Of course we all know that Harper never lies or changes his position, on deficits, coalitions, the OAC, China, or Afghanistan.
Abortion Debate By Stealth
- Thread starter blackrock13
- Start date
Closer and closer we are to the debate, again
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/796025--tory-mp-introduces-coerced-abortion-bill
OTTAWA — A Conservative backbencher has come forward with a new bill on abortion, despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s insistence in recent weeks that the hot-button debate wouldn’t be reopened in the Commons.
Rod Bruinooge, chair of the all-party pro-life caucus in Parliament, has introduced a bill that would penalize anyone who “coerces” a woman into ending her pregnancy against her will.
Bruinooge insists he’s not trying to push the Commons into a debate the Prime Minister has specifically banned, arguing that nothing in his bill would make it illegal to obtain an abortion.
“This bill doesn’t affect gestational limits or access to abortion in Canada,” Bruinooge told reporters Thursday morning. “It’s something that in fact doesn’t reopen the abortion debate but it does make it a crime to threaten or intimidate a woman into abortion.”
But opposition critics say Harper is playing games.
“The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons very clearly and directly that he did not want to reopen the question of abortion in Canada and yet we have one of his members of Parliament bringing that question to the floor,” said New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton. “So you have got to wonder what is really going on here.”
“How is an abortion bill not an abortion bill?” said Liberal MP Anita Neville. “This certainly introduces discussion into the House of Commons and it is a rather sneaky way of doing it. The government hasn't got the courage of bringing it forward in a straightforward way to appeal to their base, so they are doing it in a back-door way and I think it is deplorable.”
By “coercion,” Bruinooge said he is not talking about counseling services for abortion, but he is talking about cases in which parents, for instance, might withhold financial support from daughters who have abortions.
The Prime Minister’s Office, meanwhile, is not saying how it views Bruinooge’s legislation, though it is rare for Conservative backbenchers to hold news conferences and introduce legislation without the PMO’s consent.
“Our Conservative Government will not initiate or support any legislation that reopens the abortion debate,” Andrew MacDougall, a spokesperson for Harper, said in reply to a request for the PMO’s view on the legislation.
Last month, as the Commons was embroiled in a debate over whether abortion was included in the government’s foreign-aid focus on maternal health, the Prime Minister and other cabinet members said repeatedly that no one wanted the controversial debate reopened in Canada. Harper has been in fact sticking to this line since January, when Liberals began asking questions about abortion and maternal health.
“I don’t want this Parliament to have an abortion debate,” Harper said.
MacDougall stressed on Thursday that Bruinooge’s legislation is a private member’s bill, but it isn’t unusual for the PMO to wade into that territory when it’s controversial or a hot-button Conservative issue. The government threw its support, for instance, behind a Conservative backbenchers’ bill last fall to dismantle the long-gun registry.
And in 2008, on the eve of the federal election, another Conservative backbencher’s attempt to make an abortion-related law – the “unborn victims of violence” bill—was explicitly withdrawn by the Conservatives because of similar PMO fears of stirring up the abortion debate in Canada.
“My suspicion is that he has had push back from his base on the maternal-health issue. This is a way of satisfying the base,” Neville said. “I was struck by the fact that he allowed the long gun registry bill… and lo and behold, it appealed—it appeared in the speech of the Throne. Are we to expect this piece of legislation to appear in the next speech of the Throne?”
Bruinooge, who hopes that debate on his “coerced abortion” bill will start in the Commons in coming months, said he was moved to draw up this legislation because of the 2007 murder of a young woman in his riding, Roxanne Fernando.
Fernando was killed after her boyfriend attempted to force her into having an abortion and she backed away from the decision. Bruinooge says he’s satisfied that Fernando’s killers have been punished severely, but he’s hoping that a more specific law against coerced abortions would deter similar crimes in the future.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/796025--tory-mp-introduces-coerced-abortion-bill
OTTAWA — A Conservative backbencher has come forward with a new bill on abortion, despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s insistence in recent weeks that the hot-button debate wouldn’t be reopened in the Commons.
Rod Bruinooge, chair of the all-party pro-life caucus in Parliament, has introduced a bill that would penalize anyone who “coerces” a woman into ending her pregnancy against her will.
Bruinooge insists he’s not trying to push the Commons into a debate the Prime Minister has specifically banned, arguing that nothing in his bill would make it illegal to obtain an abortion.
“This bill doesn’t affect gestational limits or access to abortion in Canada,” Bruinooge told reporters Thursday morning. “It’s something that in fact doesn’t reopen the abortion debate but it does make it a crime to threaten or intimidate a woman into abortion.”
But opposition critics say Harper is playing games.
“The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons very clearly and directly that he did not want to reopen the question of abortion in Canada and yet we have one of his members of Parliament bringing that question to the floor,” said New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton. “So you have got to wonder what is really going on here.”
“How is an abortion bill not an abortion bill?” said Liberal MP Anita Neville. “This certainly introduces discussion into the House of Commons and it is a rather sneaky way of doing it. The government hasn't got the courage of bringing it forward in a straightforward way to appeal to their base, so they are doing it in a back-door way and I think it is deplorable.”
By “coercion,” Bruinooge said he is not talking about counseling services for abortion, but he is talking about cases in which parents, for instance, might withhold financial support from daughters who have abortions.
The Prime Minister’s Office, meanwhile, is not saying how it views Bruinooge’s legislation, though it is rare for Conservative backbenchers to hold news conferences and introduce legislation without the PMO’s consent.
“Our Conservative Government will not initiate or support any legislation that reopens the abortion debate,” Andrew MacDougall, a spokesperson for Harper, said in reply to a request for the PMO’s view on the legislation.
Last month, as the Commons was embroiled in a debate over whether abortion was included in the government’s foreign-aid focus on maternal health, the Prime Minister and other cabinet members said repeatedly that no one wanted the controversial debate reopened in Canada. Harper has been in fact sticking to this line since January, when Liberals began asking questions about abortion and maternal health.
“I don’t want this Parliament to have an abortion debate,” Harper said.
MacDougall stressed on Thursday that Bruinooge’s legislation is a private member’s bill, but it isn’t unusual for the PMO to wade into that territory when it’s controversial or a hot-button Conservative issue. The government threw its support, for instance, behind a Conservative backbenchers’ bill last fall to dismantle the long-gun registry.
And in 2008, on the eve of the federal election, another Conservative backbencher’s attempt to make an abortion-related law – the “unborn victims of violence” bill—was explicitly withdrawn by the Conservatives because of similar PMO fears of stirring up the abortion debate in Canada.
“My suspicion is that he has had push back from his base on the maternal-health issue. This is a way of satisfying the base,” Neville said. “I was struck by the fact that he allowed the long gun registry bill… and lo and behold, it appealed—it appeared in the speech of the Throne. Are we to expect this piece of legislation to appear in the next speech of the Throne?”
Bruinooge, who hopes that debate on his “coerced abortion” bill will start in the Commons in coming months, said he was moved to draw up this legislation because of the 2007 murder of a young woman in his riding, Roxanne Fernando.
Fernando was killed after her boyfriend attempted to force her into having an abortion and she backed away from the decision. Bruinooge says he’s satisfied that Fernando’s killers have been punished severely, but he’s hoping that a more specific law against coerced abortions would deter similar crimes in the future.
And by what colour of right has this so-called person, taken up residence within her body against her express efforts to have it leave? This is an entirely new way for the law to look at op-pressing women. Unless by your logic, she can demand the police remove the newly human trespasser, nay the assaulter, and lay charges. Then the baby can sue because the parents 'coerced' it into existence inside the body of someone who didn't want it there instead of in some nice clean legally problem-free lab glassware.
Nice bon mot but the issue is what the unwanted different DNA is doing in the woman's body and why anyone but her should have any say about it staying there or being removed.
In fact if it has weight at all, your quip seems to support abortion.
Every child a wanted child.
You're half right. The fetus gets half of it's DNA from the mother and half from the other guy.
Human view
FAST
I don't normally agree with you, but....... this the point, isn't it.
FAST
In fact determining precisely this sort of stuff is precisely why we have panels of learned judges who listen to thoughtfully reasoned and evidence-based arguments and rebuttals before pondering and finally reaching their conclusions. To do that they can only go gase-by case, and from each judgment a precedent will arise for the next.
It is for the legislators to clearly articulate their overall intent. Full stop. The more tightly they try to define in the abstract, all the minute details that will nonetheless constrain every possible case the less likely they are to succeed, and the more mess they will leave for the judges to have to straighten out. Read their attempt to define child porn and yet to allow a Shakespeare play about fourteen-year-olds fucking.
What this legislation clearly represents is Harper's sop thrown to his cowed backbenchers, so they can imagine they're making 'progress' on their anti-abortion fixation without having to face down their more politically astute leader. A man who knows well enough to leave the matter alone.
For now.
It is for the legislators to clearly articulate their overall intent. Full stop. The more tightly they try to define in the abstract, all the minute details that will nonetheless constrain every possible case the less likely they are to succeed, and the more mess they will leave for the judges to have to straighten out. Read their attempt to define child porn and yet to allow a Shakespeare play about fourteen-year-olds fucking.
What this legislation clearly represents is Harper's sop thrown to his cowed backbenchers, so they can imagine they're making 'progress' on their anti-abortion fixation without having to face down their more politically astute leader. A man who knows well enough to leave the matter alone.
For now.
Last edited:
this private members bill was introduced by a conservative, was it not? Harper is way too much of a control freak to let that happen without his approval.
The motion I was referring to is to establish a committee to debate/discuss when life begins, not what blackrock was referencing in post 53. Harper is no fool. He has stated that he will vote against the motion. The NDP will vote against, the Liberals - who knows, I don't believe it will be a whipped vote. Even if the motion passes, nothing from the committee will ever reach the House. IF you take Harper at his word.
It's foolish to imagine anyone of influence has formulated a real plan to get first one, then the next step taken in Parliament to eventually criminalize abortion again. But it's equally foolish to imagine that means there isn't a sizable number of MPs and people MPs listen to who would cheer wnever they saw one of those incremental steps taken. This silly committee and its juvenile raison d'être are a fine illustration of that, although it gives the proponents much too much credit to call it an abortion debate by stealth.
The point to remember is that there's always someone who thinks they know better than you, and that they should have the power of the law to help them force their better opinion on you. The only way to protect your own rights to be free of that, is to protect everyone's rights, even if that goes against what you'd prefer.
As to abortion: Until we can force everyone to carry their progeny to term, we cannot rightfully force only women.
The point to remember is that there's always someone who thinks they know better than you, and that they should have the power of the law to help them force their better opinion on you. The only way to protect your own rights to be free of that, is to protect everyone's rights, even if that goes against what you'd prefer.
As to abortion: Until we can force everyone to carry their progeny to term, we cannot rightfully force only women.
