05.12.2011 09:13 AM

Told you so

Here’s a Tweet from the CBC’s Julie VanDusen:

“Campaign life coalition says 65 tory mps are pro-life expect a private members bill in Fall to restrict abortion”

Last night, I was chatting with a pro-choice woman who likes some of the stuff Stephen Harper has done. She told me she felt Harper would never re-open the abortion debate.

I suggested this abortion PMB was coming in a Sun column a while ago, and was thereafter roundly mocked by my friends John Snobelen and Monte Solberg. They, too, said it would never happen.

Well, I guess it’s happening, isn’t it?

Oh, and any of you pro-choice women who voted Conservative? Spare the rest of us your expressions of regret, will you?

People get the government they deserve.


  1. Mark McCourt says:

    Too bad – it should be a government bill.

    • smelter rat says:

      Sorry to hear about your gender issues, Mark.

      • Mark McCourt says:

        The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the 1988 Morgentaler case that Canada’s criminal abortion law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, a majority of the court held that certain procedural requirements of the old law violated the Charter, including aspects of the therapeutic abortion committees and the requirement that all abortions be procured in hospitals, not clinics.
        A majority of the court also considered the substance of the former abortion legislation, and arrived at these conclusions:
        (a) protection of unborn human beings from abortion is a valid legislative objective;
        (b) Parliament is within its constitutional jurisdiction to enact a Criminal Code abortion law;
        (c) the Charter of Rights does not prohibit Parliament from passing a procedurally fair abortion law that restricts abortion to cases where the pregnancy seriously threatens maternal life or health, with “health” defined as relating solely to therapeutic grounds, ie., grounds related to physical and psychiatric health but not including matters of a socio-economic nature; and
        (d) federal abortion legislation may validly require independent medical confirmation of the genuine threat to maternal life or health before permitting an abortion, given society’s compelling interest in the protection of the fetus.
        Unfortunately, the Morgentaler case has left an abhorrent vacuity in the law. In the 23 years that have followed, unrestricted abortion in our country has resulted in the deaths of over two million unborn Canadians. Enough is enough: it is time for the federal government to address this national tragedy by introducing legislation in the House of Commons to protect unborn babies by recriminalizing non-therapeutic, elective abortions.

        • Michael says:

          “In the 23 years that have followed, unrestricted abortion in our country has resulted in the deaths of over two million unborn Canadians. Enough is enough: it is time for the federal government to address this national tragedy by introducing legislation in the House of Commons to protect unborn babies by recriminalizing non-therapeutic, elective abortions.”

          Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, NOT the death of an unborn Canadian. What would be a tragedy is if the state starts dictating to women what they can and can not do with their bodies.

          And here I thought that conservatives were opposed to government intrustion into our lives. Stupid me.

          • And here I thought that conservatives were opposed to government intrustion into our lives.

            They aren’t really conservatives of course.

            Anyway, if the pro-life people want a debate, I say bring it on. Canadians won’t go backwards on this one. They’ll lose, big time, and in the process the Conservative Party will fracture hard. Hoo-ray.

        • Dan F says:

          Since nobody is Canadian until they are born, your statement regarding “unborn Canadians” can’t be true

          Citizenship begins at birth

        • This McCourt character exhibits so many logical fallacies, it’s a wonder he hasn’t collapsed into a self-made singularity.

  2. Richard says:

    I would suspect that this could be the first of many such pieces of legislation introduced by this government, with possibly a same-sex marriage bill in the future.

    They’ve also already announced that they’re kinda sorta dropping that provision about balancing the budget by 2015.

    Parliament hasn’t even resumed sitting yet, and they’ve already got lined up one thing they said they wouldn’t do, and dropped one thing they said they would do.

    By the time they’re done with it, we won’t recognize Canada anymore. Many of us will be left shaking our heads wondering what Canada hath wrought upon itself.

    • >>I would suspect that this could be the first of many such pieces of legislation introduced by this government, with possibly a same-sex marriage bill in the future.<< I think private members bills are called that because they're not government sponsored bills. This is a dead issue ... move on.

  3. Joey A. says:

    But we have the most united and strong opposition for decades! That counts for something, right?



    • Tired of it All says:

      If this was Facebook, this post would get a “like”. The hangover has started. Happy Dipper vote splitters?

  4. Michael S says:

    Don’t blame me, my MP is a dipper.

    A private member’s bill is coming, as was mentioned in many Catholic and evangelical churches this past Sunday. My octogenarian stepfather mentioned that it got big play at a Ukrainian Catholic church in Calgary. It looks like a co-ordinated effort to communicate to MP’s on pressing for a whipped vote. Stephen Harper would be wise to avoid one, a whipped vote in either direction would be a bad start to a new mandate.

    Strategically, a near-miss caused by some absentee MP’s would be better politically for the anti-abortion movement than a narrow win, as it would wake up a dormant force.

    The MP for that part of Calgary? Rob Anders, of course. While the Ontario wing of the party walks and quacks like a centrist duck the western loons are rested and ready.

  5. Cow says:

    Agreed, except one thing: 65 doesn’t get you 155. Most of the pro-life Liberal MPs went down in the election. So they have to get 90 neutral or pro-choice MPs (Tory or otherwise) on side.

    Which I note is totally doable, but it’s not a done deal.

  6. Ted says:

    This will get very interesting.

    Harper has said, over and over and over again, this wouldn’t happen under his watch. In the last two elections, he used the cagey weasily words that his government “would not introduce” any such legislation. This time he went so far as to say such legislation would not become law under his government even if introduced as a private member’s bill.

    So if he is to keep that promise and a PMB is introduced, he’ll have a whole lot of hardcore religious right cabinet members who sure won’t be happy about having to vote down the PMB.

    Or, he lets them and breaks another promise. He’s broken more promises in 5 years than the last 5 Prime Ministers did collectively and, as Ignatieff pointed out during the election, Canadians basically said “so what”. Except with this promise, they will care and they will go to the streets and they will vote.

    • That I’m in full agreement with Gord here probably means a great cataclysm is about to envelope the planet.

      • cgh says:

        One other thing to add: nothing Julie Van Dusen ever reports can be taken without a whole cellar full of salt.

    • AmandaM says:

      The new way of things in Ottawa is that the government will use Private Member’s Bills as the way to get things done that are politically unpalatable for the Prime Minister, but maintains the far right alliance with the regular right.

      Not a judgment, just the latest info out there. Also, it makes sense to do from a certain perspective.

