I’m always surprised when I come across this type of language in Canadian court decisions.
20 T.G. requested financial compensation in her victim impact statement, which was entered as an exhibit during the Crown’s submissions. She had no child support from D.G. and justifiably felt she was owed some compensation. In response to this, D.G. offered to make some financial reparation. He said, through his counsel, that he would be able to pay $500 within 90 days. The sentencing judge concluded that this offer demonstrated limited insight into his offence and lessened the remorse D.G. expressed. He said:
[24] … Through his counsel, [D.G.] offered to pay reparations, in the amount of $500, to his victim. That offer exacerbates my concern that [D.G.] has not yet grasped the enormity of his offence or its impact upon his victim. To state the matter bluntly, he repeatedly raped an innocent and helpless child over a period of years, impregnated her three times, stood by while she underwent two abortions (having in mind the emotional trauma suffered by any woman who undergoes an abortion for any reason), abandoned her and left her penniless to raise their son. He regards $500 as appropriate reparation for that conduct. I appreciate that [D.G.] is a man of limited means, but such an offer can only be seen as an expression of contempt for his victim.
Seems this one BC judge recognized that there’s often an emotional toll associated with having an abortion.
Source: R. v. G. (D.),2014 CarswellBC 531, 2014 BCCA 84
_____________________
Andrea adds: For your “surprising passage in tragic case” files… I almost blogged about this story when it came out last week, but didn’t. But I will now:
The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously upheld the sexual assault conviction of a Nova Scotia man who tried to trick his girlfriend into becoming pregnant by poking holes in her condoms.
Craig Jaret Hutchinson was sentenced to 18 month in jail in December 2011 after he pierced his girlfriend’s condoms with a pin in 2006 so she would get pregnant and not break up with him.
The Halifax-area woman became pregnant and had an abortion, but later suffered an infection of her uterus that required treatment with antibiotics.
Leaving aside all other possible commentary on the horrible nature of this “relationship,” this appears to be the one moment when the media reports on negative physical health effects after abortion.
by 
I’m going to be cynical towards Andrea’s case here. See, if the woman had gotten pregnant, but had an abortion, would it have been “no harm, no foul?”
I take it as a given that you shouldn’t poke holes in a condom without the consent of both parties. But I fear that, in ignoring the big rules (ie, don’t have sex with someone to whom you are not committed long-term) we are creating a society of tons and tons of little, unenforceable rules. How would you possibly get a conviction for poking holes in a condom? It’s not like people are going to keep used condoms to be used as possible evidence in a sexual assault case should someone find out she’s pregnant later on.
And, does anybody else have a problem with this being classified as a sexual assault, included in the same category as forcible rape? One assumes that both parties consented to the sexual activity in the first place, but the consent was withdrawn after the fact when it was found out there were false pretenses involved.
For a country that proclaims the state has no business in the nation’s bedrooms, I’ve gotta say, the state is pretty heavily involved in this particular bedroom.
Just figured out why the “poking holes in a condom is s3xual assault” case bothers me so much.
If a man who pokes holes in a condom is guilty of s3xual assault, because the consent to s3x was obtained under false pretenses, would it not also follow that if a woman were to say she was taking the pill, but in fact wasn’t, then the woman would be guilty of s3xual assault.
Don’t get me wrong. Lying about birth control is despicable. But it’s not sexual assault.
This story really ticked me off! My question was, and still is, if the relationship was ending, as the man asserted, why were they still having sex? Oh, I guess it was because they just had to satisfy that itch.
Ladies, agreed. the only point was it seems that under these bizarre circumstances is the only time the media are prepared to acknowledge that on occasion, abortion has consequences. Note they made a point of inserting she had an infection the result of it. Certainly the circumstances deserve their own commentary on acceptable sexual ethics today, and the effects thereof… but that was about all I wanted to engage with this sad case.