Danielle Smith wins the leadership of the Wildrose Party in Alberta.
Ms. Smith, a 38-year-old fiscal conservative and former media commentator, beat out Mark Dyrholm. A former Reform party organizer and social conservative, he complained bitterly during the leadership race that Ms. Smith was too socially liberal to lead the Wildrose Alliance because of her support for gay marriage and pro-choice abortion stance.
I was asked about her position on abortion via Facebook. Her position and her opponent’s were virtually the same, except the rhetoric around it was different, so far as I could tell. I believe she would defund abortion, as that takes it out of the state’s hands making abortion into a true choice, which is about all anyone can do/hope for these days. Do I think she’s misguided for supporting abortion in the first place as an idea? Absolutely–and would tell her so. But this election did not, in the end, come down to abortion, and I had it on the word of friends I trust (and staunchly pro-life friends at that) that had the Drysholm campaign won it would not have spelled good things for the Wildrose Party or Alberta.
So I say congratulations, Danielle!
____________________________
Brigitte would like to join Andrea: I know and like Danielle Smith, and I’m glad she won. I have never discussed abortion with her (the subject doesn’t always naturally come up, you know, especially not while at a conference on entrepreneurship and liberty). I understand she’s pro-choice. A lot of people are. But she’s a smart compassionate woman. Maybe one day she’ll change her mind – or not. That’s life. In the meantime, I for once am please to support her plan to defund abortion.
I watched Amazing Grace last night (I immediately became Benedict Cumberbatch’s biggest fan). It’s a lovely film. And also very much inspirational (no, I don’t mean in the religious sense, although it is very much present). I was particularly struck by the way the abolitionists around William Wilberforce, after many long disappointing years making no progress at all, eventually decided to go with a slightly devious approach. They made it possible for privateers to attacks ships flying a flag of convenience and they made the bill look as though it were primarily aimed at French ships even though it also included slave ships.
I’m a little fuzzy on the details of how that worked, but I sure got the main point: By making it harder and more expensive for slave traders to do business, the abolitionists effectively helped reduce the size of the slave trade. Eventually, they were able to pass a straightforward bill abolishing the slave trade.
Back to Danielle Smith and abortion. No, abortion isn’t the same as slavery. And Danielle Smith is no William Wilberforce. But her idea to defund abortion (and I don’t care one bit why she wants to defund abortion) is a very good first step towards reducing the number of abortions in this country. She will find me among her most enthusiastic supporters.
by 
The problem is that the pro-abortion people do not provide ALL the facts!
Should a woman not have ALL the facts when trying to decide?
They are NOT told it increases the risk of infertility and breast cancer.
They are NOT told that many (if not all) women have guilt feelings, stress and even depression. As such the pro-abortion side is DIS HONEST.
There’s no way I’m ever voting for Danielle or her party. She as a leader is far too extreme the wrong way on many issues and far, far too ideological. Everything she says seems to be out of an Ayn Rand textbook. Not someone I want as my representative.
Andrea,
Sad to see you have drank the Kool Aid. I lost a lot of respect for you in this race
I agree. There’s no excuse for a pro-lifer to be supporting Danielle when you have a solid pro-life candidate like Mark Dyrholm. It’s not just about defunding abortion. It’s about having an advocate for the culture of life in the Premier’s office.
Gee. This looks really suspect. I would think having a ‘laissez faire’ position on abortion as Danielle Smith apparently has is an extremely far stretch to company with Pro Life. If all Pro Life is hoping for is ‘true choice’ then Pro Life should call itself Pro Choice. I though Pro Life meant promoting life.
Gee. This looks really suspect. I would think having a ‘laissez faire’ position on abortion as Danielle Smith apparently has is an extremely far stretch to company with Pro Life. If all Pro Life is hoping for is ‘true choice’ then Pro Life should call itself Pro Choice. I thought Pro Life meant promoting life.
“They are NOT told it increases the risk of infertility and breast cancer.”
That’s because it doesn’t. But don’t trust me on that – I am not a doctor, nor am I qualified to interpret scientific research.
Trust these organisations, who are:
“Research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.” – National Cancer Institute.
“Historical cohort studies, on the other hand, are more methodologically sound. Two major studies have been carried out using this methodology, and neither found an increased risk of breast cancer associated with first trimester abortion.” – World Health Organisation.
“Research evidence shows that having an abortion does not increase your risk of developing breast cancer.” – Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
(Conveniently, this was the subject of a blog entry of mine recently, so I had the list to hand. http://moronality.blogspot.com/2009/10/biased-organisations-and-breast-cancer.html )
“They are NOT told that many (if not all) women have guilt feelings, stress and even depression.”
Maybe if those woman didn’t have to listen to pro-lifers telling them they are baby-murderers, they wouldn’t feel so guilty.
Stress and depression sounds a lot like careing for a baby anyway :>
I find Andrea’s concluding line both unkind and unhelpful. I joined the Wildrose Alliance Party, as a participant in its “founding convention”, but remain unconvinced that it has anything new or better to offer Albertans, other than to bring a little new blood into the old way of doing politics. Mark Dyrholm may not have been an ideal candidate, but he at least has a gut-level longing for much smaller government and resistance to social engineering. Fewer taxes, less business regulation, and real choice in abortion do not an inspiring and hopeful political future make.
Wow! I am surprised at all the negative comments here. De-funding abortion is huge, people. HUGE. It takes a lot of courage for a politician to take that position in the Canadian context, and if Ms. Smith wins in 2012 and follows through on this promise she is going to inevitably face the wrath of the feds.
I for one am jealous of Albertans to have the choice to vote for someone like her. I am strongly pro-life, but I am still unsure about what the situation should be legally.
