07.19.2011 08:05 AM

Hudak star candidate “Randy” Denley: women have abortions “simply for reasons of convenience”

  • “At a minimum we should expect our…government to discourage abortion as a choice, promote adoption and lead a debate on what abortion limits society might consider reasonable.” (July 6, 2008)
  • “On average, about 110,000 Canadian babies are aborted every year. That’s about half the number we take in through immigration.  If we need more Canadian workers, what better place to find them than from among these unwanted Canadian children?” (February 18, 2003)
  • “If we can reduce the number [of abortions], we’d all benefit.” (February 18, 2003)
  • “Canadian women have been able to end the lives of their unborn children simply for reasons of convenience and with no greater social approbation than one would face for cancelling an inconvenient dinner reservation.” (December 1, 1996)
  • “The people deciding to have these abortions aren’t young teens.  Ontly one in five is under 20….Most are people who ought to be old enough to know better, but society is winking and telling them what they’re doing is all right, just an expression of women’s rights.” (December 1, 1996)
  • “The notion that having more women running things will somehow make the world a better place is heartwarming but naïve…” (March 14, 1993)
  • “Society is hyper-sensitive to gender issues to the point where an inappropriate comment or pat can turn a man into a pariah” (November 26, 1997)


  1. Dave Roberts says:

    Whether a politician supports or opposes abortion on a personal level is irrelevant. What they plan or not plan to do about once in office is relevant.

    • sharonapple88 says:

      I agree. Which is one reason this bit is a little worrying because it talks about government action:

      “At a minimum we should expect our…government to discourage abortion as a choice, promote adoption and lead a debate on what abortion limits society might consider reasonable.” (July 6, 2008)

  2. Dave Redekop says:

    I am not sure where you are heading this discussion, but I do not think all personal beliefs reflect what any individual might enact as part of public policy. It may be helpful to know what these people have said or what they honestly beleive, but is it possible that a politician, given a specific audience, might throw that part of his or her base some red meat? Might they not know that in reality they cannot pass legislation that would even remotely enforce these beliefs? Have Liberal politicians never done this? (Bad example, Liberals generally believe in nothing) Have NDP politicians never done this? Do all Dippers think that every part of the economy should be nationalized or government run? Your effort to portray the enemy as radical fascists probably takes your case too far. Regardless of what you may think or write, the people who vote (and this is why I am happy to see average to low turn out) are the ones who take the time to actually research the issues, peel away the spin, and go to the polls with some resolution. I am voting NDP because the candidate in my rding is superior to all others. I am looking forward to working hard to getting him elected because we need bright, articulate and honest people making weighty decisions. Our riding is fortunate to have a federal rep who is the same, but he happens to be a Tory. Our mayor, while not running on a party banner, is a Liberal. Terrific leader and first rate person. As for me, Warren, I am post-partisan!

    • Attack! says:

      that’s so cute — in an elitist sort of way — but so completely without foundation that you think / claim that those who do vote in Canada are well-informed and have applied critical thinking to the issues and positions.

  3. Jim Hayes says:

    I wonder what Jack MacClleland and Randy Hillier feel about abortion.

  4. Cath says:

    Brian Lilley at his blog raises the follow really good points that no one has yet raised: Quoted from “Warren Kinsella May Have Just Given Me a Reason To Vote for Tim Hudak” thread. Lilley’s exactly right….there’s that old double standard snaking its way into the public venue without the public asking any questions……at least not until election day perhaps?

    “Here’s how I see this playing out.

    1. Dalton McGuinty will use this as an issue.

    2. Hudak will run away from it and claim that he has no plans to defund abortion.

    3. McGuinty will keep pushing that Hudak plans to defund abortion and preach to the dutiful media how awful this is.

    4. McGuinty will continue to receive the backing of the Ontario English Catholic Teacher’s Association and plenty of high profile members of Ontario’s Catholic establishment. No one will claim that any of this is a mixing of religion and politics. He will also continue to receive Communion at Mass.

    5. Pointing out that one nominally Catholic leader (Hudak) was once pro-life and while the other nominally Catholic leader (McGunty) is a cheerleader for taxpayer funded abortion up until the 9th month will be regarded as bad manners and an unnecessary mixing of religion and politics.

