First I hear of this. Not sure what to think – how do you even begin to enforce it? But in principle, I agree that women should not be coerced into abortions.
Update: Perhaps the least surprising news story of the week…
by 
There ought to be a law…
by
Check out this one guys–
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-expected-to-tackle-sleeping-sex-slave-question/article1529817/
I’m not sure if this bill is enforceable, and when you try to take out the coercion from ‘counselling services’ for abortion (see Lila Rose/LiveAction) and economic factors (they mentioned parents, but what about boyfriends/spouses threatening to withhold funds or divorce?), I’m wondering what exactly they’re considering illegal other than threatening direct physical harm to the mother. Which is illegal anyway right? There would be a lot of definition needed to clearly outline coercion if this were to ever be passed, and I’m not sure if it was that I’d be happy with the limited definition I’m foreseeing.
But Andrea I’m with you, yes, there ought to be a law against coercing women to have abortions. Harper’s silent treatment on the issue IS, by its inaction, supporting the current abortion legislation. People ought to see past this above the fight image he’s trying to portray.
Jennifer, you mean you are with Brigitte. 🙂
Exactly! (Thanks Andrea) 🙂
The pro-choicers worry about bills like this. Not because we support coercian, but because we worry it could be used for legal harassment. How is a woman supposed to prove she was *not* coerced? Even if it’s well-written, it could easily be used to bury clinics beneath endless expensive criminal trials until they have no choice but to stop providing abortions, or worse – one of them actually sticks through luck and the whims of a jury.
The more cynical pro-choicers suspect that this is exactly the reason it was proposed.