The Catholics Are Attacking!

Canada’s national Catholic news magazine, Catholic Insight, which I have written about on several occasions, has issued a call for the "defeat and removal" of Stephen Harper in his Calgary Southwest riding:

“For Mr. Harper to state that he would not personally support a law limiting abortion is one thing,” said de Valk. “But to go so far as to strong arm his own MPs from supporting the right to life and even, as his spokesperson suggested, whip his cabinet on the matter, is unconscionable.”

Yeah, good luck with that. But nevertheless more evidence that all is not well with Stephen Harper's Conservative base. who are seeing their issues (abortion, HRCs) frozen out of the debate this election cycle. It will be interesting to observe the practical effect of a SoCon revolt, esp. if the election tightens up. Could these guys casting protest votes swing the result in, for example, Ontario exurban swing ridings?

Tory Abortion Bill Not Dead Yet!

A small group of Tory Rebs have issued a press release in which they state that

"We, the undersigned, will continue to use all the legislative avenues at our disposal to ensure the successful passage of The Unborn Victims of Crime Act into law. We look forward to supporting Mr. Epp's bill at third reading."

The Rebs in question:

David Anderson, MP, Cypress Hills-Grasslands
Rod Bruinooge, MP, Winnipeg South
Royal Galipeau, MP, Ottawa-Orléans
Colin Mayes, MP, Okanagan-Shuswap
Myron Thompson, MP, Wild Rose
Brad Trost, MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt
Maurice Vellacott, MP, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
Chris Warkentin, MP, Peace River

Pretty much a subset of the usual suspects. But what should it matter if the Tories plan to withdraw the legislation? It shouldn't matter, except that the Tories have no such plans. Dean Allison's office confessed as much to one Tory Blogger yesterday.

The Conservatives are not abandoning or distancing themselves from Bill C-484 or abortion. In fact, it is a mistake to view Nicholson's recently proposed alternative as such. The guy I spoke to over the phone suggested that the Conservatives do not think that Epp's bill will pass in the house, given the fact they only have a minority and the recent inappropriate focus on abortion by a small group of extremists who have totally misrepresented the bill. He said that both the Bloc and the NDP will be voting against the bill and most Liberals are likely to either do the same or simply not show up to vote. If that is the case, then it's hard to see how Epp's bill could pass.

Nicholson's bill is intended to provide the same protection to pregnant women, should Epp's bill not pass.If Epp's bill does pass, and both I and the guy on the phone hope it does, then great.

My MP will be voting in support of Epp's bill.

Despite efforts re getting abortion off the table as an election issue, the Tories have left C-484 still in play. In addition, they have thrown another bill into the mix which, when it is finally introduced, will apparently resemble Liberal MP Brent St. Denis's Bill C-543.


This fight is not over.

In Which I Regurgitate Liberal Talking Points

Shrieking from this crazy lady aside, I think its a helluva idea for the Liberals to be pounding Stephen Harper on his refusal "to come clean on the right to choose". Rob Nicholson has announced that a new, totally non-abortion related bill is coming, but nothing concrete is on the table yet and nothing is likely to be before a snap election call. Meanwhile the old bill is not going away. The Tories want to go in to their election talking about leadership--therefore counter by bringing up their knuckle-dragging, Reform Party past. Hit 'em where they're tender, in other words.

Rebellion In The Ranks!

"'I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill,' Epp told Sun Media.

He means Bill C-484, the "Lets Re Criminalize Abortion Through The Back Door!" Bill.

Damn! A week before a possible election call and the Tories have a SoCon revolt on their hands! And, as far as I can tell, one that was totally avoidable. Had Harper just dissolved Parliament, C-484 and all their other controversial legislation would have died quietly, but he chose to step on this particular rake. Clearing the decks for an election? If he can't get Epp in line fast, abortion becomes an election issue anyway!!!

Stephen Harper: he is playing chess, the rest of us merely playing ourselves with that weird looking item we bought for a buck at the sex shop.

Update: Epp speaks!

Does Bill C-484 Target Abortion Providers?

Ken Epp, sponsor of the BillC-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, has been busy. Huge portions of his website are devoted to defending this private members bill, and he has composed a report defending it against the accusations made by people like Joyce Arthur. A recent Ottawa Citizen column by Mr. Epp is here, and here is the report.

I can't speak particularly effectively to most of the arguments he makes (short version: C-484 is not like any of those nasty U.S. Fetal Homicide Laws). If anyone else wants to, or to just blow off some estrogen, go ahead in the comments. But what I would be especially interested in is if anyone has considered the risk the bill would might pose for abortion providers (rather than pregnant women)?

C-484 refers to harm caused to the woman by a "third party" committing an offense against the unborn child by virtue of committing an offense against the woman. And whether or not an offense against the woman has been committed depends on whether the act was "against her will".

Could a woman decide retroactively that her abortion was carried out "against her will" and attempt to bring charges against her doctor?

You do read about this sort of thing on Lifesite: My Doctor Drugged Me And Took My Baby etc.

Update: Liberal MP Brent St. Denis has now introduced Bill C-543, intended to "counter" C-484 and fill in some of its loop-holes.

