Woah. Don’t read the comments, but this is Lorna Dueck’s take on the whole Justin Trudeau thing. This time in the Globe. I wrote that Justin’s actions were consistent with a pro-choice worldview and got vitriol, she writes that they are unjust and unnecessary and got…vitriol.

Apparently, there’s no pleasing the pro-choice crowd.

…Niki Ashton’s motion does prove that the abortion issue isn’t settled in Canada:

Ms. Ashton said her motion is simply about recognizing women’s rights: “This is not about reopening the debate,” she said on Monday.

But anti-abortion activist Mike Schouten said the Ashton motion acknowledges “that abortion is not a settled issue in Canada.”

“We see this as a positive development. We think the debate needs to be had,” said Mr. Schouten, campaign director of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

But Niki Ashton is also right. Her motion doesn’t “reopen the debate.” As I’ve noted before, the debate was never closed. Or over. Or whatever. That would presume all Canadians feel the same way about abortion in Canada, and that’s not the case. Nor has it ever been.

…do people issue press releases declaring abortion to be a universal human right. Only in politics does a leader stand up and say no one is allowed to think differently.

For men and women on the ground, abortion is not on their radar. And when it is, it’s in a decidedly non-Ottawa way.

That’s why I wrote this piece about abortion’s effect on the family.

It was written with a specific eye for women who have abortions, suffer, research says that is completely possible, but the political ideologues stand up and say “it’s a right!” And so these women suffer alone, thinking they must be the only ones to have a negative reaction.

That there are major effects of abortion on women, men, families and society is the subject of this paper. That the effects can be negative is no great surprise.

Used to be that “safe, legal and rare” was the consensus. Now we have to all stand up and cheer. Or shut up.

I can guarantee you a lot of women don’t agree with me. I can also guarantee you they don’t agree with Niki Ashton.

Are people really so taken up with the jargon that they don’t realize the impact these policies will have on real live people?

Apparently according to this article:

The abortion debate is slated to return to the House of Commons, with one New Democrat seeking to reaffirm the chamber’s commitment to a woman’s right to choose.

A motion put forward by NDP MP Niki Ashton seeks to have members of Parliament vote on whether access to abortion is a “fundamental question of equality and human rights, both in Canada and around the world.”

The Motion reads thus:

M-510 — May 8, 2014 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) a women’s right to choose abortion is a fundamental question of equality and human rights, both in Canada and around the world; (b) the key priorities of the government during the upcoming international summit on child and maternal health on May 28-30, 2014 should include empowering women globally, promoting gender equality and supporting reproductive health care including the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options; and (c) the government should lift its policy of refusing to fund international programs that support a full range of family planning and reproductive health care options including abortion.

There is just so much wrong with that, I don’t know where to begin.

I thought that I would post these insightful observations from Isabelle O’Connor in Quebec:

1. This motion is null and void as it is a direct infringement on the right to freedom of conscience of every citizen, MPs included;
2. It is not access to abortion that will improve maternal health; it is access to maternal health services;
3. Deaths caused by legally-induced abortion are never attributed, statistically, to the cause of death labelled « Legally induced-abortion ». Coroners have explained to us that deaths due to legally-induced abortion  are coded under « Pregnancy», or under « External cause – medical misadventure ». So, mortality caused by legally-induced abortion is actually attributed to pregnancy, which allows abortion promoters to propagate the urban legend that « childbirth is much more dangerous than abortion » (our findings have been published worldwide, in numerous languages);
4. Obviously, abortion does nothing positive for child health. To be tortured and exterminated has no pleasant or positive side whatsoever for a child;
5. Abortion is an act of violence, against both women and children. As long as society will perform acts of violence, it cannot expect to reap peace and health as a result, as a fundamental law of nature is that one reaps what one sows;
6. Population is the most important resource f a country. If we want to stimulate prosperity, we must do everything possible to allow a population to live and flourish.