    I am waiting to be proven wrong on this.”

    • Warren says:

      People can, bona fide, have differing opinions on what is a very emotional issue. That’s fine.

      The issue, here, is that Hudak is a liar. He’s trying to appear pro-life to that constituency, and he’s trying to say “wink wink, don’t worry, I won’t do anything” to the choice constituency.

      He’s about to get squeezed by both.

      • Cath says:

        Yep, although McGuinty could be squeezed from both sides also, but we don’t seem to be challenging him, but I get why you wouldn’t do that……
        and this is going to require the same type of “choice” consideration. An issue which is seeing all leaders turn tail. I cringe that this will not turn out well for anyone.


        • The Doctor says:

          I don’t know that anyone has ever really used abortion successfully as a campaign issue in Canada, except perhaps at the local, constituency level. I guess there was BC’s “Bubble Zone” legislation, but even that didn’t dominate a campaign.

          So it will be interesting to see if this really has any legs as a campaign issue.

          • Warren says:

            viz., Canadian federal general election, A.D. 2000.

          • The Doctor says:

            Warren, you’d have to remind me about how exactly that one played out. In hindsight, I think one can persuasively argue that all three of those Chretien federal elections were a case of “doomed from the start” for the right-of-centre opposition, due to vote splitting between the PCs and Reform/Alliance.

            Also, as I recall, Stockwell Day was getting hammered for a whole bunch of things (e.g., the wetsuit, the cheesy “no 2-tier health care” sign during the leaders’ debate, forgetting which way a prominent Canadian river ran, believing that humans walked the earth with Dinosaurs, etc.). I guess what I’m trying to say is that I still don’t think abortion per se was the ballot issue in 2000, and I’m not even sure it moved that many votes. I honestly don’t recall Day saying much about the issue. But I’m willing to keep an open mind if someone can remind me of abortion-related incidents from that campaign.

          • Warren says:

            Took me two seconds to find this: http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/StockwellDay01.jpg

            I like you too much to say you’re full of crap.

          • The Doctor says:

            Well, I can certainly be full of crap, especially before my morning coffee has done its internal sanitation/purging work . . .

            Thanks for the link. I think it’s fair to say that Day was getting hammered from many quarters in that campaign about having socially conservative views generally, and his views on abortion formed part of that set of views. You worked on the campaign, I didn’t, so I’ll defer to you on how big a role abortion played.

            I’ve always wondered about abortion as a vote-getter and a vote-mover though. One of the things I find somewhat unique about the issue is the way it often transcends regular gender and ideological boundaries. For example, if you look at a typical collection of anti-abortion protestors (I used to live right near the Morgentaler Clinic on Harbord, so I used to see this all the time), there are very often as many women as men, and just as often as not, more women than men. The other thing you’ll find is people who are decidedly left of centre and “progressive” who, for religious or philosophical reasons, will be anti-abortion. You’ll also find conservatives who are decidedly pro-choice because they’re libertarian-type conservtives. For the record, I’m vehemently pro-choice btw.

            I appreciate, WK, the fact that the difference between federal and provincial politics, and federal vs. provincial jurisdiction, may mean that this issue might be a winner for you in this particular provincial campaign.

            I thought that Chantal Hebert’s recent article in the Toronto Star that touched on the federal politics of abortion was an interesting one:


          • Warren says:

            Yeah, raising Day’s views on abortion were a disaster for federal Liberals in 2000. My Lord, the backlash.

          • The Doctor says:

            I read Hebert’s analysis as being that “culture wars” (including, of course, the abortion issue) worked better for the Chretien-led LPC against Day than it did for the Martin-led LPC against Harper.

            Anyway, thanks for the info and clarifications.

    • Attack! says:

      um, I raised them here, on Sunday: particularly challenging his last, completely unsupported assertion that McGuinty even funds (much less “cheerleads”) abortions up until the last month


  5. Cath says:

    this issue was up here earlier but seems to have been replaced with more pressing news


  6. ““On average, about 110,000 Canadian babies are aborted every year. That’s about half the number we take in through immigration. If we need more Canadian workers, what better place to find them than from among these unwanted Canadian children?” (February 18, 2003)”

    Do we need child labourers? We could always have them working with Hudak’s chain gang.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.