Holy hyper-sensitivity batman. A grandfatherly aged man (Keith Ashfield) pays a compliment that is politically incorrect and somehow it reflects his opinion that women can’t achieve in the workplace. Watch this.

Dealing with sex selection is not uniquely Canadian. Australians are grappling with it as well. What might be uniquely Canadian is the allergy to discussing the issue.

Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill

In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:

1. The unacceptability to Australians of the use of Medicare funding for the purpose of gender selection abortions;
2. The prevalence of gender selection – with preference for a male child – amongst some ethnic groups present in Australia and the recourse to Medicare funded abortions to terminate female children;
3. The use of Medicare funded gender-selection abortions for the purpose of ‘family-balancing’;
4. Support for campaigns by United Nations agencies to end the discriminatory practice of gender-selection through implementing disincentives for gender-selection abortions’;
5. Concern from medical associations in first world countries about the practice of gender-selection abortion, viz. Canada, USA, UK.

Interesting day on Parliament Hill. Many great points made by one Elizabeth May:

May takes a very different view. She put it this way, in relation to Warawa’s question of privilege.

“We are not here as teams. The principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy is that we are here are representatives of our constituencies and our constituents,” she told the House, “Incidentally, we are merely members of political parties. Political parties do not exist in our Constitution. They are not an essential part of our democracy. They have grown to be seen to be the most interesting thing going on and we have grown to see politics as some sort of sport. However, democracy is not a sport. We are not playing on teams, and each individual member has individual rights…”

This is what this is about. Do individual Members of Parliament have rights? I believe they do.

An accurate account of my comments to the National Post reporter Mark Kennedy on M-408. I do think there is pressure from the top, and I think the opposition parties will either want to keep M-408 out of the House as well, OR, they will desire to get it into the House to embarrass the Conservatives. Both are interesting scenarios. I do not believe M-408 will get through the subcommittee tomorrow, and therefore this will go to a secret vote in the House of Commons. (Three cheers for MP Mark Warawa, who isn’t backing down! Takes chutzpah, and I like people with chutzpah. I also like saying the word “chutzpah,” for anyone who cares to know.) Well, well, well. This will be interesting to watch. I do wish the Conservatives weren’t so keen on sticking it to pro-lifers, which is coming back to bite them in the behind because breaking rules ain’t cool.

Andrea Mrozek, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said there are ‘‘no clear reasons’’ why Mr. Warawa’s motion should have been blocked.

She believes the motion should be allowed and MPs should vote for it, adding that she suspects the prime minister’s office was involved.

‘‘I think there’s pressure that comes from the top on this issue.’’

Also, she said the opposition parties are ‘‘desperate’’ to block the motion because they want to avoid the embarrassment of voting against it in the Commons.

This is cool. This link allows you to send a form letter, or your own letter, to your own MP and the members of the committee who will decide the fate of M-408.

Courtesy of We Need A Law, I’d encourage all PWPL readers to use it.

More info can be found here:

Rachel’s Vineyard is a safe place to renew, rebuild and redeem hearts broken by abortion. Weekend retreats offer you a supportive, confidential and non-judgmental environment where women and men can express, release and reconcile painful post-abortive emotions to begin the process of restoration, renewal and healing.

Rachel’s Vineyard can help you find your inner voice. It can help you experience God’s love and compassion on a profound level. It’s a place where men and women can share, often for the first time, their deepest feelings about abortion. You are allowed to dismantle troubling secrets in an environment of emotional and spiritual safety.

Rachel’s Vineyard is therapy for the soul. Current struggles with depression, anger, addictions could be related to a history of abortion. Participants, who have been trapped in anger toward themselves or others, experience forgiveness. Peace is found. Lives are restored. A sense of hope and meaning for the future is finally re-discovered.

An article in Maclean’s expresses the concern well:

Here is where Mr. Warawa might get the support of those who otherwise oppose his views on abortion. Regardless of how one feels about his motion, regardless of how uncomfortable it might make the leadership of Mr. Warawa’s party, every MP and everyone who is represented by an MP should be concerned if Mr. Warawa is being prevented from putting a motion before the House simply because some people oppose its sentiment or would rather it not be brought forward. Never mind the very fraught matter of abortion, this now threatens to become a question about the nature of parliamentary democracy and the independence of MPs.

This to me is the heart of the matter; the question of whether the rules were bent to put the kaibosh on this motion. It seems clear that M-408 passed the votability requirements. So what happened?

Vote here! (and read a good, short report about what happened.)

The cultural air we breathe allows for killing babies to be morally neutral:

Gosnell’s gruesome practice was no secret, but the Pennsylvania Department of Health – thanks largely to pressure from NARAL, the U.S. “pro-choice” lobby – had decided to stop inspecting abortion clinics because “officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women seeking abortions.’” And so Dr. Gosnell was free to pursue his Mengle-esque path to wealth without any regulatory oversight whatsoever – all in the name of “women’s right to choose.”

At his arraignment two years ago, Dr. Gosnell was described by one observer as “a little befuddled.” He understood the charge for the dead woman, but didn’t seem to comprehend that killing live babies was morally wrong. Pro-choicers in Canada often say the medical profession could never produce such a monster here. But why couldn’t it? Where did Dr. Gosnell get the idea that as long as you call it an abortion, killing live babies is a morally neutral activity? Surely from the cultural air he breathed.