Press conference yesterday, some people already unable to put politics aside and just say, Hey. This. Makes. Sense.(It’s a motion, not a bill, so like M-312, no legislative teeth.)
by 
Anti-discrimination motion in the House of Commons
by
by
by
Jeepers, I hate politician-speak. And I really hate when politicians spout out falsehoods and the media allows them to get away with it. The House has emphatically not been pro-choice-to-abort-any-time-before-birth-for-any-reason-whatsoever. In fact, the reason that the Morgantaler case made it to the Supreme Court was because the House was absolutely unwilling to open up abortion on demand in this country. Even after Morgantaler, the House passed a Bill that would allow abortion, but only for therapeutic reasons only (therapeutic being loosely-defined).
So, let’s look at what the House has pronounced in the last decade regarding abortion. It has said that, when a pregnant woman is murdered, the perpetrator should not be held accountable for the death of the woman’s child. It has said that it is perfectly fine and dandy to coerce someone into having an unwanted abortion. It has said that we can’t possibly take a gander into when human life begins–it begins at birth. Case closed. The House is terribly out of step with the views of the majority of Canadians on this issue, which is why he issue comes up over and over again.
Point of order, Andrea. Did the matter of abortion come up for debate at any time when Chrétien’s liberals were in power? I don’t remember it ever coming up, but that could be because I wasn’t paying attention.