  7. pcase says:

    This and equal marriage were two items I mentioned MANY times to anyone I knew thinking of voting Con. i was summarily dismissed as being WAY OFF and an IDIOT. I started to believe them! If this does one positive thing, it makes me feel better about my own instincts and analysis. On the other hand, this would be a HUGE and sad step back for Canada.

  8. Jen van Kessel says:

    I too repeatedly expressed the view that this would come to pass. Gord and anne the Gord-lites abd Gord-esques around here denied that it would happen with such vigor that it defies explanation. So Gord(s) … Now it’s happening. What now? Still in denial? Or secretly cheering on the clawback on progress?

  9. DougCS says:

    First sign that Canada today will be a very different Canada in four years.

    Make sense though: introduce it in the fall and allow the Bill to be washed clean in a river of time that stretches over four years.

  10. Jim Hanna says:

    So the social conservative caucus is around 65 members? If the newly minted Toronto Conservative MP’s vote against the bill, its dead. In fact – despite knowing that Harper was lying through his teeth when he said it wouldn’t happen – I suspect that this may just smoke out the issue and Harper will use it to his advantage. The SoCons will propose, the bill will be voted down – Harper can go to the base and say we tried, and he can go to the electoroate and say, see, we voted it down, we’re not as bad as the proggies say. A bill like that could be win/win for him.

    • Cy Gote says:

      If Harper doesn’t whip an anti-abortion bill vote then he loses his theocon base and fractures the party. If Harper does whip the vote then he loses his non-theocon base and fractures the party. Looks like a lose/lose proposition to me.

  11. DL says:

    There could well be a PMB on abortion. Whether it would pass is another story. You can be sure that the 103 NDP MPs would vote NO en masse as would the Elizabeth May and the 4 BQ survivors. The handful of anti-abortion Liberal MPs mostly went down to defeat. I could count them on one hand – Kevin Lamoureux is an anti-abortion fanatic and maybe Jimmy K and then who? SO probably about 30 out of 30 Liberals would vote NO.
    In contrast, I suspect that there are more than a few Tory MPs now who are pro-choice. There were at least a dozen in the last house and many of the new Tory MPs elected in Ontario – people like Eve Adams or Chris Alexander or Kellie Leitch etc…I suspect will be pro-choice. Harper doesn’t want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. If it looked like there was the slightest chance that an anti-abortion PMB might pass – he would order all cabinet ministers to vote NO as well.

    I’m much more worried about the things Harper actually WILL do than I am in sounding the alarm and crying wolf about something that won’t happen.

  12. Tiger says:

    Okay, so sixty-five pro-life Tory MPs expect an abortion-focused private members bill to come up in the fall.

    At that point, fifty pro-choice Tory MPs band together with the opposition parties to kill it.

  13. Harith says:

    No surplus in 2014-15, no abortions, what’s next?

  14. jbro says:

    i’m not surprised either. also expecting a patriot act type clampdown (ie g20 toronto) on freedom.

  15. Mark McLaughlin says:

    A special interest group touting their special interest. Hardly ground breaking news here.

    If a private members bill comes up and if it passes, then you can claim “I told you so”. If some MP brings it up and it gets squashed then your hysterical claims were clearly overstated.

    MP’s can table kooky things without it being the policy of the party. Libby Davis tabled a 9/11 truther petition. It doesn’t mean the NDP believes that the US and Jews were behind the disaster. . . . Humm. . . .That might be a bad example.

  16. james curran says:

    I seem to remember you and all the conservative trolls coming on here when Warren and I wrote about this on our blogs telling us Harper would NEVER allow it. you know what Gord, you’re and the rest of your troll buddies are simply full of shit.

    • Jamie Rothwell says:

      But Gord’s an expert on everything. Didnt you get the memo?

    • Philip says:

      It was “political suicide” if I remember correctly. Harper was too smart, too center right and not in the grip of the fundimentalists and so on. Namesake, myself and others pressed the conservative posters pretty hard whether or not the base believed in a woman’s right to choose. Nobody answered. Well it sure looks like that majority changes everything, doesn’t it? No need to hide now is there?

  17. Anyone have any stats on how many private members bills are introduced each parliamentary session and how many actually become law?

    I mention this because it’s the system we’ve got and part of that system requires that we here things that we don’t necessarily agree with. I suspect that a member of the House of Commons could introduce legislation to make it illegal to drive a car – it doesn’t mean that it will become law. Harper wants to deal with abortion about as much as he wants to attend climate change conferences. This is simply not on his agenda.

    • Attack! says:

      Well, that historical record’s not really that relevant; this gov’t has repeatedly demonstrated it’s only too happy to be the first to do quite a number of things (prorogue to avoid a confidence vote; rebrand the gov’t acc. to the governing party’s colours and even its leader’s name; withhold key budget information; etc. etc.)

      And it’s clearly demonstrated that it’s willing to use a ‘false flag’ PMB in which it whips its own member’s votes and drives a wedge in the Opp. by using the media to pressure it into allowing free votes: witness Bill C-391: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), sponsored by Candice Hoeppner.

      Anyhow, apart from two non-substantive bills to establish historical monuments or recognition days, these are the 5 PMBs that have gone all the way (despite the three prorogues and needless election of 2008 that stymied so many others) under the CPC, while still in a minority position:

      39th Parliament, 1st Session:

      C-294: An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs)
      Sponsor: Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert)
      Completed: Royal Assent (2007-06-22)

      C-277: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)
      Sponsor: Ed Fast (Abbotsford)
      Completed: Royal Assent (2007-06-22)

      C-252: An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition)
      Sponsor: Rick Casson (Lethbridge)
      Completed: Royal Assent (2007-05-31)

      40th Parliament, 3rd Session:

      C-475: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy)
      Sponsor: John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
      Last Stage Completed: Royal Assent (2011-03-25)

      C-268: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years)
      Sponsor: Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul)
      Last Stage Completed: Royal Assent (2010-06-29)

  18. DL says:

    I think its actually good politics from an anti-Conservative perspective – to make abortion and issue and to make it as inflammatory as possible. It would expose divisions within the Tory party and could eventually help spark the creation of rightwing off-shoot or even a strengthening of the Christian Heritage party.

  19. fritz says:

    This is no surprise to me as it’s exactly what I predicted (during the election and on this site) would be the way the CPC would handle the right-wing social agenda in the coming Parliaments. I expect they will go after late term abortions first and try and restrict abortion through a number of smaller bills rather than one big one.
    Gay marriage is more problematic as they come against the courts if they try and go to far. My guess they will try and find some restrictions that can pass legal scrutiny but I don’t know what those would be.
    The benefit for the Tories in using private members bills is Harper doesn’t have to dirty his hands on the subjects and can kill them if they prove to be problematic.
    The key thing the opposition and press have to do is make Harper and his cabinet take a stand on these subjects which is the last thing they will want to do.