Finally, (Relatively) Straight Talk On Bill C-484

Although we are still talking National Post blog-space, not the body of the main newspaper. So I'm not sure whether this counts as MSM coverage or not. My favorite bit:

Ms. Fortin repeats the word “fetus” numerous times and claims that Bill C-484 “does not in any way confer personhood or rights upon the fetus.” That is false. The bill never even uses the word fetus! Instead, “child” and “unborn child” are used to refer to even very early pregnancies, as soon as the woman suspects she might be pregnant. This is an unprecedented extension of such language in the Criminal Code and clearly, it confers personhood on the fetus. The bill makes the penalty for killing a fetus the same as for homicide, and includes it as an offence “Against the Person and Reputation” (even though that part of the code already defines fetuses as non-persons). Just by making it a separate crime to kill or injure an “unborn child,” the bill creates at least some degree of fetal personhood.

This part I wonder about, however:

The bill’s proponents, including Ms. Fortin, are fond of citing a survey from last October that found 72% of Canadians support a bill like C-484. What they never say is that the poll was commissioned by anti-abortion group LifeCanada to measure “Canadians’ attitudes towards abortion issues.” The poll’s question on a fetal homicide law was grouped with other questions on abortion restrictions, with biased wording to elicit a positive answer.

Given the source, the Lifesite poll was almost certainly biased in the manner noted. However, an Angus Reid survey conducted just last month month gave very similar results:

In the online survey of a representative national sample, 70 per cent of respondents support the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, while 19 per cent express opposition.

See full release here.


I am still of the opinion that the Tories made some clever tactical moves on C-484 by insisting loudly (though disingenuously) that it was not about abortion, and by making their vehicle a private member's bill. This way Stephen Harper can step back and say, "Look! Abortion has been regulated, but it isn't my fault!"

(Finally, I'm not really sure who the author of the Natty Post essay is. It looks as though Marni Soupcoff has allowed Joyce Arthur some blog space).

Update: Fern Hill analysed the Angus Reid Poll a couple of weeks ago and found it wanting.

Update: Joyce Arthur responds in the comments:

The National Post piece is by me, Joyce Arthur. They sent me a version yesterday to edit, but didn't bother waiting for my response, even though I sent an updated version later the same day.

Because of the newer Angus Reid poll that came out since I submitted the piece to the Post over THREE weeks ago, I had added the following sentence to the paragraph about the polls, which didn't make it in:

"Polling results on this issue are also misleading because the public is not generally aware of the risks the bill poses to women's rights."

The point being, this is a complex issue. The Angus Reid poll made no attempt to explain the problems with the bill, which are not going to be readily apparent to the average Joe and Jane. Everybody of course wants to protect pregnant women, but most will not realize what a Trojan Horse this bill is. Unfortunately, the majority public support for this bill is a red herring, at least for now.

What You're Up Against [Bill C-484]

Can't really blame the Liberal Party brass for not whipping the vote when a survey of the grass-roots coughs up numbers like these:

In the survey, 52 per cent of Conservative Party voters express strong support for [Bill C-484], while the proportion is lower among New Democratic Party (NDP) voters (47%), Liberals (37%), Greens (34%) and Bloc Québécois supporters (33%).

Got alotta work to do, ladies.

C-484: The Issue Of Liberal Culpability

Much hair-pulling today re the Liberal response to Bill C-484 (20 MPS supporting), which essentially allowed the legislation to pass second reading (and the first of 3 votes).

Here are some thoughts:

1) Despite some excellent blogging on the issue, I have found a grand total of two MSM articles on the topic written within the past couple of days: yesterdays G&M piece (which mistakenly referred to the "first reading" of the bill), and the Reuters piece linked above, which usefully details the great distance C-484 must travel yet before becoming law.

As for OpEd's, there's Zerbie's today, which I linked to in an earlier post. So you can't really blame the Libs for dodging an issue this low-profile. Or if you do blame them (and perhaps this is an unfortunate truth) only you and your mama care. With the public, the issue is drawing a flat-line. Don't expect to see the Libs take any hits on it outside of the blogging Nerdosphere until the blogging Nerdosphere can convince the MSM to deal with something other than Naftagate and Cadscam.

2) It really is a long way until this becomes law. It can be killed in committee, or transformed such that it serves no CPoC interest, or it can be killed in the Senate. If the point is that C-484 dies eventually, then how it happens should be immaterial.

In fact, that it might expire quietly in some back-room or in the sleepy confines of the Senate would be a plus. People say "whip the vote", but the Libs have a small rump of committed SoCons who, in the state the party is in at the moment, may not fear the whip and, if it is applied, may decide they don't want to be Liberals anymore. I'm not sure that them leaving serves anyone's purpose.

So there you have it. CC wanted a response from a Liblogger and there it is. Come get some, dog breath.

Harper To Layton: You Are A Joy To Be Opposed By!

As the Liberals attempt to discover whether or not Stephen Harper bribed a dying man, the NDP decides that it must collectively bathe its pet hamster. Not that they're inactive up there on Parliament Hill. The problem is, Stephen Harper likes what they're doing!

Stephen Harper accused Liberal leader Stéphane Dion of smear tactics and praised NDP Leader Jack Layton for asking about what he considered more serious matters - the leak of Canadian diplomatic information that has affected the Democratic presidential campaigns.

The kiss of death for an opposition party: to be loved by the government.

Meanwhile, it looks like Quadra is safe.

Meanwhile, a question: if Bill C-484 can be quietly eviscerated in committee, or dies in the Senate, isn't that good enough?

Meanwhile, the MSM shows a pulse on Bill C-484. Thank God for Zerbie.