From this story:

Oakland Diocese’ Respect Life Ministry paid $43,200 for the ads, which first appeared December 26 and are scheduled to appear through the end of January. Two hundred and eighty ads appear in BART rail cars while 48 larger versions can be seen in stations. BART spokesman, Linton Johnson, under fire from pro-abortion groups for allowing the advertising, said they cannot refuse the paid advertising given free-speech provisions of the First Amendment.

Lawsuit if a Catholic publisher won't publish stuff offensive to his conscience. Lawsuit if a subway will take advertising from a advertiser offensive to someone else's conscience.

Form this story:

Then the Supreme Court of Canada would decide. Now lets assume that the Supreme Court of Canada decided and they said, "that's a Charter right, you can't take away a woman's right to choose." Then what happens is, then parliament, it would go back to parliament and parliament would have a decision on the notwithstanding clause and since the original bill passed, parliament would vote the notwithstanding clause and suddenly the woman's, a woman's right to choose would have disappeared.

My view is that minority rights, Charter rights should not be taken away by the majority and that applies ah, in, in and that applies in a wide range of cases. I can't believe that a woman's right to choose actually being put in doubt, but the fact is that that roadmap is out there and it is an issue. And, and I believe that the only way which you protect it from ever becoming a, an issue is you essentially say parliament; governments are not to be able to overrule the Supreme Court and take away your Charter rights.

At least they aren't pretending it was in the Charter when they wrote it.