Initially Mr. Trudeau said that existing Liberal MPs could vote their conscience on pro-life bills. That commitment has now been rescinded.

Mr. Trudeau now requires all his MPs to support a woman’s “right” to end the life of her child.

Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

Mr. Trudeau seemed to indicate that the Charter protected the “right” to gendercide. He and his party seemed to change their position once they learned the Canadian Medical Association condemned gendercide.

Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

Mr. Trudeau supports Charter values, which include conscience rights.

Mr. Trudeau strips the conscience rights of all his MPs, male and female, when it comes to abortion.

Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

Perhaps he’ll change his position tomorrow and become pro-life?

Flop.

Today, two different people sent me an email with that wording as the subject line. Word for word.

Why? Because Justin Trudeau again raised the issue of abortion, which furthers our national dialogue. So “yay” I guess.

Today’s latest is that,

“I don’t know that there’s anyone in this country that is in favour of abortions. But what I am very much in favour of is a woman’s right to make that determination on her own, in consultation with the medical community, in consultation with whoever she chooses to consult,” Trudeau said.

“It is not for a room full of predominantly male legislators to take away those rights from women.”

Mike Schouten over at We Need a Law had a good response:

“Is the Liberal leader suggesting that if we elect more female legislators than Canadians can expect abortion bills to begin flowing through Parliament?” questioned Schouten. “What about other areas of law, like prostitution? Can a ‘room full of predominantly male legislators’ decide to protect vulnerable female prostitutes?”

“If we adopted Mr. Trudeau’s logic then maybe we should reverse the 1988 Supreme Court decision which struck down the abortion law at the time. After all, six of the seven justices on the bench at the time were men,” continued Schouten.

And here’s an excerpt from a piece I wrote last year, but my argument remains the same:

Lastly, he argued that since he doesn’t have a uterus, he cannot form an opinion on abortion and that this position isn’t a cop-out, but a fact. He’s wrong. It’s a total cop-out.

I’m not a woman who has suffered abuse, but I have an opinion on domestic abuse. I’m not a man, but I have an opinion on funding for prostate cancer research. I’m not a slave, but I have an opinion on human trafficking. I’m not a soldier or live in a war zone, but I have an opinion on Canadian military engagement. I’m not an Aboriginal person, but I have an opinion on the Idle No More movement.

Perhaps he believes that he must have first-hand knowledge of every human experience before he can form an opinion, but this seems like an odd, if not impossible, position for a national media editor to take. And I can assure him that the rest of the society doesn’t function that way. We form opinions and vote accordingly, even though we haven’t walked a mile in every Canadian’s shoes.

That statement is a cop-out and weak one. Of course citizens and heck, politicians who vote on legislation that affect Canadians of all stripes, can have opinions on a variety of issues. It’s just the way the world works. It’s just the way politics work.

I’m currently reading Beyond Bath Time: Embracing Motherhood as a Sacred Role by Erin Davis. I’m only a few chapters in and I’m really enjoying it. Read the Amazon reviews here. The Kindle format is currently on sale for $3.24.

I’m so taken with it that I’ve been taking screen shots every few pages and emailing them to Andrea. Some of the author’s passages are just so powerful.

This is one quote she included in her book. I’m sure I’ll work it into a talk at some point. Enjoy.

Years ago, before this generation of mothers was even born, our society decided where children rank in the list of important things. When abortion was legalized, we wrote it into law. Children rank way below college. Below world travel for sure. Below the ability to go out at night at your leisure. Below honing your body at the gym. Below any job you may have or hope to get.

In fact, children rate below your desire to sit around and pick your toes, if that is what you want to do.

Below everything.
Children are the last thing you should ever spend your time doing. If you grew up in this culture, it is very hard to get a biblical perspective on motherhood, to think like a free Christian woman about your life, your children.