  20. Reality.Bites says:

    If a private member’s bill does come up on abortion (either directly or indirectly) I expect Harper will use it as an opportunity to publicly demonstrate how hard he’ll clamp down on the anti-choice members.

    Harper will instead concentrate on giving them stealth victories – things like foreign aid for women’s health, not defending the rights of gays and lesbians in countries where the issue is being killed, not getting married.

    But he’s not going to touch issues that actually affect the lives of middle and upper class white people who vote Conservative, like abortion rights and equal marriage. He’s a mean bastard but he’s not stupid. He also knows, despite how he spent years lying about it, the minute Jean ChrĂ©tien decided not to appeal the Ontario and BC court rulings back in 2003, any chance at reversing marriage equality was gone. No prime minister, not even one far more right-wing than Harper, is stupid enough to set up a situation where the required use of the notwithstanding clause guarantees a debate on marriage every five years.

    The socons have nowhere else to go. Number one lesson for groups of voters: If you’ve demonstrated you will only ever vote for one party, no matter what, then NO party has any incentive to do anything for you. The party you support will screw you every time, and the other parties will laugh.

    • Michael says:

      Albertans always voted PC. It was the one party they would ever vote for, they had nowhere else to go. When they felt ignored and taken for granted, they broke off and started the Reform Party.

      So they do have somewhere to go.

  21. Reality.Bites says:

    Oh, by the way – there is no greater group of liars in politics than CLC. They’re as honest as a Republican senator caught cruising in an airport toilet stall.

  22. Mohamed Mohamed says:

    We should be open to debate even on controversial issues. Frankly speaking we do need some law and if that laws goes to far we have the courts as a check. So, the fear mongering needs to be put in perspective especially considering the pro lifers probably don’t have the votes. When far more liberal/social democratic nations have some restrictions in place why is it radical to discuss why we have no laws in this area.

    • Reality.Bites says:

      This is a false argument espoused by the anti-choice types all the time and it’s utter nonsense.

      We don’t have a section of the criminal code dealing with nose jobs. Or appendectomies. It’s a medical procedure and the medical profession is more than capable of deciding proper procedures. And when they can’t, well then, it’s a PROVINCIAL issue. Health care has NO PLACE in the Criminal Code.

      Much as you anti-choicers pretend otherwise (and shame on you for not admitting what you are), the lack of a law has worked just fine for 23 years. Who cares what other countries do? How about coming up with some examples of a real (not imaginary) problem in Canada an abortion law is needed to fix?

      • Gord, I agree and think that’s a real tough call, and your last paragraph is remarkably moderate. Fundamentally, pro-choice is pro-life because choice does not mean termination. It means the right to decide, free from the strictures of faith-bound cretins and over-politicized “the body is the beginning and end types.” I know a number (OK, only 3) of women who chose to keep their child, precisely because they had the room to breath and ponder the decision. They are pro-life pro-choicers. Wrap your head around that!

        Although teenage boys don’t know where life begins. They just know what fear is. Well, the smart ones do.

      • Reality Bites says:

        Abortion, despite what you’d like to be the case, is a legal medical procedure. Euthanasia is not. Selling of organs is not. Should that ever be changed then, once again, it’s up to the provinces to regulate.

        As for the rest of your anti-choice screed, you’ll have to find someone else to play with. I have a lot of confidence in the abilities of the doctors of Canada to decide on moral on ethical issues. I have NO confidence in the abilities of Conservative MPs to do so, as their filthy conduct during the marriage debate demonstrated clearly they have neither morals nor ethics.

  23. Michael S says:

    You know, in a Bizarro World Canada the Natural Governing Party would be an anti-ideological Conservative party, the Perpetual Opposition would be a “Liberal Democratic Party” that comes and goes from power based on reluctant coalitions and the perpetual protest party with 35 +- 10 members would be some hard right wing entity that emerges from the prairies.

    The hard core right wing eventually splitting off might well be part of SH’s realignment strategy.

  24. It isn’t at all surprising that the social conservatives who have been under Harper’s thumb since 2004 would spring out of the woodwork so soon. As a number of folks here have commented, Harper himself isn’t a so-con, he’s just been using them. They know it too.

    Is this political agenda and angst running through one third or more of the party strong enough to cause a rift? While I’ve always doubted they had the fortitude to threaten Harper directly, it would be a delicious outcome to see strongly so-con MPs march off to the Christian Heritage Party or something of their own creation.

    What would that look like? They might continue to support Harper in a coalition but sit (for arguments sake) as CHP members to develop their brand until the next general election. Harper would do well to call a quick election but would suddenly find constituency associations need purging and rebuilding. Oh what a mess that would be.

    Liberals could take advantage of the chaos. New Democrats certainly would.

    Somehow I doubt the hard right so-cons are going to head down this road because it a road to political oblivion.

    • Tiger says:

      It’s not likely, but anything is possible.

      This election should have made that clear…

    • Patrick Hamilton says:

      They said that about Reform too…….

      • Reform wasn’t a social conservative movement so much as a geographically centered conservative movement, and it was on the road to political oblivion until it broadened its horizons, dropped (most of) the extremists, embraced new Canadians (admittedly using their tendency towards social conservatism), and broke out of its geographic shell. Reform on day one is not the same as the Canadian Alliance on its last day and certainly isn’t the same as the Conservative Party in the present — there has been substantial transformation.

        If the more radically minded so-cons broke off as a rump party they would by their own definition have limited appeal. If the vote in so-con ridings were split it is entirely likely that NDP or Liberal candidates would take over. Even if they were able to hold on to every single seat, what would they do with that? Propose legislation that the Conservative Party – now liberated of these people – would be free to oppose, along with the NDP and most Liberals? How does that get them anywhere?

        I for one hope for such a schism if for no other reason than it would make politics pretty interesting for a while but doubt it’ll happen. We should be so lucky.

        One would hope Harper won’t continually placate these people — at some point he needs to show them, again, who is boss. Somehow I doubt the kindler, gentler, Harper we’ve seen occasionally since the election is the Harper that caucus sees. He was ruthless before becoming leader; ruthless when he was leader but had no chance of winning an election; ruthless in the pursuit of power. Is that trait going away? No, there’s no evidence that it should.

        For that reason I expect extremist so-con moves to be squashed, and if they persist and it foments a breakup, Harper will let them march off to political opinion if he can’t squash them any more.

