Talk:Therapeutic abortion committee

Critique of writing
Huh? Whose law? Where? Poorly written.

When Trudeau legalized abortion the TAC proccess was part of the proccess that and rules that were required in order to have a legal abortion anywhere in Canada. Federal law. All of Canada. If you don't like the writing you could give me some more hints or edit it yourself. Is the above all you think should be added (i am still new at this). Would it be better if there was a section seprately added about how the law that permitted abortion before abortion was taken out of the criminal code be better?--Marcie 03:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You should have at least mentioned Canada, for starters. I had no idea from reading it where on the planet this took place.

Being Canada centric is suppose. I had just started this as a stub so that the information didn't have to all be put on the page on Abortion in Canada...--Marcie 13:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would the history of how TAC's worked be better placed on the abortion in Canada page or here? Should this just be a technical description of what a TAC is? I've modified the page, although it's not finished yet.--Marcie 16:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Unfortunately"
I don't know if this is precisely the word that should be used due to NPOV. Perhaps it could be put another way? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to understand sentence
Hi. What is the relation between an US decision, et the choice of canadian women to go abroad, in the following sentence ? After the Roe v. Wade decision in the United States Supreme Court in 1973, many Canadian women found it much easier to travel abroad to seek medical treatment for unwanted pregnancy. Some women continued to resort to illegal abortions, often by unqualified practitioners, or even attempted to perform the procedure upon themselves. Sometimes this had dangerous or even fatal consequences (see Abortion in Canada).

Thanks for your help : I try to translate this article in french, but cannot understand the link between both facts. Sophia-ka (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Substantial re-write; still needs sources
I came across this article and did a substantial re-write of it. I've added several in-line citations, but also have flagged several areas where additional cites are needed. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to fill in those "citations needed" spots, but would encourage anyone who is more knowledgeable to do so. The Badgeley report, cited frequently in the SCC decision, would likely be a good source, but I don't have access to it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)