I am still awaiting a post by Alceste that her hero Julius Grey, the great Constitutional expert, would say this ruling probably contravenes the Charter's protection on religion, like he opined about the Islamic cemetery referendum in Quebec.

Sometimes the Supreme Court overturns lower-level court rulings, and sometimes they affirm them.   You never know until the final and binding precedent is set.  

Ir seems somewhat condescending to suggest that women are incapable of exercising their own judgement in this regard.  It sounds like "Let's remove this option for everyone on the off-chance a few might be manipulated into it" (..."and by the way, since I disagree with it, anyone who agrees must have been manipulated").

Wasn't it Trudeau-the-first who said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."?