        Naturally there is an outside risk that Harper is so attracted to power that he gives full quarter to the more extreme views in order to hold his coalition together, but then he’s got the other two thirds of his caucus to answer to and at least half of them are likely to be uncomfortable enough that it would force a show down. Who does Harper hang on to? The more extreme one third or the more centrist two thirds? It’s much easier to replace the extremists.

        Anyway… this isn’t exactly an “I told you so” moment. The March goes on at the Hill at this time of year, each year.

        • Patrick Hamilton says:

          If there has been a substational transformation Mr. Watkins, why are you and I no longer active in the party?…….at least in my riding, old school Reformers(including a large majority of socons) run the show….to the person, all former members of the executive who came from the PC side have either left, become inactive, or joined the Liberal Party…..the Fraser Valley is not Van South, and I suspect my electoral district reflects your typical Con riding much more closely than your own.

          Mr. Harper may be pragmatic enough to ride herd on the socons, but for how long?…..at any rate, pragmatism aside, he is a socon himself, and how long will it be until “to thine own self be true” wins out?….

          Personally, I hope for internecine warfare, and a wholesale purging of the socon element from the party.
          Then maybe we can get back to the Progressive Conservative Party that I knew and loved so well until we fell under the siren song of merger.

        • Jan says:

          Some old ideas don’t die. Cummins, now of the BC Conservative party has come out stating that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Randy White – who thinks homosexuality should be criminalized is also still involved politically. He is one of those working to close Insite. I think it’s naiive to think these ideas are no longer with us.

          • Patrick Hamilton says:

            Wonder how he feels about a former colleague, John Baird, and a certain Minister of Curry in a Hurry, and J.A. and P.P. and……..

            PS is that you BC?

  25. Cath says:

    on first blush consider the source VanDusen + CBC = pile-on pap.

    secondly just because VanDusen says so in a tweet doesn’t make it so.

    Also, let’s extend the list of pro-lifers to the Liberals too. Our former Liberal MP was and still is a pro-lifer. I’m pro-choice and conservative. I simply stopped believing the CBC long ago.

    Are we sure this isn’t a hook by the conservatives to throw the CBC off of some other issues of the day? Maybe a another Liberal ploy to deflect the media from the LPOC mess – and cure their “obsession”.

    There ARE many possibilities I’m thinking.

  26. JStanton says:

    This is the best political news I’ve heard in years, and I hope this bill reaches the house. I hope that bills to severely curtail gun control are formulated and introduced. A bill to curtail same-sex marriage, or, better yet, to criminalize homosexuality would be fantastic. Bills to permit massive purchases of new American weapons systems, further erosion of the Eastern manufacturing sector to privilege the Western commodity extraction industry, and to curtail bilingualism is just what we need. Bring it on.

    Because, until Mr. Harper actually fulfills these promises to his constituency, those cretinous, lame-ass Liberal punk betrayers that elected him won’t grasp that Mr. Harper is actually NOT A LIBERAL.

    Oh, he sounds like one, and he has often acted as if he is one, but he isn’t. And when he shows his spots, it’s just possible that Conservative voting Liberals might wake from their well-fed somnolence, and feel, it is hoped, a deep and lasting remorse, a kick in the nuts of such magnitude, that they never, ever betray the progressive elements of our society again.


  27. Dr.J says:

    Nothing is going to change however, the crap from the left will continue…..Who broke the story, the CBC…what a shocker…when this issue is put to bed what are going to be the new CBC/Liberal “HIDDEN AGENDA” talking points going to be? I know that the Liberals think the PM is a dummy or something… however he likes power to much for this issue, sorry now come up with the “SAME SEX MARRIAGE” talking point but the result will be the same. Weren’t the Liberals just saying 2 weeks ago the PM is a control freak and controlled anything?

    • smelter rat says:

      Shooting the messenger again Doc? Fuckwits like you make me puke.

      • Philip says:

        It’s always about how the story is delivered with this crowd, never about the actual content. If this was such an important issue, which needed to be fast tracked to the fall session, then why wasn’t it brought out in the light of day during the election?

      • Dr.J says:

        Nice language and making you puke? well maybe you should lose a couple……must be tough being a Lib nowadays as your chatter doesn’t matter anymore

  28. Lisa says:

    Of course this is true. I believe Harper only said his government wouldn’t introduce the bill. He never said he would oppose a private-members bill. And if he doesn’t support this, he will continue cutting money to groups that support a women’s right to choose and find other creative ways not to cover the cost of abortion. I really have no idea how any woman could ever vote for this party or man. And yes, we get the government we deserve. Unfortunately, those of us that didn’t believe Harper are included in that.

  29. Patrick Hamilton says:

    I had the same conversation last night with a gay friend who voted Con…..next up…..same sex marriage……

    Whats the Ronnie Milsap song?….”Lost in the Fifties tonight”….could be the Cons theme song…..

    Unless Mr. Harper wishes to stir up a hornets nest, I suggest he tells the Charles McVetys and David Kraydens of the party to back off…..

  30. eattv says:

    Maybe if your team can get their shit together within the next 4 years, the Tories will have by that time extended you the favour of playing all their worst ‘hidden agenda’ – style cards.

    Until then, Don’t Blame Me, I Voted NDP.

  31. DL says:

    “The socons have nowhere else to go. Number one lesson for groups of voters: If you’ve demonstrated you will only ever vote for one party, no matter what, then NO party has any incentive to do anything for you. The party you support will screw you every time, and the other parties will laugh.”

    Isn’t that what Brian Mulroney thought – and then the Reform Party was created!

    • Reality.Bites says:

      Oh definitely – it can backfire on a politician. But those voters went on to prove my point again – they went en masse to a new party that once it finally merged back with the PCs, went on to betray absolutely everything Reform ever stood for (thank goodness!).

      It’s telling that you’ll find far more bitterness expressed towards the Conservative Party and Harper on FreeDominion than on any centrist or leftist site.

  32. Liz J says:

    Talk about last refuges of scoundrels! I call the Liberals scoundrels for constantly trying to draw Stephen Harper and his government into the Abortion debate because it is their last refuge. If Liberals were smart they’d can the gotchas and get on with the process of rebuilding to provide the country with an opposition with the capacity for reasoned thought, something the Dippers lack.

