LPoC on Abortion Rights: Thumbs Up Or Down?

I dunno.  But at least I can see the reasoning behind this one (whereas the sense of holding open nominations continues to elude me.  Because nobody cares about process issues and the only news stories it will generate is when a nomination goes to heck).  Anyway, the reasoning is that the LPoC thinks there are votes for the taking in the NPD pond, and is willing to move towards that party a bit on a 2nd tier issue to grab them.  I'm not saying it will work; I'm just saying it was probably a calculated move, not Justin getting out of the shower one morning and telling the first reporter he met about this great new idea he had. 

After all, something similar did work for Kathleen Wynne.

Kyle Seeback, CPC MP For Brampton West, On Abortion And Rape

“If life begins at conception then abortion is taking a life. I don’t think that [abortion] is an appropriate response to a terribly traumatic event (rape),” he said.

“To say that because you went through a very terribly traumatic event (rape) — of course it was — you can then end someone else’s life? To me it just didn’t make sense [anymore].”

That is all.

Gruending On The One Year Anniversary Of The Harper Majority

Its all good, but I'll just highlight a bit that seems especially pertinent:

It is worth noting, however, that Conservative backbenchers continued to bring forward private member’s bills that could curtail a woman’s right to abortion. We can expect religious conservatives to keep applying pressure, even as they continue to support Harper as their preferred alternative.

I received, by way of example, an automated telephone call late in the campaign from Jim Hughes, chairman of the Campaign Life Coalition, asking me to support the Conservative candidate in an Ottawa riding. Shortly after the election in May, a National March for Life event drew about 10,000 people to Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Their clear message to the Harper government was that the abortion debate is on again.

Note that the message was to the Harper government and not the nation at large.  That's because in the suddenly reopened abortion debate competing factions with the Canadian Right are arguing with one another more so than with the rest of us.  And this cannot help but damage the gov.: while the PM and party  brass encourage their people against the Woodworth person-hood motion, the grass roots vow to struggle on.  So while I suppose its a hassle to have to retread old ground, its always good to get into a gunfight with opponents who are using half their ammo on one another.  Pro-Lifers wanted to reopen this argument; now they get to lose it over and over again until Woodworth's motion is finally killed off in a vote this summer.  And they get to blame the federal conservatives for their ongoing humiliation.

On April 26th, The Abortion Debate Gets Briefly Re-Opened

Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s motion M-312 calling upon Parliament to debate whether an unborn child is a human being and the human rights implications of those findings, is scheduled for debate on April 26.

As Kady O'Malley notes through the link, I can't see the Harper gov. letting this one pass, even if the only result would be the striking of committees.  Presumably this whole exercise is to allow his SoCon wing to blow off a little steam.  The trick will be how he manages to engineer the motion's defeat without making it look too obvious.

Take Note, Nervous Nellies

In Canada, if you argue about putting abortion into your maternal rights plan, or if you argue for a science-based policy in regards to the long-form census, or if you argue for maintaining the long-gun registry, the polls all turn your way eventually.

Progressivism is in our blood, is part of our DNA. All you need to do is persevere.

Canadian Life Coalition Demands Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda's Resignation

...for her Abortion flip-flop. They're also calling her a "pro-abortion activist".

And I'm not sure quite how I feel about it. On the one hand, its stirring up just this kind of dissatisfaction within the Conservative base that justifies, politically, making the lack of abortion funding in the gov's G8 Maternal Health initiative an issue.

On the other hand, Oda's latest statement shows--here, and in the case of the Tamil Migrants, and in the case of the flying, veiled Muslim women--that the Harper government is capable of doing the right thing once they've achieved a certain temporal distance from their own rhetoric. Because, in the end, after spouting alarmist nonsense, the processing of Sun Sea refugees has by all accounts gone forward in an exemplary (meaning humane) fashion. And after pandering to the Sun Media crowd for a couple of days, the nonsense about possible Muslim terrorists flying Air Canada while veiled has been allowed to die away (because, seriously, how could having terrorists on board make an experience with Air Canada significantly more crappy?).

Though I disagree with Wells: the CLC response to Bev's back-peddling demonstrates that the SoCons will not let Harper and Co. off lightly for this most recent display of human decency.

And, more importantly, if you think that Canada's response to refugee ships might be a little more firm, or if you think that you really should have to match your face to some piece of photo ID before boarding an airplane in our country, this whole Harper gov. tactic of masking a commitment to the status quo behind inflammatory rhetoric trivializes your debating points.

On Controlling The Discourse

Over at my Christian right article in The Mark, Christine suggests that the failure to pass anti-abortion legislation does not necessarily constitute a defeat for Canadian SoCons:

Voice-giving is a powerful thing, and the Christian right have it. I have to disagree with you that having private member bills put together and lost somehow reduces the power of social conversavitism and religion in Canadian society. Whether a bill passes or not, that kind of attention and positioning in authoritative dialogue is meaningful to cultural identity and impacts individuals relate to one another, change or confirm their values and make sense of the world around them. The passage of a bill as some concrete victory or loss is only part an event around which ways of thinking are suggested, questioned or naturalized in our society.
-Christine

Wise Talk

...about the next couple of weeks from Steve V:

Let's keep it real, the tough guys are facing the most likely scenario of a reduced mandate, worst case an outright loss. Not ignoring the Liberal challenges in the polls, we're hardly facing a Conservative juggernaut, that should strike fear in the opposition.

