Some online pharmacies may offer abortion pills without a prescription and discreetly deliver them to individuals’ homes. However, there are currently no websites based in Canada that allow for the purchase of abortion pills. Consequently, individuals who choose to order abortion pills online must import them, which is illegal under current regulations.36
Individuals may acquire abortion pills through informal networks, including friends, acquaintances, grassroots organizations, and activist groups.37 Internationally, organizations like Women on Web (“WoW”) facilitate telemedicine services and abortion pill consultations, but due to legal barriers, they do not send abortion pills to Canadian addresses.38 Additionally, in some areas near the border, individuals may opt to travel to the United States to obtain abortion pills. This complex landscape highlights the various, and often challenging, means through which individuals seeking SMA in Canada are forced to obtain abortion pills.
Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the temporary relaxation of abortion regulations, as a response to clinic-based restrictions, revealed that demedicalized approaches to abortion access are not only feasible, but desirable.39 Whereas abortion laws globally were concerned with the control exerted by medical institutions, the pandemic prompted the introduction of measures in various countries that allowed remote provision and local delivery of abortion pills, expanding access to abortion with the home.40
For instance, during early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada adopted the position that abortion pills in Canada “can safely be provided by telemedicine or virtual visits,” including through “no-touch” or “no-test” medication abortion regimens.41 This challenged the status quo and raised important questions about the relationship between law, place, and the practice of abortion at-home, highlighting the potential for a legislative framework that supports SMA as a safe and acceptable option.
However, these changes were driven by crisis management rather than a desire for long-term reform.42 Their temporary nature assumes that SMA is an abnormal and less desirable option compared to accessing abortion through formal healthcare settings. This approach overlooks the positive relationship between self-management, access to abortion, and the safety and quality of abortion methods.43,44 Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to re-examine and challenge traditional assumptions around abortion access and regulation. SMA should be viewed as an essential component of comprehensive reproductive healthcare, rather than as a less favourable or alternative approach. Such a radical paradigm shift calls for increased recognition and support for SMA as a legitimate and important option for individuals seeking abortion care.
Part I: Conventional regulation of abortion pills in canadian law
A. Regulatory Control and Authorization
In Canada, the regulation of drugs falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The Food and Drugs Act and its accompanying regulations authorize Health Canada, to act as the federal regulator of the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs pre- and post-market in Canada.45 In addition the Department is responsible for issuing market authorizations for the sale of drugs. Once approved, drugs become a regulated medication in Canada, subject to specific guidelines and requirements set forth by Health Canada. These regulations govern aspects such as prescribing practices, distribution channels, and patient education.
The government’s inaction before 2015 was a significant barrier to the availability of mifepristone in Canada. While the drug had been approved in other countries, including the United States and several European countries, the Canadian government did not take any measures to facilitate its approval or ensure its accessibility.46 The Government of Canada instead took a passive approach to the availability of mifepristone, claiming that its role was solely to regulate drugs rather than ensuring access to them.47 The government’s failure to act on this issue was seen as a violation of women’s right to health, as guaranteed by international human rights treaties.48
This meant that historically in Canada, abortion using pills could be provided only through off-label use of methotrexate and misoprostol prescribed by physicians’ in private, community, or hospital-based clinics or offices.49 At this time abortion pills were largely underutilization, with only 1% to 2% of Canadian abortions being pharmaceutically induced.50,51 Service delivery barriers to surgical abortion and limited acceptability of abortion with methotrexate in Canada created a public health need for mifepristone to improve access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare.52
In 2015, mifepristone was finally granted market approval by Health Canada for use inducing abortion. However, Mifepristone it was designated as a prescription drug, pursuant to the Food and Drug Regulations, meaning that it cannot be lawfully sold in Canada to any person without a prescription.53 In January 2017, mifepristone became commercially available as a combination product with misoprostol under the trade name Mifegymiso (one tablet of mifepristone is ingested first, followed by four tablets of misoprostol after a period of 24-48 hours.).54
Initial restrictions on prescribing and dispensing created geographic access barriers.55 These restrictions included dispensation to patients directly by a physician with observation of the initial mifepristone dose, mandatory training and certification of prescribing physicians and pharmacists, and registration of prescribing physicians and pharmacists with the manufacturer.56 Further, some provinces also discouraged or restricted physician dispensing. In BC, for instance, physician dispensing required access to Pharmanet (a central data system tracking every prescription in the province) and special permission from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.57
By November 2017, the federal government removed physician dispensing restrictions removed, and have allowed pharmacists to dispense mifepristone.58 Furthermore, as of 2019, practitioners are no longer required to order an ultrasound scan before prescribing mifepristone prior to 63 days of pregnancy.59 Nevertheless, the classification of mifepristone as a prescription medication in Canada presents an obstacle for individuals seeking SMA, as they are required to engage with the formal healthcare system.
It is worth noting that even those who seek abortion within the formal healthcare system experience persistent barriers to accessing abortion pills. Where a person lives within Canada and whether they have a primary care provider can impact how accessible an abortion is.60 For instance, in many provinces many a healthcare provider can refuse to refer someone to abortion care due to their beliefs.61 Narratives from marginalized individuals shed light on the compounding challenges they face due to location and limited resources.62
Both Mifegymiso and misoprostol alone are currently available over the counter from pharmacies in many countries around the world.63 However, the narrow biomedical conceptualization of safety and quality in Canada contributes to the stigmatization of SMA, those who access it and for those who support it.64 The reality of high-quality abortion is more nuanced and calls for questioning the ‘exclusive’ safety of healthcare setting, and need for unnecessary regulatory barriers.
B. Relevant Provisions within the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations
As Mifepristone is listed in the Health Canada Prescription Drug List, Mifegymiso cannot be lawfully sold in Canada without a prescription.65 The following definitions and provisions within the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations are relevant to the procurement and administration of Mifegymiso in Canada and illustrate legal limitations and complexities for SMA.
Prescribing and Dispensing:
pharmacist means a person who,
(a) is registered or otherwise entitled under the laws of a province to practise pharmacy, and
(b) is practising pharmacy in that province; 66
practitioner means a person who,
(a) is entitled under the laws of a province to treat patients with a prescription drug, and
(b) is practising their profession in that province; 67
prescription drug means a drug that is set out in the Prescription Drug List, as amended from time to time, or a drug that is part of a class of drugs that is set out in it;68
prescription means an order given by a practitioner directing that a stated amount of any drug or mixture of drugs specified therein be dispensed for the person named in the order;69
C.01.041 (1) No person shall sell a prescription drug unless (a) they are entitled under the laws of a province to dispense a prescription drug and they sell it in that province under a verbal or written prescription that they received;70
C.01.042 A person referred to in paragraph C.01.041(1)(a) shall not refill a prescription for a prescription drug unless authorized by the practitioner and, in the case of such an authorization, they shall not refill a prescription more than the number of times specified by the practitioner.71
Importation & Distribution:
therapeutic product means a drug or device or any combination of drugs and devices;72
therapeutic product authorization means,
(a) an authorization, including a licence, that
(ii) authorizes, as the case may be, the import, sale, advertisement, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of a therapeutic product and is issued under subsection 21.92(1) or the regulations;73
sell includes,
(a) offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale – or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration;74
C.01.043 (1) A person may sell a prescription drug to
(a) a drug manufacturer;
(b) a practitioner;
(c) a wholesale druggist;
(d) a pharmacist; or
(e) the Government of Canada or the government of a province, for the use of a department or agency of that government, on receipt of a written order signed by the minister responsible for the department or by the person in charge of the agency, or by their duly authorized representative.75
C.01.045 No person, other than one of the following, shall import a prescription drug:
(a) a practitioner;
(b) a drug manufacturer;
(c) a wholesale druggist;
(d) a pharmacist; or
(e) a resident of a foreign country while a visitor in Canada.76
Offences and Punishments
Section 31.2 (1) Subject to section 31.4, every person who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations, as it relates to a therapeutic product…is guilty of an offence and liable,
(a) on conviction by indictment, to a fine not exceeding $5,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both; and
(b) on summary conviction, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both and, for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months or to both.77
Section 31.5 A court that imposes a sentence for an offence under section 31.2 or 31.4 shall take into account, in addition to any other principles that it is required to consider, the following factors:
(a) the harm or risk of harm caused by the commission of the offence; and
(b) the vulnerability of consumers of the therapeutic product.78
Section 31.6 If a person other than an individual commits an offence under section 31.2…then any of the person’s directors, officers or agents or mandataries who directs, authorizes, assents to or acquiesces or participates in the commission of the offence is a party to the offence and is liable on conviction to the punishment provided for by this Act, even if the person is not prosecuted for the offence.79
Part II: ‘Paradoxical’ regulation of abortion pills in Canada
This project delves into the tension of removing abortion pills from prescription drug control while circumventing the potential legislative paradoxes formed by the conventional approach to fold SMA into existing regulatory schemes. It poses the question of whether the regulatory system for abortion pills could be changed and controlled by the pills themselves, rather than the system controlling them? Drawing inspiration from the WHO 2022 guidelines, which recommend supports for SMA and advocate against restrictive regulations and considering the challenges of simply de-prescribing of Mifegymiso, this project envisions a regulatory environment in which abortion pills remain prescription drugs but also foster a social context that promotes safe supply.80
The project imagines a system of abortion care where Canada would not only acknowledge but also embrace alternative and safe supply options for abortion pills, aligning with the evolving understanding of the motivations behind those seeking SMA. This regulatory model would promote flexible, network-based models that prioritize task-based skills instead of exclusive health professional authorizations.