    • Ron says:

      Well put Liz
      We’re basing this all on a “tweet” from a CBC employee…

      And if it does go through (which I do not believe at all) it would be the fastest way for the Liberals to make a comeback

      He ain’t opening the door that easily

      wow only 2 weeks into a new mandate and we already have the abortion debate…figured it would have at least waited a month…those impatient Liberals

  33. Hugh Whalen says:

    Political Folderal (sp?) like “We will abolish the GST” and “We will renegotiate NAFTA”.

    Ain’t gonna happen. Don’t sweat it.


  34. Jimmylegs says:

    Let me see if I follow this correctly: Warren Kinsella says that Julie Vandusen says that Campaign life coalition says that the Conservative government will restrict abortion? Did I miss anyone?

    Well that’s nothing, my cousin’s poolboy says that his car mechanic’s mother said that her McWaitress said that Dalton McGuinty’s final back bencher was going to outlaw the cheeseburger. I guess it’s pretty serious.

  35. Rick says:

    Wow, 65 MPs want to introduce a PMB. The last I checked, 65 is not half of 308.

    If this is allowed to go forward it’ll be shanked on purpose; Harper simply won’t whip the vote, thus guaranteeing its failure, just like the first gay marriage vote.

    In 2015, gay marriage will be legal, and so will abortion, and I’ll put money on it with anyone who cares to bet.

    • JamesF says:

      Echo this. Harper will just ensure that the PMB will fail behind closed doors he’ll “whip” enough votes (if needed) to see it go down in defeat. It’s a half-bone thrown to the so-con base to keep them in line and donating money even though they still won’t get what they want and he’s throwing it to them soon so that the moderate folk will, he hopes, forget about it in 4 years time.

  36. Africon says:

    What a load of blog !

    Can’t any of you clucking hens READ ?

    “Campaign life coalition says 65 tory mps are pro-life expect a private members bill in Fall to restrict abortion”
    Last night, I was chatting with a pro-choice woman who likes some of the stuff Stephen Harper has done.
    She told me she felt Harper would never re-open the abortion debate

    NB the words –
    “private members bill”
    ” restrict abortion”

    All of this is a far cry from a “Government Bill to ban abortion.
    It would appear from this poll that there is a lot of differing opinions on the subject with all sorts of positions between Pro Choice and No Choice.


    • Reality.Bites says:

      Pretty pathetic when a push poll conducted by an anti-choice lobby group can still only manage to manufacture 27% support for their position.

    • DaveInMapleRidge says:

      “Abacus surveyed 1,007 adult Canadians on April 28 and 29. The poll found 59% of Canadians believe there should be some restrictions on abortion as pregnancy proceeds.

      More than one quarter of Canadians, 27%, said that human life should be protected from conception onwards, 21% said there should be protection after three months of pregnancy and 11% after six months. Only 22% agreed with the status quo which is no legal protection until a child is born.”

      From the Sun article … looks like there is room to use this as a wedge issue all right. The question is, who will get the better end?

      I like the last line, especially.

      Libs, keep on defending that status quo to the last MP. After all, 22% is an improvement over 19%.

  37. Bruce M says:

    The Liberals finally see the light….A little late: You guys were told to start a culture war to win the next election, mainly because your remaining policy cupboard was bare and your policy heritage is on the rocks (expanding state controls and economic meddling.) So, how do you enflame a culture war? Abortion. It is the acid test which can be applied to any candidate, any party. No matter how wrong-headed every other policy may be, its the best way to hold a constituency hostage.

    Its sad. Its lazy. And its the most divisive politicing since the Réné Levesque took francophone Québec as his hostage.

  38. JH says:

    The sky is falling! the sky is falling! C’mon, I think you folks have a lot more things to do then get worked up over every flight of fancy coming down the pike. That is, if you are really serious about rebuilding the Liberal Party. It’ll not happen with this mickey mouse ‘affront of the day’ stuff from the CBC taking up all the air in the room.

  39. brucewayne says:

    Yawn…..so harper is responsible for the speculation of a special interest group now? What’s next? Human sacrifice? Dogs and cats living together? Mass hysteria?

    • The Doctor says:

      Exactly. Yawn. Nutbar/crackpot/podunk backbencher MPs threaten to launch private member’s bill relating to their pet cause.

      In other blockbuster news, the sun rose in the east this morning, and is expected to set in the west this evening.

      • Attack! says:

        and yet, here so many of you are, camped out, kibbitzing the kibbitzing of an unpaid, marginalized member of a third-place, rump party.

        So who’s more pathetic: the two old retired guys grousing about all the new-fangled rules of the bank in those TD commercials, or rubber-necking hecklers who watch and critique their every move?

        Aren’t you lot supposed to be back to work, focusing on the economy? Move along, get a life, there’s nothing to see here.

        Or did they kick you out of the hospital waiting rooms, where you were snickering at the distraught families and mocking their false hopes?

      • Ron says:

        Human Sacrifice????????
        No one told me about that part of the hidden agenda….why didn’t I get a memo…man that pisses me off
        Who’s running communications??? Someone from the Liberal war room…damn you just can’t get any good help

        • Philip says:

          No you got the memo alright. The humour is a little flat but all in all it is exactly what you were supposed to post. Thanks once again for confirming the Conservative Party’s hidden agenda.

          • Ron says:

            it ain’t hidden if we all know about it

          • Philip says:

            It might have been helpful to be up front with the Canadian voters though. But there is no truth in you is there?

          • The Doctor says:

            But the point is, what a CBC reporter claims that Campaign Life claims about 65 CPC MPs (out of 166 such MPs) is not proof of the CPC’s agenda, hidden or otherwise. Even that number is a MINORITY of the Tory caucus. Can you not do math? If the CBC had some smoking gun memo saying that the government intended to introduce a bill, that would be quite another matter. That would be proof of a party/government agenda. Can you not see the difference?

            Of course, if you want to do the standard partisan dance and claim that every eruption from the back benches is proof of the government’s evil designs, go ahead. My bet, for the record, is that this government will not bring in any law restricting a woman’s right to an abortion. Just as it says in the CPC platform. And I would love to compare notes with the likes of you 4-5 years from now, to see who was right.

    • smelter rat says:

      65 members of his caucus are a special interest group??

      • The Doctor says:

        I believe the poster was referring to Campaign Life, which is definitely a special interest group.

  40. W.B. says:

    What amazed me was how the media swallowed the Harper post election spin that he was moderating going to the centre and would govern for all, and to prove it he walked down Spark Street and the reporters said, “wow what a believable guy, I know we can just trust him at his word.”

  41. Jon Powers says:

    Warren, do you actually believe that all Liberal and NDP politicians are pro-choice?