[...]

...I don't care what the Conservatives say, nor do I buy this idea that this is the excuse Harper is looking for to go to the polls. Harper has one more crack, anything but a majority and the united Conservative veneer will evaporate. The Conservatives want to choose the timing, and they desperately want a managed campaign, wherein they set the election parameters. If would submit, the idea of kicking of a campaign, faced with thwarting the will of Parliament, supported by our constitutional "referee" is the least desirable scenario imaginable.

I'd add a couple of points. The immediate time-frame we're looking at is from now to mid-May, and I suspect the Guergis thing still won't be out of the news by then. Furthermore, the "A-word" is back in play because of the upcoming G-8 meeting and Bruinooge's divisive but go-nowhere Bill C-510.

And I can't see what other hot-button the gov. can press to offset all this stuff. Bill C-232 has had very little coverage, despite the attempt to use it to rile up the base. And an anti-CBC campaign? Please.

Finally, I really doubt caving on detainee docs will harm the Tories any more than engineering an election over the issue would. Remember, some of the mud is likely to splatter on the Paul Martin government. So why not?

A Poll For The Freeping

Do you think Canada should fund abortion services as part of a G8 initiative to improve the health of mothers in poor countries?

Sure its a pointless on-line poll. And, sure, if you rush over there and vote now, and the Globe reports the result as through it had really done a scientific sample, then you will have advanced a political agenda by aiding the spread of an untruth. So? Life's funny that way! What, did you trust fall off the back of a turnip truck?

PS. Doesn't look like you can vote twice just by deleting cookie files. Good thing, because that would be wrong.

Still Batting Under .500

So retired police officer Frank Chauvin has finally returned his snow-flake to protest Henry Morgentaler being named to the Order of Canada two years ago. He'd originally promised to do this back in 2008, but then seemed to have a change of heart. Yesterday, though, Chauvin made it official, and the GG accepted his resignation.

For anyone whose counting, nine recipients of the award have threatened to return their award over the Morgentaler appointment. Mr. Chauvin is only the fourth to have actually done so.

PS and possible whoopsy! This story adds a couple more to my list of resigners. Tough nuts; I'm not changing the header.

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.

Harper, Abortion, And The Tory Base

Keith Martin has some (unusual for him) wise words:

With respect to the thorny issue of abortion, Mr. Harper should embrace the standard medical position championed by the World Health Organization, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and indeed previous Liberal and Conservative governments. This position is to support women’s access to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal. Many members of the Conservative government may have their own personal opposition to abortion, and this must be respected. However, they do not have the right to force their views on others when it runs counter to the prevailing scientific consensus. “Not opening the abortion debate” means respecting the status quo, which has been our nation’s position for many years. If the government claims to be pro-life, certainly they would want to reduce the current toll of 63,000 women a year who perish as a complication of a botched abortion and the hundreds of thousands of children who die as a consequence of their mother’s passing. Furthermore, how can our government actively deprive women from the poorest countries in the world of the same rights and access to medical procedures that women have in Canada?

In this next bit, Martin describes Harper's "out" over the abortion issue:

Mr. Harper can square his opposition to abortion while implementing an effective plan to reduce maternal and childhood mortality by proposing that each G8 country take the lead in one of the inputs required to address this tragic situation. For example, Canada could be the lead nation on training healthcare workers and micronutrients, another country could focus on providing medications, another on access to family planning and safe abortions, etc. In this way, a comprehensive plan that focuses on enabling the world’s poorest to access basic primary care services can be implemented, with the G8 countries dividing responsibilities and target resources.

This was the same means by which the 2nd Bush administration finessed the problem: who funds what would be re-shuffled so that Canada would not be paying for overseas abortions--another country willing to cut the cheques would do that. On the other hand, no policy change necessitated by any defunding would be required, because the overall funding levels would remain as they were.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the route eventually taken.

Lets see how it plays on Lifesite.

Thanks For Pointing That Out

From today's Star:

There has been no...apology from Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott for his unflattering depiction of women seeking abortions, which also applauded Saskatoon doctors for restricting access to abortion services.

"Pro-life feminists have ... come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available," said the controversial MP in an anti-abortion news release sent out Nov. 20.

And another story here from the Calgary Sun. The statements come from a news release posted to Vellacot's website on the 20th, and reported by me on the 21st. Today is the 25th, and it looks like its only being reported because the Oppo parties picked up on it yesterday. C'mon MSM, chop chop! You're supposed to be ahead of the game in these things. I'm not supposed to be doing your job for you! I mean, it's like those girls always used to tell me: BCL this is crazy: I should be paying you.

