Thursday, April 15, 2010

Rod Bruinooge Will Get His Abortion Debate

The text for Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 is now available here. One possible issue: could "coerce" apply to what abortion providers tell their patients. In other words, is the bill an attempt to intimidate abortion providers?

Well, it's definition of "coercion" is:

“coercion”, in respect of an abortion, means conduct that, directly or indirectly, causes a female person to consent to an abortion that she would otherwise have refused. A person coerces an abortion if he or she knows of or suspects the pregnancy of a female person and engages, or conspires with another to engage in, conduct that is intentionally and purposely aimed at directing the female person who has not chosen to have an abortion to have an abortion, including but not limited to the following conduct:

(a) committing, attempting to commit, or threatening to commit physical harm to the female person, the child or another person;

(b) committing, attempting to commit or threatening to commit any act prohibited by any provincial or federal law;

(c) denying or removing, or making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct; and

(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity;

but does not include speech that is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And he's 2nd on the List for the Consideration of Private Members’ Business so I suspect that, despite Mr. Harper's pledge not reopen the debate over abortion rights, we will in fact be arguing over this legislation at some length before the end of 2010.

Thank you Mr. Bruinooge. Come taste the wedge.

14 comments:

double nickel said...

Bruinooge is a complete idiot. How the people of Winnipeg South Center or whatever it's called now got conned into voting for him is anybody's guess. They weren't voting for his smarts, that's for sure.

Sir Gallahad said...

The Cons are always saying that they want the Government out of people's lives.

That they are a party that doesn't tell people how to live their lives.

Except if you are woman who wants an abortion, or you are two consenting adults of the same sex who want to get married.

Then the pearls of wisdom spring forth.

To paraphrase PET,

"The government has no business in the wombs of the nation"

Reality Bites said...

"pregnancy of a female person"?

"making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct"

Sooo... does this mean you would not be able to say "Sorry, but I didn't sign up for parenthood. If you have this child we're through and you'll have to move out. I'll support the child, of course, but our relationship will be over."

Or

"We've been paying your way through university, darling daughter, and will happily continue doing so. We have no intention, however, of paying for you to stay home with a baby for the next 20 years."

Reality Bites said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sir Gallahad said...

Yeah,

"Pregnancy of a female person"

As opposed to pregnancy of a male person I guess.

Ti-Guy said...

They're taking all their cues from the American Right, which, with the help of a corrupt and politicised judiciary, has provided them with an endless body of sophisticated legalism for them to plumb. And that's not counting all the pseudo-science the American Right funds and disseminates. All the while providing for the conditions that lead to more abortions, not fewer.

And all for what? So they can keep their heads firmly planted in other people's groins?

Tof KW said...

And all for what? So they can keep their heads firmly planted in other people's groins?

The SoCons are a strange group aren't they? Why they are so preoccupied about attempting to legislate the morality of others is beyond me. They should look at themselves first, top-10 states buying porn are all GOP red.

happyberry said...

What should Canada ban? What should Canada legalize? How could the government make the society a better place? http://www.themarknews.com/series/ban-legalize

Ti-Guy said...

The SoCons are a strange group aren't they? Why they are so preoccupied about attempting to legislate the morality of others is beyond me.

Who knows? I've always gotten the impression from those people that the only thing that prevents them from behaving badly are dire consequences and punishments; restrictive or coercive laws, imprisonment, capital punishment, eternal damnation, disease and unwanted pregnancy etc. etc. And what they know about themselves, they also believe is true for everyone else. Whereas the rest of us know our own personal values and ability to behave virtuously when faced with temptation is enough in most circumstances.

The US is a particularly difficult place for these experiments in morality to play out, since its Manichaeism tends to promote endless and ever-worsening cyles of action/counter-reaction that turn people into either fascist prudes or depraved libertines.

JF said...

"c) denying or removing, or making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct; and"

Give me a break. If some other party were trying to put up a bill that had the same language of the above except directed towards protecting women who do want to have the procedure the conservatives would be freaking out at the concept of state parenting.

"d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity;"

And the definition of argumentative and rancorous badgering is.... ? Because this sounds alot like they want to open the door to making the act of giving advise illegal.


This is made all the more odious by the fact that the only women I know who've had any of this happen to them had it happen because they wanted an abortion not because they didn't want one.

buckets said...

There are several interesting contrasts here. First, it's interesting that roughly the same people who demand that there be no limits (or almost none) on speech seem to want to regulate private arguments about reproduction.

Also, it is (roughly) the same people too who are willing themselves to resort to coercive speech to dissuade women from having abortions. Indeed, I wonder here whether we don't have an interesting example of transference -- because their own ideology invites them to coerce women out of abortions, they imagine that their opposites must be true.

RuralSandi said...

So, if a doctor advises a woman that for health reasons (possibly death) that she should consider an abortion - would that be coercion?

I know of a situation (a patient of my mother, a nurse) where a doctor told her that she wouldn't live if she had another child. She already had 5 kids. The priest told her she should have more and when she got pregnant, told her she should carry it.

The woman died, the baby died (as the doctor warned) and the "young" father was left with 5 kids to bring up on his own. I was in my teens at the time and remember my mother being really upset that a priest interfered with a doctor's advice.

Needless to day, the father left the church and decided not raise his kids with any religion.

Shiner said...

Also, it is (roughly) the same people too who are willing themselves to resort to coercive speech to dissuade women from having abortions.

An interesting point. Perhaps the NDP should put forward a law making it illegal to coerce a woman into going through with the pregnancy.

Ti-Guy said...

a law making it illegal to coerce a woman into going through with the pregnancy.

...and include anyone who refers to her as a "baby killer."