  42. Harvey Mushman says:

    So what will the Liberals have to campaign on in 2015 if all the scary things they say Harper is going to do (destroy our democracy, ban abortions, abolish free health care, soldiers with guns in the streets…ad nausea…) don’t actually happen come the next election?

    Will they say…”Harper was only laying low in his first majority government…if he gets a second…watch out! he really, really will do this stuff then!”

    Likely “scary Harper” will still be the 2015 campaign message…it’s so much easier to formulate than actual policies.

  43. Africon says:

    Seems to me that there are a lot more than 65 MP’s that approve of capital punishment considering the deafening silence from the NDP and Lib MP’s about OBL’s execution.
    Heck nobody seemed to be too concerned about his lack of even a trial.

    Same goes for that Ghadaffi chap.

    One thing’s for sure, a developing fetus is a whole lot more innocent than those two……..

    • Attack! says:

      That’s the second time you’ve raised that “Silence is the voice of complicity” allegation against the other parties about the Bin Laden killing.

      And in this case, your noise is the voice of duplicity, inasmuch as you raise it in the context of arguing that there’s a lot more tacit support for both Capital Punishment AND recriminalizing Abortion than progressives might want to acknowledge, and thus that maybe those PMBs SHOULD proceed: but these are the very areas that the PM and the Gordos have pledged will NOT be brought back by this gov’t.

      So, first, be clear: are you saying, as a CPC supporter, that those will and should be reintroduced and that you hope they pass?

      And second, just because there hasn’t been public protests of the US action doesn’t mean there’s universal approval of it; there’s a number of reasons people are keeping their powder dry:

      – the timing: announced the night before the election, and with a series of conflicting information about the circumstances (was it a firefight with an armed OBL, or not?) there was no time for the ordinary appropriate parties to react; and,

      with the weariness, the news vacuum, and devastation of the Lib. Opp. ranks afterwards, there was little inclination for the shell-shocked survivors to stick their necks out and comment on it and get savaged for daring to question it, like Mulcair tried to do (but tripped over himself doing, the first time, and was ignored when he tried to clarify it, the next day)

      – the agency: it wasn’t a Canadian action, it was a U.S. one; should we be rushing to judgment on our chief allies’ actions? We’d be ripped to shreds for even being the least bit critical, and a thousand-fold if it was done hastily on the basis of erroneous info.

      – the murky facts: with a hazy, continually changing story from the US admin, only gradually being contested by the survivors of the raid

      – the circumstances: it was a military action, not a judicial system one (so it’s not really a case of capital punishment at all, since there was no trial), and it was complicated by the international law complications of even a forced extradition not being sanctioned by Pakistan, which is suspected of knowingly harboring him.

      I expect there’ll be an official comment by both the NDP and the Libs eventually, once they sort out their positions and appoint the Shadow Critics.

      But what bugs ME is how certain Cons’ slagged Ignatieff as somehow being a monster for even (allegedly) contemplating such a thing as the extrajudicial killing of Saddam Hussein — a known genocidal leader — in order to spare the unknown thousands of lives and the untold destruction that would ensue from declaring outright war on Iraq post-911…

      … but no one’s said ‘boo’ about Harper signing off on the news of OBL’s killing with ‘sober satisfaction,’ even though HE was probably given the real story in a private briefing, right from the get go.

  44. Craig Chamberlain says:

    Perhaps this “info” is intended as a safe trial balloon to test exactly what the opposition is to it. If there is a mass shrugging of shoulders watch for it as soon as they can agree to the final wording of it.

  45. Michael Reintjes says:

    I’ll say it again..it will never happen…..no matter how much some hope it will..

  46. H Holmes says:

    Too bad this is one of the many issues that has split the liberal party for the worse.

    Let judges decide this.

  47. Kevin says:

    Warren, you are using the old Liberal “guns in the streets, soldiers in our cities (sic)” baloney that Canadians didn’t buy in the first place! Dare say, are you also part of the old guard who should be put out to pasture? Come on man, it will never pass. Scaring anyone but Liberals doesn’t work anymore!

    • Ron says:

      doesn’t want Ontarians focusing on McGuinty and the upcoming election
      expect a number of “look over there” scenarios from WK as a distraction
      He is the spin master and only doing his job

  48. does scott reid have a brain says:

    Ah, I was wondering when the old Mr. Kinsella would reappear. For such a sensitive subject, is there anything wrong with a debate on such issues from time to time? This is a democracy. It would be interesting read how Mr. Kinsella would reconcile his LIBERAL and Catholic beliefs on the topic appropriateness of third trimester abortions when the fetus is viable and could be adopted if the mother did not want to raise him or her. If Mr. K is serious about actually running for office some day, he’ll have to answer questions instead of just throwing gasoline on a fire.

  49. Anthony says:

    Does anybody really feel that it is appropriate we have absolutely no abortion law in this country? Are there no limits on this practice? If not, what is reasonable? I can’t believe all you sheep already assume the worst has happened and abortion will suddenly become illegal in this country, all because of some Tweet. Are you people really that gullible?

    • TDotRome says:

      Yes, I do feel that’s appropriate. Everyone’s body is their own, and let no other individual infringe upon that. It is the ultimate freedom. And, even a mere whiff of infringement stinks to no end.

    • Dan F says:

      I feel its appropriate that we have no abortion law in this country. Life begins at birth.

  50. Dave roberts says:

    It’ll only take another 90 opposition MP’s to support this making the chances of this legislation pass exactly zero. Nice fearmongering though.

    • The Doctor says:

      Yeah, and fearmongering about the insidious Hidden Agenda has worked so wonderfully well for the LPC the last few elections — I mean, their seat totals have continued to climb and climb as a result of this brilliant tactic — so obviously more of the same is in order . . .

      Who was it again who famously said that the definition of stupidity is to do the same thing over and over but keep hoping for a different result? Obviously that bit of wisdom has not been embraced by the LPC and many of its hard-core supporters.

  51. What’s really funny is that most of the comments here are from men. Um, dudes, we have like … NO … opinion on the issue. Seriously, like whatever we say is irrelevant … completely and utterly moot. When we men become capable of getting pregnant outside of a lab or something, maybe we can have an opinion – otherwise all this talk is moot.

    Just looking at the pics from the big rally – a lot of men there – I suppose they are ballast, but as for an opinion, nope.

    • Attack! says:

      So, by parity of er, reason, white Americans had no opinion on the morality of owning non-white slaves and thus no basis for fighting the Civil War? It was, what, a mindless reflex?

    • Anthony says:

      I have four children, and I can tell you that my opinion is VERY relevant.