PS. Anyone looking a nice bit of recent (unremarked) Tory stupidity can look here, wherein Stockwell Day asks who can forget Silken Laumann's Olympic triumph? and proves that he certainly can.

MP Maurice Vellacott: Saskatoon Doctors Should Be Commended For Reducing The Availability of Abortion Services

“The bottom line is that the decline in the availability of abortion services is directly linked to a growing commitment to the medical evidence of what abortion does and how abortion negatively impacts the lives of women. Saskatoon’s doctors should be commended for the leadership they are showing by reducing the availability of abortion in our city...."

From a news release posted to his website last evening. I guess this begs the question: are Saskatoon Doctors inappropriately imposing their moral values on their patients? Both the original Star Phoenix article and Vellacott's congratulatory press release suggest that this is the case.

And another nice quote:

Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available.

Just three points off a majority, folks.

File Under: Not Surprising

From Western Standard:

According to news reports, police have detained a suspect in Dr. Tiller's murder. The suspect, Scott Roeder has connections to Operation Rescue, as documented here (yes, normally I would have qualms about the source, but everything is well supported with supplementary links.)

It appears that Roeder is also a tax protestor, linked to the Montana Freemen, a group that -- if not exactly libertarian -- espouses libertarian-like views about individual sovereignty and the illegitimacy of government.

FWIW, wiki describes the Freemen as a "Christian Patriot" group. Quite a few of its members are doing time.

Quite a "nuanced" discussion over at the Western Standard. Of course murder is wrong, and yada yada yada...

Meanwhile this report is looking quite prescient.

A Note On Mr. Bruinooge's Behavior

I have been informed that Mr. Bruinooge's wife will be having a baby within the next day or so. That might go some ways to explain the timing of this.

Nevertheless, here's hoping everything goes smoothly and congratulations to the family.

Pro-Life Or Not Pro-Life: The Campaign Life Coaltion List

...is here.

Looks like the preliminary info I provided yesterday evening, which gave NDP MP Wayne Marston and Green Party candidate Amy Collard as Pro-Life, was incorrect.

Update: RB notes in the comments that Marston's responses to the CLC questionnaire are prototypically pro-life, but he is described as pro-choice in their notes. Color me confused.

Gruending On Gerwing And Morgentaler

Dennis Gruending discusses a decision by the family of Alphonse Gerwing (specifically, his nephew and sister) to return the man's Order of Canada medal over Henry Morgentaler's being made a recipient of the same medal:

I don’t know how it was decided that Al’s Order of Canada medal should be returned. Al never married so there was no immediate family to make such a decision, but at least one relative has expressed his displeasure with what has happened. Jim Gerwing, a former Benedictine monk at the monastery near Humboldt, wrote a letter to The Globe and Mail on July 23. “The Order of Canada was not given to the Gerwing family,” he said, “and they have absolutely no right to return it simply because they disagree with the fact that Henry Morgentaler is also a recipient. Canada should not accept the return of such an honour unless it is explicitly written into the deceased person’s will.”

It does sound as though Alphonse Gerwing was pro-life. But there is a long leap of reasoning from that fact to the conclusion that he himself would have wanted his snowflake returned. Preston Manning, after all, has kept his.

And here is Jim Gerwing's letter in its entirety. I agree that the families of Order of Canada recipients should not be able to exploit a medal they are not entitled to in order to score political points.

The Politics Of Morgentaler

Another great piece by Dennis Gruending:

Mr. Harper’s comments regarding the Morgentaler appointment can be seen as political. He has promised that his government will not attempt new legislation regarding abortion, although there are three Private Members Bills at various stages that do deal with aspects related to abortion. Harper’s position will have disappointed many in his political universe. By questioning the Morgentaler award he sends a sympathetic signal to his socially conservative base but without having to do anything about it. His base may demand more.

Bet they don't get it. For example, yesterday Jason Kenney went direct to LifeSite with his concerns over the appointment:

Today Conservative MP Jason Kenney, a Minister in the Department of Canadian Heritage, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about his reaction to the nomination. "I'm deeply disturbed by this nomination," he said. "It violates profoundly the spirit of the Order of Canada which is a symbol that is supposed to unite Canadians. Instead, the advisory council has chosen to divide Canadians."

Kenney added that "those members of the council who made this deliberately contentious choice were more interested in using the Order as a vehicle for their own political views on a contentious issue rather than as a unifying symbol of great achievements which is what the Order was created for."

Harper has distanced his Government from the decision saying, "I have to say this clearly: This is not a decision of the government of Canada."

Kenney concurred, noting further: "There is a provision in the Order which requires the Council to consider rescinding the Order from individuals who after their appointments end up with criminal records or reprimands from their professions. When the constitution of the order was crafted, they didn't even bother to make that apply to prospective nominees because it was at the time probably unthinkable that they would seriously consider a nomination for someone with such a background as this."

...but so far he has been too scared to voice them to any mainstream publications.

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.