How much have we listened to partial truths and half lies? Do we believe that we want children because there is some biological urge, or the phantom “baby itch”? Are we really in this because of cute little clothes and photo opportunities? Is motherhood a rock-bottom job for those who can’t do more, or those who are satisfied with drudgery? If so, what were we thinking?

-Rachel Jankovic

I read two articles today. Both touched on women’s rights and sexism. One dealt with actual sexism. The other – not so much. Let’s juxtapose an excerpt from each:

First, from the Globe, Omer Aziz writes about honour killing and hatred of women:

What are we afraid of? Can we, for one second, acknowledge that there is a cultural problem here, or will we continue to sanctimoniously blame all of this on ‘those other men over there?’ Within five kilometers of my home, I can think of at least two cases of such extreme, impenitent misogyny. In one case, a Pakistani father beat his daughter after he discovered her long-distance relationship. In another, the case of Aqsa Parvez, her brother strangled her to death with the father’s consent because she objected to wearing the hijab. Everywhere there is an honour killing – a human sacrifice – there is a woman breaking off the chains of tradition. There is a woman demanding the right to live as she wishes, and in her way is a man demanding she get in line.

Next, from the Post, the story of 14 year old Tallie Doyle and her mother, Andrea Stokes, who fight for Tallie’s right to show off her black bra straps in school:

Andrea Stokes, Doyle’s mother, defended her daughter and said her outfit was not “provocative.”

Stokes said she takes issue with the wording of the school’s dress code that lists “appropriate” ways to dress, which she says is up for interpretation. The school’s policy is also sexist, Stokes says.

“I allowed her to go to school with her bra straps showing because it’s a rule I was willing to break,” Stokes said. “There’s nothing about it that is offensive. I don’t want my daughter to feel shamed for the fact that her bra strap shows.”

I’m not even going to comment. I’m just going to sigh.

Sigh.

What a beautiful, beautiful article:

I’m telling you that the best decision I ever made was keeping that baby! Yes, absolutely. Guy was a delight from the start — so good, so bright, and I can’t imagine my life without him.

I struggled, sure. We lived hand-to-mouth, but it was really heart-to-hand. Guy had love and laughter and a lot of good reading and poetry as a child. Having my son brought out the best in me and enlarged my life. Whatever he missed, he himself is a great father today. He was once asked what it was like growing up in Maya Angelou’s shadow, and he said, “I always thought I was in her light.”

Years later, when I was married, I wanted to have more children, but I couldn’t conceive. Isn’t it wonderful that I had a child at 16? Praise God!”

Read it here:

A day later, objecting to Sun News’ coverage — apparently reporting what Trudeau says is upsetting to Liberals — a party spokesperson explained by email what Trudeau apparently meant to say.

“Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party do not condone sex-selective abortion … the Canadian Medical Association (has) stated clearly they do not condone sex-selective abortion and we of course support that.”

Okay. So why didn’t Trudeau say that the first time?

Are we left to conclude that the party adopted this position solely because the CMA did? Can’t we reach the conclusion, on our very own, that ‘gendercide = bad’?

Maybe I’m reading too much into the email excerpt. Maybe I’m too upset. Maybe gendercide makes me upset.

Sigh.

Andre Schutten describes the challenge in a piece that ran in The Calgary Herald this weekend. Have a read. I hope the group fights this restriction. I think they have the law on their side.

In December, the Barrhead/Neerlandia ARPA group contacted Pattison billboards to see if they could place an ad on the Edmonton Transit System (ETS) buses. The poster is a simple design, non-graphic in nature, honest in its inquiry. There is clear contact information in the form of a website for where the conversation on the questions posed can be continued. Having personally checked the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, this poster was good to go. (Judge for yourself — the billboard is kindly reproduced here.)

The billboard poses a simple, yet provocative, pair of questions designed to get Edmonton citizens thinking and talking. The poster wants the viewer to consider the reality that Canada has absolutely no laws protecting pre-born human beings (a reality, I might add, unique to any democratic country in the world). The wording of the poster is carefully crafted to elicit discussion about the meaning of the word “choice,” about the acceptability of late-term abortions, and about the reality of gendercide, a phenomenon happening in Canada (as documented by the CBC) where female babies are aborted simply because they are female.

