Archives for March 2010

This article is weak, insofar as he claims to not be able to find up to date statistics polls on abortion in Canada, which means he is dismissing the annual Life Canada poll, which means he has his ideological blinders on. (Andrea adds after the fact that abortion statistics are indeed very hard to find.) I think this is what happens when your office lies in the shadow of the CN Tower. Go west, young man, go west.

But I liked this part, which is very true, so let’s focus on the positive. Also, this drives the pro-abortion side crazy, because they know it:

Also, the voices of the pro-life movement are younger, there are many younger women heading the movement, and their arguments go to both the well-being of the mother and unborn child. By contrast, the abortion-rights movement has been highly visible in opposition to very popular measures, including bans on intact dilation and partial birth abortions, parental involvement, enhanced informed-consent provisions for women seeking abortions, and the like. I think since the late 1990s, pro-lifers have seemed more reasonable in tone and substance.”

And do vote in the Globe’s online poll about the morality of abortion. I know it’s unscientific. I know people tell others to vote. Do you think the pro-abort side doesn’t have exactly the same capacity to do so? And so it’s all fair, in the end. I tend to note that pro-lifers are very passionate. They’ll vote, they’ll raise this issue, they’ll tell others… and the other side is old and grey and self-satisfied. They are above online polls. I actually enjoy watching our side push the thing in the right direction so that latte-loving, condo living downtown Toronto types are forced to raise an eyebrow.

For those of you who’ve been following the adventures of James O’Keefe in Louisiana:

NEW ORLEANS – Federal prosecutors filed reduced charges Friday against conservative activist James O’Keefe and three others who were accused of trying to tamper with the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office.

The new charges are contained in a bill of information, which can only be filed with a defendant’s consent and typically signals a plea deal. The new filing charges the four with entering a federal building under false pretenses, a misdemeanor. They had been arrested Jan. 25 on felony charges.

Pro-life? Pro-choice? Pro-abortion? Anti-abortion?

How about “abortion rights advocate” and “abortion rights opponent“?

I am against this twisting of language. One, it’s unreadable. Two, it encourages a lie, since there is no such thing as a right to abortion or “abortion rights.” Oi ve.

An event at Ottawa U on March 31:  

Dr. John Patrick and Dr. Rene Leiva

Wednesday, March 31
7:30 pm
University of Ottawa Campus
Colonel By Hall, room B012

For more information go to Ottawa Students 4 Life 

Great, great speakers and therefore promises to be a great event.

Is it me, or does this story keep getting better?

___________________

Update: Better, and better…

FYI:

Oh to be a fly on the wall of the Liberal caucus this morning.
After tabling a motion about child and maternal health, hoping to use contraception and abortion as wedge issues on the Conservatives, the Liberals got caught in their own wedge Tuesday, losing the motion by a vote of 144 to 138.
While much of the focus was on three Liberals who voted with the Conservatives – Paul Szabo, John McKay and Dan McTeague – a bigger factor in the vote was perhaps how many Liberals didn’t show up for the vote.
While the House of Commons journals recounts who voted it doesn’t name the no shows.
While all parties had missing MPs who weren’t paired, the Liberals were missing far more than anyone else, 13 out of 77 MPs – or roughly one out of every six members of their caucus. Either a particularly virulent strain of flu is ravaging Liberal ranks at the moment or some Liberals decided to duck the vote.

Here’s who missed the vote in alphabetical order:

Angus, Charlie – NDP
Calkins, Blaine – Conservative
Dion, Stéphane – Liberal
Guarnieri, Albina – Liberal
Hughes, Carol – NDP
Jennings, Marlene – Liberal
Kania, Andrew – Liberal
Karygiannis, Jim – Liberal
Kennedy, Gerard – Liberal
Kent, Peter – Conservative
Lee, Derek – Liberal
MacAulay, Lawrence – Liberal
Malhi, Gurbax – Liberal
Neville, Anita – Liberal
Rafferty, John – NDP
Roy, Jean-Yves – Bloc Québécois
Tonks, Alan – Liberal
Volpe, Joe – Liberal
Wasylycia-Leis, Judy – NDP
Wrzesnewskyj, Borys – Liberal

Don’t look at me like that – it’s not me saying it:

In a recent interview with the Hill Times, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, an otherwise pretty sensible MP, manages to offend a very dangerous constituency: stay-at-home mothers of young children.

I say dangerous, because as such a new mother (or technically, a work-part-time-from-home-into-the-night-while-my-nine-month-old-sleeps single mother) I can attest that the exhaustion involved can sometimes turn even the cheeriest parent into a crazed zombie.  Dr. Bennett risks life and limb if she campaigns near any mom-and-tot playgroups in the next federal election.  And in case she thinks people will forget her words, the family-friendly Tories will undoubtedly plaster them at every Rainbow Songs and Gymboree class in her riding of St. Paul’s.

Here is what Dr. Bennett said, while criticizing the record of the embattled Minister for the Status of Women, Helena “Air rage” Guergis:

“Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care; that is the key to their economic independence, to be able to get back to school, to get a real job, to be able to go to work.”

Ah yes. Because these little ones just raise themselves, right?

_____________________

Andrea adds: I disagree with the idea that Dr. Carolyn Bennett is “otherwise sensible.”

A splendid column about the Liberals’ stance on abortion.

The Conservatives haven’t gone near abortion in four years of power, and show no desire to. Their proposal to champion greater support for the health of women in children in low-income countries stayed well clear of the issue, for the very good reason that good health doesn’t require abortion in any way, shape or form. Beating at it with a stick, as the Liberals insist on doing, just distracts from the main goal, which is to improve the conditions of people who need it.

Canadians may have accepted that there’s little chance we’ll ever reach a national consensus on abortion, and that it’s better not to fight about it, but that’s not the same as active support. Let this issue out of the box and there’s no telling what damage it will do, and to whom. Establishing itself as a party determined to promote liberal abortion policies may please the Bob Rae faction of the Liberal establishment, but there’s no evidence Mr. Rae’s personal views command support from the majority of Canadians. As was shown yesterday, they can’t even carry the caucus.

So, the issue is settled, right?

Interesting to note that while people vote and debate and talk endlessly (or so it seems) about the need to include abortion in maternal health initiatives in the Third World, a relatively simple measure that would punish those who attack pregnant women more strongly right here at home stagnates.

It’s good that we have our priorities straight.