    • H Holmes says:

      So do father’s have no choice about how to raise a family or about adoption.

      The supreme court is full of men that will ultimately decide this.

  52. Michael says:

    Why is it that pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty?

    • myntje says:

      That’s a myth. You have no evidence for it other than you own bias. If it suits your purpose to believe it, go ahead. I’m against the death penalty but the answer to your question is simple. A murderer has killed an innocent person and, is guilty and should be punished. An unborn child has done nothing wrong and is therefore innocent and does not deserve punishment. Doh!

      • Grant says:

        I thought children are born guilty sinners according to religious myth? They haven’t been baptized, either.

        By the same reasoning that anti-choice people use: how do you *know* the unborn child won’t be a murderer? It could be the next hitler, the next stalin!

        How are you sure that the “murderer” is actually a murderer? Aren’t you concerned about the risk to people falsely convicted?

        Lastly, why would a religious person, who believes that “god” will do all the necessary punishing, think that they should do any themselves? Have they no faith in the judgments and punishments of their infinite superior being?

        “Doh” indeed.

      • Michael says:

        Life is not something granted by the state, to be taken away as punishment for some misdeed.

  53. Phil in London says:

    I told you so is maybe a little premature and probably not going to come to fruition.

    Here’s the personal stand on both same sex marriage and abortion/choice; I couldn’t care less on either issue.

    If it became law people would go to other jurisdictions for an abortion much like they now do for all kinds of procedures from MRI to surgery. There is a place called the USA where all this can be done. Anyone faced with the decision to carry to term or abort would not have the procedural cost at the top of the list.

    Do men have a say? At the home level yes, a husband and wife should make that decison together. A single woman with no male support is a different story. I just don’t see the need ot have a law, I see the need to regulate the procedure like any other for safety and of course cost. I would have no problem with it being a procedure you pay for like a circumcision.

    However, I am not opposed to anyone chosing to abort or not abort. That decision is up to the person(s) who got themselves in that situation.

    So, when there was a law why was Henry Morganthaler performing abortions left, right and centre? Because people were willing to push for it.

    Gay marriage is an equally non-important issue. Homosexuals just want the ability to call a spouse a spouse. There are a lot of straight people who don’t get married and a lot whose marriages fail.

    These just aren’t turn back the clock issues and whether or not a few MPs want to make it an issue it won’t happen. The government is too smart to put that divisive issue in front of people. I look forward to posting a solid I told you so when the term of government is over.

  54. dave says:

    In a way this reminds me of today’s Supreme Court hearing of arguments about the Insite in Vancouver. Health is provincial jurisdiction, while criminal law is federal jurisdiction.

    For what it is worth, here is my take on abortion:
    In the 1950’s, as a teenager, I knew two peers, and in the 1960’s, one lady friend, who went away for an ‘operation.’ In the 1950’s, it took me about six months before I realized what had happened. The two girls from the 1950’s simply disappeared from my life. I never saw or heard of them again.
    Since the law has been changed, I have known personally people who have had an abortion.

    So, for me, abortion will happen when it is against the law, and will happen when it is within the law.
    As a community, we decide whether it will occur under safe medical conditions.

    I opt for safe medical conditions.

    • Patrick Hamilton says:

      My mother was an RN who, while she didnt believe in abortion as a form of birth control particularly, she did believe in a womans right to choose. I asked her once how she came to that point of view.

      She told me that she had nursed women who had undergone “back alley” abortions who later were admitted to hospital with raging infections, in a great deal of pain, and who subsequently died from septicemia.

      That is when she became an advocate for safe, legal abortion.

  55. Miles Lunn says:

    I agree it will be introduced, but as I stated all along, the Tories needed 180 seats to have any chance of passing it and 200 seats to ensure its likelihood, so it will go down in defeat. For starters the NDP is 100% pro-choice while the Liberals have had some pro-life MPs in the past, although I am not sure if any are left as most of those ridings are now held by the Conservatives never mind much like the Gun Registry, if it passed second reading on a free vote, I am sure it would be a whipped vote on the third reading. In 1987, most PCs voted to re-instate the death penalty on Bill Domm’s private member’s bill, but enough PCs broke ranks combined with a united opposition against it that it failed. Now I should note the PC Quebec caucus voted overwhelmingly against reinstating capital punishment while their English Canadian caucus mostly for it and considering Harper has relatively few Quebec MPs his caucus will probably be somewhat more socially conservative. Even with the gains in the GTA, I am not sure how much difference that will make as outside of the urban core, much of the suburban GTA is fairly socially conservative especially amongst the immigrant communities and all the Tory pickups were in the suburban 416 and 905 belt, not the urban core.

  56. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Sir, your average male is nothing more than a sperm donor……when you as a male carry a child to term, undergo a perhaps long and painful delivery, nurse the child as well as care for it,

    and struggle as a single parent because your partner has skipped town then I think your point may have some validity….until such time, men, (including yourself, I presume), should butt

    out of a womans business.

    • AmandaM says:

      I think everyone except the woman and her physician should be butting out.

      We don’t insert ourselves into debates around most other medical procedures, so why this one? Who is arrogant enough to think that he or she has something to say about what I, as a woman, decide to do with my body or with the next 20 years of my life? Where were you when I needed support as a single parent? Where were you when my mother needed support for my disabled brother? Is it ONLY if I get knocked up you think you can tell me what to do? I’m considering laser eye surgery – do you feel the need to tell me what to do on that procedure – it’s a fundamental alteration of my body, so you might have something to say.

      This is not a “societal” issue, so I’m not sure why society thinks it has a right to comment. There is no blanket answer to the question. Like any other life-altering medical event, the only time it needs an answer in the first place is when a woman finds out she’s pregnant, and it’s her decision, hopefully with the support of her partner and family, but not necesarily.

      **you = royal you**

  57. Jane says:

    I can’t stand this. I have been a reader of your website for a number of years but have never participated in any discussions. But no more. My bona fides will come out over time. This is a predominately male website but this abortion discussion is so beyond a male’s perspective that I finally have to jump in. For this discussion, I am a woman, mid 50’s, two children, married 26 years. I am absolutely pro-choice. That said, there is far more to this topic than the black and white, pro-anti sides and I can see both sides. I have never had an abortion but have certainly had a few times (2 or 3) where it could have been a possibility while I was single and married. Do not for one minute think that this is ever an easy decision. In youth, yes, as time progresses, no. That said, I know MANY women who have had abortions and they ALL, and I can’t stress this enough, ALL, talk about the child (yes, the child) they aborted and the fact that not a day goes by they don’t think of that child they aborted. Abortion should never be not allowed, but there is way more room for the discussion about the repercutions. As well, there should be a law regarding late term abortion. Whether you men like it or not, when that baby starts kicking, you can no longer fool yourself that a child is living inside you.
    Again, I want to stress, I am absolutely pro-choice, but there needs to be more education regarding the alternatives, the emotional repercussions and maybe, just maybe, some of those that are anti-abortion are trying to prevent the emotional melt-down (that they may have personally experienced) to a future generation.
    Not that this is right, because we all know (or should), you make your bed, you lie in it.