All of this is legal. All of this should be discussed. All of this made a nameless bureaucrat at the ETS too squeamish to allow the posters.

What do you think about this?

Parents were outraged after an Arizona high school featured a two-page spread in their yearbook showing images of teen students who were either pregnant or had babies. The concerned parents and grandparents complained that the high school was wrongfully glamourizing teen pregnancy. […]

Students were also shocked and unhappy to find these photos in their yearbook. Fellow student Gregory Gomez explained, “There are other kids who have worked harder for better accomplishments. And (the young parents) have a whole page for their kids.”

Teen pregnancy is obviously no easy thing. Teens choosing to carry their children to term and raise them or place them with loving families face tough decisions and sacrifice. I hope their families, schools, churches and communities provide them with the support they need.

They are growing up in a culture that glamourizes teen sex through every medium. Teens are viewing and becoming addicted to porn at alarming rates. It is becoming more graphic and more accessible than ever before.

So we can’t act surprised that teens are having sex and getting pregnant.

And these teen parents are part of the school body. They are also students. They participate in the school community and culture. It doesn’t sound like the two page spread glamourized teen sex and parenting. In fact, the teens are quoted on the challenges they face.

So does this spread ‘glamourize’ teen sex and pregnancy? Or is it just reflecting a reality?

Should we be outraged at the pictures? Or the mess of a culture that they’re having to navigate?

As Andrea says, bring on the prude revolution.

Justin Trudeau cannot condemn sex-selection abortions. Of course he can’t. When you give a blanket endorsement of “a woman’s right to choose,” then you can’t condemn gendercide. Because that would be, you know, logically inconsistent. And therefore gendercide somehow becomes an expression of a Charter right. (And no, again, there is no Charter right to abortion.) And so, it somehow seems it’s a woman’s right to have female babies killed in Canada because they are female.

Is your head spinning?

Full Transcript:

MARISSA SEMKIW: A woman comes to you. She says she’s pregnant with a girl and she wants to terminate the life of the child because it’s a girl. What would you say to her?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: My position has been very clear. The Liberal Party is the party standing up for people’s rights. And the Liberal Party will always be the party of the Charter. So we will continue to stand up for people’s rights and not legislate them away.

MARISSA SEMKIW: So to be clear, you wouldn’t discourage her from having an abortion because it’s a girl?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: My role as the leader of the Liberal Party is to make sure that Canadian legislation respects peoples rights and that’s what I will continue to do.

MARISSA SEMKIW: Yesterday you said you were happy with the status quo on abortion. But right now the status quo is that it’s perfectly fine to abort a child because it’s a girl. Do you have no qualms with that?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I will leave discussions like that between a woman and the health professionals that she encounters. I don’t think the government should be in the business of legislating away people’s rights. And that’s why the Liberal Party is steadfast in this position.

If you read one article today, read this one by Paul Wells over at Maclean’s. It’s about the Maternal Health Summit that will take place in Toronto at the end of this month.

Life in Ottawa instills certain reflexes. I admit that when I learned about the Toronto summit—via a tweet from Laureen Harper—my reactions, in more or less this order, were: (1) scandal-plagued PM needs a distraction; (2) cheap PR stunt; (3) here’s another play to the PM’s social-conservative base.

I was not alone in these assumptions…

But I was left with a nagging question: Why would Ban Ki-moon and Melinda Gates lift a finger to help Harper’s campaigning strategy (motherhood and apple pie)? Harper has had strained relationships with the UN, where he was unable to land Canada a seat on the Security Council. I’ve got a crazy hunch Melinda Gates votes Democrat. Yet they’ll be in Toronto. So I started asking people who actually work in maternal and child health, and they told me a more complex story than any I’d brought to you before now.

Thanks to Paul Wells for digging into this issue.