Tuesday, November 16, 2010

When pro-abortion MPs don't speak for us, we need to say so

During the parliamentary debate on November 1 on Bill C-510 ("Roxanne's Law"), there were five female MPs who spoke on the bill. Only one woman, Conservative MP Kelly Block, spoke in support of Rod Bruinooge's private member's bill. The other four female MPs who spoke, were all against the bill.

If passed, this bill would bring about additional legal protection for those women who don't want the abortions others are trying to impose on them. It would protect a woman's right to say "no" to abortion.

What concerns me as a Canadian woman, is when female pro-abortion MPs assume they speak for all women. They do not. MP Nicole Demers (who is against the bill) stated: "Men are trying to decide what is good for us". Well I can tell you, Ms. Demers, you will not decide what is good for me.

MP Jean Crowder (also against the bill) quoted the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada numerous times in her remarks against Bill C-510. ARCC is an extremist pro-abortion organization whose chief advocate is Joyce Arthur. Ms. Arthur is the same person whose other radical pro-abortion group, the Pro-Choice Action Network received a $27,400 government grant to write a scathing report condemning crisis pregnancy centres in BC. No, Ms. Crowder, you do not speak for me either.

In fact, Ms. Demers and Ms. Crowder and Ms. Irene Mathyson and Ms. Marlene Jennings; none of you speak for me.

Unfortunately there are almost no women in our Canadian Parliament who are prepared to stand up for pregnant women who want to keep their babies. But there are many, many female MPs who will vociferously defend women who want to have abortions, even to the extent of needlessly sacrificing the safety and security and emotional health of those women who want to continue their pregnancies.

I say "needlessly," because there is no need to oppose Roxanne's Law in order to maintain legal access to abortion for those women who want it. With C-510 in place, abortion would still be completely legal for any reason, throughout a woman's entire pregnancy.

These pro-abortion MPs say they think the abortion debate is over. They pretend to be confused as to why we would discuss anything related to abortion. The reason is simple. Democracy is always a trump card.

MP Kelly Block, on the other hand, has demonstrated courage, compassion and integrity. She stood up in our Canadian Parliament and spoke on behalf of those pregnant women who want to bring their pre-born children safely to term.

Thank you Ms. Block. You speak for me.


  1. Ms Block speaks for me too. It is disturbing to me that so few of our female MPs really care about Canadian women. Thank you Kelly Block for caring.

  2. The passing and debate of this bill is very quiet.I just heard about it by attending a mass in Moose Jaw and I started looking into it .I'll be spreading the word about this.to me no one else but the pregnant women should have the
    rights to deside if she should give birth,so she should be protected to do so and not be coherhest
    into having an abortion.Thank you Ms Block for caring. Yvonne

  3. I think the reason that many mps are against this bill is that protection against coercion is already provided in other parts of the criminal code, with much stricter penalties than this bill would allow. Also, the wording of C-510 is so vague that a family member giving their opinion when asked could be charged with coercion.

  4. Kate you say "coercion is already provided in other parts of the criminal code". Faye Sonier dismisses this argument that coercion is already covered in other parts of the criminal code:

    We already have several instances in the Criminal Code where a new specific offence was created, even when a more general version of that offence already existed. For example, we have very specific assault-type crimes like sexual assault, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon, even though the more general crime of assault also exists. Specific types of more general laws are enacted for various reasons, according to Sonier, such as for purposes of clarifying existing law, denunciation, deterrence or education.

    Sonier also responds to other criticisms of the bill in her second round of legal Q&As.

    You say "the wording of C-510 is so vague that a family member giving their opinion when asked could be charged with coercion". Whenever anyone is charged with any offense it must be proven in a court of law. This law would be the same. It would have to be proven in a court, relying on testimony, evidence, etc.