    • Perspective says:

      Thanks for your sensible comment. I’m always baffled when the Liberals try to turn this into a binary choice wedge issue when it is a very complex subject. I think a lot of people resent the subject being shoved at them this way in an election. These issues can be debated, discussed, whatever word one wants in the course of a government mandate. We’ll have four years to evaluate this government instead of the 30 second fear mongering ad in an election. Either way, the Cons prove the fear mongering correct and pay the price at the ballot box or the Libs will have to move on to other finding some other lame scare tactic.

  58. Bart F. says:

    It would be fun and nostalgic for Liberals to re-fight an old battle they feel so passionate about.

    Harper and his cabinet, however, will decisively squash anything like this.

    But that will be for the best. Liberals will be able to keep their eye on the ball. The ball being developing a set of principles, and eventually choosing an effective leader to sell those principles.

  59. Steve T says:

    I will make a bet of $1000 (donated to the charity of your choice), with anyone who wishes to step forward, that even if a PMB is introduced that significantly restricts abortion, it is resoundly defeated. It thereby will have the same effect as a PMB to end healthcare, privatize the entire government, outlaw the colour red, or whatever other conspiracy theories you happen to have.

    So, all you doomsayers, put your money where your mouth is. Or shut up.

    • Attack! says:

      Tell you what: why don’t you apply that indignant, ‘Truth in Catastrophizing’ lens to all the fund- and vote-raising — and vote suppressing — infoalerts, attack ads, ethnic media interviews, and stump speeches that the CPC has issued over the five and a half years, and REFUND all the millions of ill-gotten donations and OVERTURN all the distorted election results founded on the CPC’s “conspiracy theories”…

      and then maybe we’ll talk about the Lib’s S’ngTFU cuz we’re getting on your nerves.

      Or maybe, if it’s to be a pay-to-play arrangement, we’ll just take up a $1,000 collection to bribe WK to get YOU supposed free speech and liberty lovers to STFU on his site, and accept only Progressives’ comments.

  60. Reality Bites says:

    Anti-choicers like to pretend that late-term abortions happen all the time, and for frivolous reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. They happen – rarely – to save the life of the mother.

    No matter how much they lie about it, women are not showing up at their local clinic having suddenly decided, after months of pregnancy, that all of a sudden they don’t want to give birth. And if they did show up, they would be turned away.

    Doctors have ethics and morals.
    Anti-choice lobbyists and politicians have neither.

  61. Grant says:

    But the *tissues* surrounding the early human’s lifecycle are exclusively the woman’s tissues. 🙂

  62. wilson says:

    ”unrestricted abortion in our country”

    If abortions are unrestricted in Canada,
    why do women in Quebec, past 22 weeks, have to travel to the US for an abortion?
    Why are women in Saskatoon, past 12 weeks, denied publicly funded abortions?

    Abortions ARE restricted in Canada,
    restrictions set out by the Provinces, and College of Physicians and Surgeons.

  63. hitfan says:

    The Supreme Court of Canada deemed Pierre Trudeau’s abortion bill to be too restrictive in 1988. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that parliament is well within it’s rights to make abortion illegal outside those cases where the life and health of the mother are at risk. There hasn’t been a law about an abortion since then.

    Why not have a vote in parliament on an abortion law? Harper does not want to touch the abortion issue, but he has a pro-life caucus to deal with.

    The vast majority of abortions are because of unwed teen mothers and poverty. Many European countries have a ‘cut off date’ when abortion is illegal, I think that is the proper route to take. At some point the “mass of cells” starts to have a significant stream of conscience and deserves legal protection.

  64. AmandaM says:

    Just had to post because the captcha code is “TWAT”


  65. Matthew says:

    Oh my, the apoca-liberals are already screaming that the sky is falling. Let’s assume that the pro-lifers are accurate in saying they have 65 tories on board (and every lobby group has an incentive to inflate their numbers). That still leaves 101 tories who aren’t with them, plus 142 opposition MPs (most of whom are pro-choice). So a private member’s bill would go down in flames by about 243 to 65 votes. Please take the appropriate anti-anxiety medication and move on.

  66. jen van kessel says:

    So…I think am getting the gyst here. The socons here think that because it’s a PMB and the King of all Truth-tellers, PM Steve, has committed to no government sponsored bill banning abortion, you all think that the anxious reaction to this bit of news is just catastrophizing, whining liberal crap. Nothing to worry about here…a few anti-choicers aren’t going to get that bill passed. No sirree. Our Prime Minister said it would not happen.

    If the PMB focused on something else that would never pass…but maybe BOTHERED YOU MORE…would your dismissive and patronizing attitudes remain?

    How about a PMB that suggests certain people shouldn’t vote. Probably wouldn’t gain traction because it is a crazy-ass idea and offensive at it’s core…but it would most definitely be alarming to people who care about human rights that their elected representatives might consider such a vile proposal. And it might make such concerned people worry about the larger party that those people belong to and what their commitment to human rights might actually be.

    So piss off with your contempt for my worry about this issue. When there are reasonable reasons to think this might happen, I pay attention. And so should you.

    See you at the rallies.

  67. Joyce Arthur says:

    There’s nothing magical about predicting a private member’s bill. At least 26 bills have been introduced since 1989, an average of just over one a year. http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/anti-bills.html. So they’ll keep on pumping them out regardless of who’s in power or the chances of any bill passing. The only question is: HOW MANY will they have the confidence to introduce in the first year of their majority? Two to three, I would expect.

    Oh, and there are at least 99 anti-choice MPs in Parliament now, not 65. ARCC will be posting an updated list by tomorrow after doing more research on the “Unknowns”, but the preliminary breakdown is as follows:

    99 – Anti-choice (95 Cons, 4 Libs)
    139 – Pro-choice (26 Libs, 5 Cons, 4 Bloc, 1 Green, 103 NDP)
    70 – Unknown stance (66 Cons, 4 Libs – including 30 newly-elected Cons and 1 newly-elected Lib)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *