Oh, “women’s rights.” Pretty soon those two words will have no meaning at all. Just a wee note to let Ms. Boivin know her concept of “women’s rights” doesn’t match up with mine:
Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to denounce certain government MPs’ attempts to criminalize abortion. Of course, they know that their approach is extremely unpopular with women, who hate it when men try to tell them what to do with their bodies. That is why these members are drawing inspiration from the Republican Party and using roundabout ways and bogus motions that are based on pseudo-science. Let us be clear: this will not work. Canadian women have a right to access abortion and this backwards-thinking government cannot take that away from them. Our party has always defended women’s rights and we will continue to do so.
I am particularly bemused by her reference to “pseudo-science,” I might add. Pseudo-science like this?
by 
Jack Fonseca has an interesting article in response to the likes of their concerns about “pseudo science.” Why pro-abortion politicians are Science-Deniers
My goodness, but this bombastic trumpeting of the same old tired stuff is getting really stale (not to mention boring). Can’t Ms. Boivin show a little creativity (and, frankly earn her salary) by actually writing some original text, instead of culling text from 70’s era propaganda. Not only is this argument way past its best-before date, but it is really beginning to irritate me.
We could come up with a game. Points for each stale 70s statement trumpeted in the House of Commons, culminating in a “reward” for the Member who spews the most propaganda?
Just a thought. It would make it less boring.
@ Brigid & Andrea
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
~Benjamin Franklin
Sometimes I think it should be a drinking game.
But then I’d end up more nonsensical than normal.