A. Imagining Abortion Pill Compassionate Clubs
A compassion club is a community-based and peer-run non-profit organization dedicated to providing support and safe access to individuals using controlled substances.81 Emerging in the 1980s as a social response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, these clubs initially provided individuals living with HIV/AIDS with a safe and reliable supply of medicinal marijuana.82 Over time, compassion clubs have evolved into broader harm reduction organizations and are distinctly separate from the illicit and commercialized markets. The first compassion club in Canada was established in 1997 in British Columbia.83 Operated by its members, compassion clubs are guided by the general principles of cooperatives, such as voluntary membership, democratic control, economic participation, autonomy, and community concern.84,85
In Canada, these clubs “operate in a legal grey area”, utilizing regulatory exemptions allowing the provisional of supply drugs, thus protecting both its operators and members from legal ramifications.86 By offering access to a safer supply of drugs compared to the illegal market, these clubs aim to create a secure environment for their members and community.87 In contrast to clinics, which typically offer medical services under the supervision of healthcare professionals, compassion clubs’ challenges traditional client/service provider relationships and empowers drug users to design and implement harm reduction interventions. They understand that the needs and experiences of their members are diverse and complex and extend far beyond mere provision of substances.
Compassion clubs are currently a contentious issue in Canada, as demonstrated the ongoing judicial review of Health Canada’s denial of peer-run safe supply groups by Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users and the Drug User Liberation Front (“DULF”).88 The Drug User Liberation Front (DULF) operates a compassion club for distribution of safe street drugs.89 DULF applied exemption from Health Canada under section 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act90,91. If granted, this exemption would legally safeguard operators and participants of the club, where controlled substances (procured online, and later scrubbed, tested, and labeled for transparency and safety) could be shared among individuals at risk of drug poisoning in British Columbia.
The DULF operators themselves are users and they don’t feel good in the formal healthcare system because that is a place of judgement, marginalization, and violence for them. In recognizing the need for a separate medicalized harms reduction system, DULF’s efforts hope to address the inherent risks associated with drug use and the inadequacies of the current regulatory framework.
Academics have noted the parallels and intertwined narratives of of regulation and control both in the realm of illicit drugs and abortion pills.92 Moreover, just as activists strive to legitimize informal networks for the distribution of abortion pills outside of clinical settings, there exists the potential for the emergence of Abortion Pill Compassionate Clubs. In Canada, policymakers should consider implementing regulatory exemption within the framework of the Food and Act, wherein SMA is seen as a valid choice rather than an unfavorable alternative to abortion obtained within the formal healthcare system. Thus, competency and a supportive environment, not solely a government authorization, would establish safety standards for SMA, supported by both policy and law.
B. Lawful support networks
Abortion pills have historically traditionally fallen under strict prescription regulations focused on state authorization. However, the evolving social context surrounding SMA demands a reconceptualization.93 This evolution is evident in recent global trends in abortion pill regulation. For instance, the District of Columbia recently passed the Enhancing Reproductive Health Protections Amendment Act of 2022, shielding individuals, including those assisting, from penalties in relation to “seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce abortion” and “providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of [SMA] products”.94 This departure from government interference in abortion marks a form of social deregulation, providing access to abortion pills for the purpose of SMA before formal deregulation occurs. This concept of "social deprescribing” challenges formal medicalization.
Existing provider and procurement restrictions on SMA, disregard the extensive history, experience, and knowledge amassed by feminist activists. Instead, abortion regulation should be guided by human rights and evidence, expanding the scope of people who can provide or prescribe to include anyone possessing the necessary task-based skills/competencies to ensure a safe abortion. By supporting the de-medicalization of the SMA, regulations could facilitate the establishment of lawful support networks, including family and friends as potential providers.