I know 100% that I am against public funding and would support ultrasounds, 24 hr waiting period, more information (ie informed consent), etc. However, the position of this site has been “prolife by choice”. I have come to viewing the legal issue in the same realm as witnessing a child drown. You cannot prosecute someone for not using their body to save them – how can you prosecute a women for not using their own body to save the person inside them. That said, most people view standing around watching a child drown as morally reprehensible and those who save them as heroes. This is the state that we need to get thinking around abortion to in this country. Any talk of making abortion illegal (especially by a man) is not going to result in any progress. The reason I have such hope in the efforts of PWPL is their focus, which is on convincing women (not forcing them) to view abortion for what it truly is.
Having someone with views like Danielle’s gain power in this country would be a huge step forward.
In case this helps, another pro-life so-con who supported Danielle. (article by Link Byfield)
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=3009
Elizabeth: beautifully put. De-funding isn’t splashy and is part of a baby-steps, incrementalist approach, which is not as viscerally satisfying as all-or-nothing tactics. But it is, in reality, revolutionary. Sad as it may seem, there are people who aren’t put off at the prospect of abortion their own child, but would think twice if it hit them in the wallet to the tune of $1000. Attaching a real financial cost to an elective abortion WILL serve as an incentive to Canadians to be more careful not to conceive an unwanted child – this isn’t speculation, it’s been demonstrated in many jurisdictions. Yes, ideally I’d rather live in a country in which abortions seldom happened because we have reached a consensus that they are morally abhorrent; but in the meantime, it would be great to live in a country in which fewer abortions happen because people would rather spend their money on other things and thus take measures to avoid “needing” an abortion.
Elizabeth: I find your analogy to “saving a drowning child” to be imperfect. You have not explained how that child ended up in the water, which is an essential element to whether or not the woman has an obligation to save the child. If she, in fact, was the cause for the child now being in danger of dying, she may have more moral responsibility than you have allowed for.
Rebecca, Brigitte and Elizabeth: How do you propose getting the consensus for de-funding abortion? I do not see it as any more feasible than re-criminalizing abortion. In my view, it is a rather convenient political position to take since the Canada Health Act and the SCC ultimately determine what services provincial health ministries must provide.
Lauri: I have no idea how to do this in the immediate. But I can certainly see it as a cost-cutting measure. When things get desperate enough in the health care system that we have to choose between paying for elective abortions and paying for, say, cancer treatment, then maybe it will be easier to get some kind of consensus going. That’s one reason why I’d be happier to have a libertarian (even a pro-choice libertarian) pushing this through than a social conservative. It’s more difficult to accuse a pro-choice libertarian of wanting to force God and so-con values on an unwilling populace.
Defunding abortion would be a big step! To have a male prolifer will not help avance the cause and just end up like the reform party. The media will jump on him like they did with Preston Manning and Sarah Palin. Having a woman who is said to be pro-choice and willing to defund abortions is something I can accept in the situation we are in.
Danielle’s Already Backpedaling on Funding Abortion. How come Andrea and Brigitte never saw this coming – read below:
“On the issue of abortion funding, Dyrholm has said he’d support asking party members to consider a policy delisting the medical procedure, except in rare circumstances. Smith, who is pro-choice, also supports requiring women to pay for abortions in most circumstances, but has said she won’t push the party to adopt such a policy.”
SOURCE:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Wildrose+leader+faces+first+attacks+from+opponents/2118122/story.html
The reason I have such hope in the efforts of PWPL is their focus, which is on convincing women (not forcing them) to view abortion for what it truly is.
The reason why pro-life organizations like Andrea and Brigitte’s are so ineffective is because they refuse to understand the power of the law in changing society. The most potent way to change the hearts and minds of women is to give full legal protection to the unborn that all other human beings in our society receive. Remember, when slavery was outlawed in the U.S. at least half of Americans still believed slavery of blacks should exist. Talking about changing the hearts and minds of women is just an excuse for pro-life organizations not to help elect pro-life politicians who will actually be the ones that eventually change the laws in this country.
One last question which explains why Danielle is now back pedalling on a promise she never really made – it was made by her pro-life friends and campaign staff. Who has greater conviction to make sure abortions are de-funded? And when you answer this question, is it any surprise that she is already distancing herself from the idea that abortion should be defunded as a medical procedure?
Someone who believes that human life is sacred and begins at concepion like Mark Dyrholm or someone who does not believe life begins at conception or is not sacred like Danielle Smith?
John: please explain how you envision the law working in a perfect world? Women going to jail for having an abortion? What type of prosecution would occur? Such a system would be completely unrealistic.
Elizabeth,
Your comparison makes no sense whatsoever. First trimester abortions are not performed because a woman’s body is failing her. There is no crisis occuring that prompmpts most abortions in the same sense as the drowning child. Most pregnancies are uneventful and relatively healthy in the first trimester. Nothing is “happening” until a woman contracts a physician to kill her child. One of your examples if a literal crisis; the other, an artificial and purposefully constructed one.
Elizabeth: I cannot answer for John specifically, but I have posed that question to a great many pro-lifers myself. Very few of them have supported prosecuting the women – they tend to view her as another victim. Often in their view there is no possibility any woman could choose abortion of her own free will, so they assume she must have been forced into it by circumstances, doctors or family. The majority of those I ask though do support prosecution of the doctors – usually leading to a long jail term, though I’ve has responses as weak as a fine and as strong as execution for doctors who perform abortion. Some have also urged the prosecution of those who ‘enable’ abortion – clinic staff who book it, family who knowingly drive the patient to the clinic, etc.
I’m going to completely ignore the controversy above and just state how right Brigitte is to admire Benedict Cumberbatch! He totally made that movie! Such an interesting face, and a great actor. I think we can all agree that we look for great things from Mr. Cumberbatch in the future!