A friend sent me the photo below, from HuffPost Canada. They did a series called What Moms Really Want, for mother’s day. I was obviously disturbed by this mom’s request for free abortion and IVF:

What I really want for Mother’s Day is for all Canadians to be supported in their choice to become parents when they’re ready — which means abortions are free, legal and easily accessible, and that artificial reproductive technologies be offered safely and widely to ALL Canadians through provincial health coverage.”

Since it takes a special kind of mom to say she really wants abortions for Mother’s Day, I googled her name. And is it really surprising to learn this? She is a university prof, at Concordia.

Rachel has long-standing scholarly and activist interests in queer lives (in theory and practice), reproductive politics, and questions of power in relation to the formalization of political and activist practices. Her new work on this subject, entitled Reproductive Politics in Queer Times, centers on evolving discourses of ‘choice’ in neoliberal times. Using perspectives from ethnography, textual & cultural analysis, legal studies, and queer theory, this project and takes up questions of reproduction and coupling set against the backdrop of homonationalism and the economization of life.

(“Homonationalism” is a term discussed in one place, and one place only, I’m confident: On Campus.)

Anyway, no further comment from this on me, since in the words of one Ron Burgundy, I intend to stay classy.

Happy Mother’s Day.

I wrote a whole post, and then deleted it. I had some sort of critique of this day and how we may not actually honour moms in our culture at all but then couldn’t get the tone right. Gonna go off and reflect on Philippians 4:8 now.

I will add I am grateful to my mom, who I affectionately call Mamma Mia from time to time. She answers the phone with an “Aaaaaannnndreaaaaaa!!!” when I call like I’m a prodigal daughter or a celebrity.  No one else does that. And I call often! She sounds like she really wants to hear from me, (almost) every time. I have a great mom. And I will leave it at that for this Mother’s Day.

Just in time Trudeau.

There still are pro-life voters who are Liberal. Though they have not been made to feel welcome, at least someone held the door open for them. Not so anymore. Now those pro-life voters have to choose. I’m pro-choice when it comes to most everything, as is the law. But just like in law, I have limits when it comes to what is chosen. What Justin Trudeau did for the pro-life movement is to clarify at what cost abortion proponents are prepared to go. Many of us knew it was radically far but now all Canadians know.

The Liberal Party of Canada was not the socialist party of Canada. I guess because socialism is a thin line away from communism, the NDP approach to freedom of conscience hasn’t raised an eyebrow in this country, though it should have.

Justin Trudeau has drawn a line in the sand. Too bad he tripped over it. He made his announcement just in time for the National March for Life and it immediately increased media coverage enormously. Thank you. He also made his announcement just in time for candidate nominations. We are grateful for that too.

Liberals were still under the delusion theirs was the party of choice because it defined social justice in terms liberals approved of, in terms liberals could feel better about themselves. Certainly a conservative couldn’t understand social justice like a liberal, they thought. So, the Liberal Party of Canada was their party of choice.
Whether or not all Liberals will understand the cost of MPs losing a fundamental freedom like the freedom of conscience, remains to be seen. Whether or not Liberals understand their party of choice no longer resembles the great Liberal party of the past, remains to be seen as well. Whether or not liberals consider the Liberal Party of Canada their party of choice going forward…I think Trudeau’s announcement was just in time.

And that’s why (well, so many reasons, actually) I love Véronique and her clan. People before stuff sounds about right to me. An article about Véronique, and the birth of her ninth on the eve of Mother’s Day.

I posted this over at Huffington Post Canada. I feel like at least some of the people commenting didn’t actually read the piece.

I would like to know why my tax dollars are going towards giving a platform to the two topless girls who tried to interrupt and shout down the Archbishop of Quebec yesterday at the March for Life in Ottawa?  They should be facing fines or jail time for indecent exposure, attempted assault, mischief, disturbing the peace, anything – just not sitting, (fully dressed, I note) in a CBC studio during prime time, chatting with Evan Solomon.

They are extremists of the notorious group FEMEN whose atrocious behaviour borders on insanity. At the very least it is terribly embarrassing and to be pitied. They have no respect for public discourse, the democratic process, freedom of religion or conscience and yet they are given a voice by our national tax funded media.