One approach to navigating this complex landscape is to authorize access to abortion pills through exception clauses. This approach maintains the formal medicalization of abortion while allowing for practical access beyond traditional healthcare channels, such as through compassion clubs. This radical proposal suggests the possibility of embracing dual truths: maintaining formal medical oversight while acknowledging and accepting alternative pathways for access. By prioritizing individual autonomy and well-being, this approach recognizes the significance of both regulatory frameworks and community-based support networks.
Part III: Reimagined legislative proposal
An Act Respecting Abortion Pill Compassionate Care in Canada
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the “Abortion Pill Compassionate Care Act”.
Interpretation
2. In this Act,
(a) “compassionate care network” means, a community-based organization dedicated to providing support and safe access to abortion pills in a non-judgmental, peer-run environment;
(b) “abortion pill” means, any drug containing mifepristone and/or misoprostol, or their derivatives, or any combination thereof, used for the purpose of inducing abortion.
Purpose
3. This Act aims to provide legal recognition and support for compassionate care networks that offer safe access to abortion pills outside of traditional clinical settings.
Authorization of Compassionate Care Networks:
4. (1) Compassionate care networks shall be legally authorized to operate under the provisions of this Act.
(2) Such networks shall create and maintain safety standards, consistent with the preservation of international human rights, and may provide comprehensive education and support services to individuals seeking abortion pills.
Members of compassionate care networks shall be recognized for their expertise, lived experience, and commitment to supporting reproductive justice, and are as such authorized to import, possess, distribute, sell, prescribe, and dispense abortion pills;95
Government non-interference in reproductive health decisions
6. The government shall not:
(1) Deny, interfere with, or restrict, in the regulation, promotion, or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information, the right of an individual, to,
(a) Choose or refuse to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion;
(b) Access compassionate care networks in relation to abortion care;
(c) Support the establishment and sustainability of compassionate care networks across Canada.
Exemptions
7. Abortion pills distributed by compassionate care networks shall be exempt from the provisions outlined in the Food and Drugs Act, RSC, 1985, c. F-27, and its accompanying regulations.
8. Individuals accessing abortion pills through compassionate care networks shall not be subject to any criminal penalties related to the procurement, possession, distribution, or use of abortion pills, such as,
(a) seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce the person’s own abortion;
(b) assisting an individual who is seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce their own abortion;
(c) any act of providing, selling, importing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of abortion pills.
Conflict with Other Enactments
9. Where there is a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, including but not limited to federal or provincial laws or regulations, this Act shall prevail.
Amendments
10. Amendments may be proposed based on the socially evolving needs within the reproductive health landscape.
Proclamation
11. This Act shall be retroactively effective from January 1, 2005.96
12. All actions taken by compassionate care networks in accordance with the provisions of this Act prior to its proclamation shall be deemed valid and legal.
13. Any penalties or sanctions imposed on compassionate care networks or their members prior to the proclamation of this Act shall be null and void.
Bibliography
Legislation
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19
Enhancing Reproductive Health Protections Amendment Act of 2022, DC 2023, 24-254.
Food and Drugs Act, RSC 1985, c F-27
Food and Drug Regulations, CRC, c 870
Secondary materials
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Position Paper, “Why we don’t need to enshrine abortion rights into law” (Vancouver: 2023), online.
Action Canada & NAWL, News Release, “Feminist Organizations Support No New Abortion Law in Canada” (10 August 2022), online.
Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights and the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, “Abortion Access Tracker” online.
Aiken Abigail et al, “Barriers to accessing abortion services and perspectives on using mifepristone and misoprostol at home in Great Britain” (2018) 92:2 Contraception 177.
Belluck Pam & Abbie VanSickle, “The Abortion Pill Case: What’s at Stake and What’s Next”, The New York Times (24 March 2024) online.
Berer Marge, “Reconceptualizing safe abortion and abortion services in the age of abortion pills: A discussion papel” (2020) 63 Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 45
Berro Pizzarossa Lucía & Patty Skuste, “Toward Human Rights and Evidence-Based Legal Frameworks for (Self-Managed) Abortion: A Review of the Last Decade of Legal Reform.” (2021) 23:1 Health & Human Rights J 199
Braine Naomi & Marissa Velarde “Self-Managed Abortion: Strategies for Support by a Global Feminist Movement” (2022) 9:3 Women’s Reproductive Health 183
British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, “Heroin Compassion Clubs: A Cooperative Model to Reduce Opioid Overdose Deaths & Disrupt Organized Crime’s Role in Fentanyl, Money Laundering & Housing Unaffordability” (2018)
Cooper Davina, “Crafting Prefigurative Law in Turbulent Times: Decertification, DIY Law Reform, and the Dilemmas of Feminist Prototyping” (2023) 31 Feminist Legal Studies 17.
