Constitutional challenge against abortion law will be heard in court
On November 28, the canadian pro-life heroine, Mary Wagner, will begin a five day hearing at the Toronto Superior Court, to press a constitutional challenge against the practice of killing preborn children via abortion.
Please support Mary by attending the hearings, if possible, at Toronto Superior Court, 361 University Ave., Toronto, ON. The court proceedings started Monday November 28th at 10:00 am. We hope and pray that this legal action will be a succesful means of advocate for our precious preborn brothers and sisters.
Please also pray for Mary's lawyer, Dr. Charles Lugosi, that he will succeed in persuading the court. The courtroom attendance of pro-lifers who are able to be present, especially in prayerful support, any or all of the days will be appreciated by Mary. The courthouse is easily accessible via the subway.
Below is an official statement put out by Mary Wagner's attorney, Dr. Charles Lugosi:
On September 21, 2016 the Honourable Justice Tamarin M. Dunnet of the Superior Court of Ontario, advised counsel that unless Mary Wagner’s appeal could be completed in the one day reserved for the appeal, the case would need to be adjourned so that consecutive days could be set aside for the entire appeal. The Crown prosecutor Megan Petrie was confident the proceedings could be completed in one day, submitting that many of Miss Wagner’s arguments were without merit.
The Judge observed that there were many serious issues that needed to be decided on the appeal, and set aside five consecutive days, beginning on November 28, 2016. The Judge appeared to view all of Miss Wagner’s arguments seriously and wanted full argument on the complex areas of law that need to be decided.
The appeal arguments focus on major mistakes made by the trial judge that resulted in an unfair trial and a legally incorrect verdict. At trial, Miss Wagner argued that she had a legal duty to defend innocent human beings from murder.
She relied upon the now repealed s. 37 statutory defence in the Criminal Code of Canada, to defend another human being from assault and also the common law necessity defence. She argued that s. 223 of the Criminal Code, which says that an unborn child is not a human being, is unconstitutional, because an unborn child is in fact a human being, and no government has the legal power to decide who is and who is not a human being. If the appeal judge agrees, then abortion is an act of murder, and a crime.
The trial judge refused to admit medical and scientific evidence to prove an unborn child is a human being, and while this may have blocked access to one defence, it opened up other defences. She alternatively argued that if she were wrong about this, then she was entitled to a mistake of fact defence, by wrongly believing that an unborn child is a human being, when as a matter of law it is an animal. But if that is the case, then under the Criminal Code, an animal may only be killed to save the life of a human being.
There was no evidence before the trial court that any of the abortions done the day Miss Wagner attended the abortion clinic, were done to kill an “animal” inside wombs to save their human mother’s lives.