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.
“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.
by 
I believe the term, “bozo eruption,” says it all…
Now might be a good time to bring back a bill like “Roxane’s Law”. Let’s see how JT would justify voting against a bill that would make it illegal to coerce someone into an unwanted abortion. There is a lot of play in the vacuum we have concerning our abortion laws, and puttinng a few regulations in place would be a good thing for the people most affected by the abortions (the women and the doctors). It doesn’t mean that abortion gets outlawed completely, (like that’s possible), it just would mean that we would get rid of the late term ones, where everybody’s uncomfortable with them anyways.