What’s next? Promoting abortion?
OTTAWA — Stephen Harper is ruling out re-opening a debate over abortion law for a future Conservative government, saying today there are too many other important issues to manage.
“We have a lot of challenges in front of the country,” the Conservative leader said this morning during an announcement about arts and fitness funding for children.
“We have a difficult world economy as we all know. That has to be the focus of the government and I simply have no intention of ever making the abortion question a focus of my political career.”
He said that some of his caucus members would like him to do so, and so would some Liberals: “But, I have not done that in my entire political career. Don’t intend to start now.”
“I have been clear throughout my entire political career I don’t intend to open the abortion issue,” he said. “I haven’t in the past; I’m not going to in the future.”
_______________________________
Andrea adds: I never had any expectation of Harper on abortion, something I’ve publicly stated before. What bothers me is this:
After today’s event, however, Mr. Harper’s spokesman Kory Teneycke clarified in an email to The Globe and Mail that Mr. Harper would “whip” his front bench so that none of his cabinet ministers would support any private member’s bills that could re-open the debate.
Whipping his cabinet? Ah, freedom of speech, apparently such a tenuous concept that even the party that was supposed to not be like the Liberals is, well, just like the Liberals. Get ready for some splashy new fountain to appear in Harper’s riding, maybe a small golf course… At least Chretien never pretended to be decent.
__________________________
Rebecca asks: How has it come about, that we can’t even have a debate about this? Are feminists and “choice advocates” so insecure in their convictions that they fear an honest discussion? (And if so – what does this tell us?) Is there any other issue about which so many Canadians disagree, that is nonetheless off-limits politically in all parties?
_____________________________
Andrea is trying to think positive: At least he has not said the dreaded “I believe in a woman’s right to choose,” those special words that mean in point of fact that a politician has never given abortion any thought at all and is rather running scared from the likes of Judy Rebick.
_____________________________
Véronique adds: I’ll just say that I’m glad my Conservative candidate is pro-life: I can still vote for him even if the party at large is now officially pro-choice. About the matter of conscience and the issue of “whipping” your cabinet, nobody said having convictions was going to be easy: ask Michael Chong who gave up his seat in cabinet because he didn’t support the “Quebec as a nation” motion (wow, that’s snappy, I should write a song). I think that any cabinet minister with a backbone would rather resign — or refuse a seat in cabinet to start with — than being told what to vote on such an important issue.
____________________________
Tanya has to say it: We all can’t fight every battle all the time. In my mind, Harper won’t win any election with pro-life guns-a-blazing. And then where would we be? Slow and steady wins the race. He’s setting the pace for eventual Conservative majority government in this country.
In the meantime, we need to keep up the dialog. We need to make sure no one gets away with calling this a closed debate. That being said, Harper, you don’t need to “open the abortion issue.” It’s already open. So please find some new wording for the arms length you choose to keep with it.
by 
Why is abortion such a hot-potato issue with politicians? How can anything be more important than the future of a generation? A third of the present generation of young people is missing thanks to abortion. And the economy and blah blah blah are more important than the rights of unborn babies? I am so not getting this. I’d much rather my tax dollars went to supporting women bringing their pregancies to term than arts funding for children – and I have two children in music lessons! Hmmm….maybe I’ll just take that tax credit (or however the dollars get in my hands) and send it to a pro-life cause.
I think Mr. Harper underestimates the disappointment that people with a pro-life bent are experiencing with his non-action regarding the rights of the unborn. The disappointment is going to continue with his recent statements.
If I had something else to vote for in this election, I’d seriously consider. I don’t know what I am going to do on election day. I think this stinks.
You can ‘non-vote’ if there isn’t a pro-life candidate in your riding. Apparently there is a space on the ballot that allows an explanation of why you didn’t vote for someone, and supposedly the ‘non-vote’ is recorded.
I guess it really IS all about getting in power and controlling the money. I hope Harper’s not doing that for MY benefit. Without the safety of my family, and the freedom to live , I don’t much care if he has power and money…
While the doctors are busy figuring out the ‘rubrics of human value’ and how to get the exclusive rights to use it, all we’re left with is the ‘rubrics of stinky politicians’. And we get the ENORMOUS power of the vote, with the politicians and the media falling over themselves with disdain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asqWMKju-0A
Yes indeedy – if you cannot in good conscience vote for any of the candidates, you can hand your ballot back to the polling station person (the word escapes me) and tell him/her that you are returning your ballot and that you want it noted that you are doing so because there is no pro-life candidate. They have to write it down – that is part of their job. Maybe someone will read it. (I have done this many times, and have received many puzzled looks. Oh well. I made my point.)
I have always abhorred the notion of “whipping” your members — especially when the vote is a matter of morals or conscience!! When I vote for a candidate who DOES represent my values, I expect them to have the right to exercise my vote and my values when it comes time to make descisions in parliament.
When you *force* the members of the government to vote a certain way, that sure as heck isn’t democracy. In fact, I understand they have coined a name for it. I believe they call it a a tyranny?? Or was that a dictatorship? Darn! I just can’t seem to remember which title we’re supposed to use to describe our Canadianized version of democracy….
You know what irritates me the most about Harper’s non-position on this important issue? The fact that it does not really even benefit him. 90% of the time that I bother mentioning to friends etc. (male and female) that I am going to vote Conservative they respond “but Harper is going to take away a woman’s right to choose!”.
All non-Con supporters believe he has a hidden agenda to criminalize abortion asap with a majority. I respond by saying – I wish he would address abortion, but sadly he has no intention to.
I am sure the hundreds of thousands of aborted children would have loved music lessons Mr. Harper. Is it too much to ask to have a political leader discuss this? Is it too much to ask to have even ONE reporter ask a question from an objective perspective on the issue, let alone a pro-life position? I am grateful for the respect my own premier pays to the pro-life viewpoint (one that is downright radical by Canadian standards), however we really need someone to grow a backbone.
“Are feminists and ‘choice advocates’ so insecure in their convictions that they fear an honest discussion?”
That’s a bit of a non-sequitur, isn’t it? Stephen Harper is the one that doesn’t want the debate, and yet you’re somehow blaming “feminists and choice advocates”? Unless he’s recently become one, this is some really deft sleight-of-hand work that manages to blame people who have nothing to do with the decision. Bravo.
More likely, Harper senses that 1) it would be a long and arduous process that he may not win even with with a majority in Parliament, 2) that it would alienate the small number who might give him a majority, and 3) that it would be in violation of the Charter, like the previous law was, and probably be tossed out anyway. Or, for reason 2, he’s simply lying right now, knowing that the pro-life/anti-choice vote is still firmly in his pocket and unlikely to jump ship to another party.