Dineley Brigid, Sarah Munro & Wendy V Norman, “Leadership for success in transforming medical abortion policy in Canada” (2020) 15:1 PLoS ONE doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227216
Erdman Joanna N, “Abortion At-Home and At-Law During a Pandemic” in I Glenn Cohen et al, eds, COVID-19 and the Law: Disruption, Impact and Legacy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) 317
Erdman Joanna N, “The WHO abortion care guideline: Law and policy-Past, present, and future” (2023) 162 Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1119.
Erdman Joanna N, Amy Grenon & Leigh Harrison-Wilson, “Medication Abortion in Canada: A Right-to-Health Perspective” (2008) 98:10 Am J Public Health 1764
Erdman Joanna N, Kinga Jelinska & Susan Yanow, “Understandings of self-managed abortion as health inequity, harm reduction and social change” (2018) 26:54 Reproductive Health Matters 13
Grossman Amy et al, “Availability of medical abortion medicines in eight countries: a descriptive analysis of key findings and opportunities” (2023) 20:58 Reprod Health doi:10.1186/s12978-023-01574-3
Health Canada, Notice, 15-109116-589,“Prescription Drug List (PDL): Multiple additions” (12 August 2015), online.
Jayaweera Ruvani et al, “Medication Abortion Safety and Effectiveness With Misoprostol Alone” (2023) 6:10 JAMA Netw Open doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.40042
Kalicum Jeremy et al, “The impact of an unsanctioned compassion club on non-fatal overdose” (2022) 955:3959, International Journal of Drug Policy 104330
Letter from the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users and Drug User Liberation Front to the Canadian Minister of Health and Director General of Health Canada, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch (31 August 2021), online.
Munro Sarah et al, “Pharmacist dispensing of the abortion pill in Canada: Diffusion of Innovation meets integrated knowledge translation” (2021) 19:76 Implementation Science doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01144-w.
Munro SB et al, “Advancing Reproductive Health through Policy-Engaged Research in Abortion Care” (2022) 40:05/06 Semin Reprod Med. 268.
Paltrow Lynn M, “The War on Drugs and the War on Abortion: Some Initial Thoughts on the Connections, Intersections and Effect” (2002) 10:19 Reproductive Health Matters 162.
Perehudoff Katrina, Lucia Berro Pizzarossa, and Jelle Stekelenburg “Realising the right to sexual and reproductive health: access to essential medicines for medical abortion as a core obligation” (2018) 18:8 BMC Int Health Hum Rights doi:10.1186/s12914-018-0140-z
Prandini Assis Mariana & Sara Larrea, “Why self-managed abortion is so much more than a provisional solution for times of pandemic” (2020) 28:1 Sexual & Reproductive Health Matters 37
Quinn Melissa, “Supreme Court seems poised to reject abortion pill challenge after arguments over FDA actions” CBS News (26 March 2024) online.
Starr Raven, Kim Murray & Micheal Chaiton, “The Compassion Club: A New Proposal for Transformation of Tobacco Retail” (2023) 25:12 Nicotine & Tobacco Research 1822
Stevenson Juilanna & Jennifer Taylor, “A Choice of Options” CBA National Magazine (16 Sep 2021) online.
Stevenson Julianne & Jennifer Taylor, Status Report, “Self-Managed Abortion in Canada” (Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, 2022) online.
The Drug Users Liberation Front, Press Release, “DULF Requests Judicial Review of Health Canada’s Decision and Forges Ahead with Life Saving Model Despite Lack of Federal Sanctioning” (31 August 2022), online.
Veldhuis Suzanne, Georgina Sanchez-Ramirez, and Blair G. Darney, “Locating Autonomous Abortion Accompanied by Feminist Activists in the Spectrum of Self-Managed Medication Abortion” (2022) 53:2 Studies in Family Planning 377
World Health Organization, Abortion Care Guideline (Geneva: WHO, 2022)
Yanow Susan, Lucía Berro Pizzarossa & Kinga Jelinska, “Self-managed abortion: Exploring synergies between institutional medical systems and autonomous health movements” (2021) 104:3 Contraception 219.