98% of Canadians supported Motion 312

My latest ATIP to the Privy Council Office revealed that Motion 312 had 98% support from Canadians who wrote to the Prime Minister.

That is, 1033 of the 1054 letters, written to Stephen Harper, supported Stephen Woodworth's Motion which:

"asked that a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. 91 members showed support for the bill asking that the special committee be appointed. Unfortunately, 203 members voted against the appointment of the special committee."

Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support
Mark Warawa's Motion 408 had 99.7% support

Once again, we see a Prime Minister completely out of step with the Canadian public he supposedly serves.

Back as far as 2001 we had politicians playing the run-away-from-anything-relating-to-abortion game, when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein did it:

"Discussing the possibility of defunding abortion, Klein said in a press conference that “The chances, I believe, are slim and none.” The Edmonton Sun reported that when pressed on whether the issue was open to debate, Klein said, “No, it’s not. Not at all. No. Full stop.” In the legislature, Klein went further, saying “My position is that this is a matter between a woman, her doctor and her God.”

Now it's almost all politicians who play this game. Apparently there's not a backbone in the lot of them.
 
So what is it exactly is going on here? Is it that our fearless leader Mr. Harper is in fact fearful of a very tiny minority of pro-abortion extremists? Or is it that Mr. Harper is simply the de facto pro-choice leader in Canada?

Who's hard-line on abortion?

Stephen Maher:

"As a young man, Harper became a Conservative because he was angered by the way Trudeau changed Canada, but as a practical politician has steered his party away from hard-line positions on bilingualism, multiculturalism and abortion, defining the limits of politically acceptable Canadian conservatism."

Stephen Maher says that Stephen Harper has steered his party away from a hard-line position on abortion? Are we talking about the same Stephen Harper?

Did Maher not hear the Government's hard-line pro-abortion position articulated by Gordon O'Connor in his scathing speech against Motion 312? Does Maher not know we have one of the most pro-abortion countries in the world? Does Maher not realize that Harper will do whatever is in his power to try to silence Conservative MPs who dare to speak out on the plight of children in the womb who are slaughtered at a rate of 100,000 per year in Canada (at taxpayers' expense, I might add, no questions asked)? Does Maher not remember when Mark Warawa's motion to simply condemn one aspect of abortion which 92% of the population also condemns--discrimination against baby girls through sex-selection--was deemed non-votable?

Preventing abortion debate allows the status quo of 100,000 deaths of innocent children per year to continue unabated; the pro-life position is marginalized; the pro-abortions are more emboldened; abortion becomes more normalized. And it becomes harder and harder to turn the tide. I don't know how much more hard-line on abortion one can get. This is more hard-line than any Conservative PM I can recall in Canada's history. No, Stephen Maher is wrong. Harper has steered his party way, way over to the hard-line pro-abortion side.

Remember Stephen Harper's hidden agenda? What do you think this is? His agenda remained so hidden, for so long, that he can even fool the media. How hidden can you get? 

And Stephen Harper was smart. He did it all incrementally. Harper was never clear about his position initially, and he made some subtle comments about not dealing with the issue. But as the years went on, he became more against it and more direct about it, saying his government wouldn't restrict it, then saying he would do everything in his power to prevent a bill coming to a vote, then O'Connor's speech was the ultimate abortion manifesto, and then actually ensuring M-408 didn't come to a vote. But in the end Stephen Harper created a hard-line abortion policy.

It's ironic that so much of what Harper wants to do is being prevented by the courts, as Maher says, and yet the Supreme Court has said on several occasions that Parliament can do something about protecting preborn children. Yet Harper refuses to do that.

So the courts will allow it. Social conservatives want it. The public would support some reasonable measure. And yet here we are, one of the most anti-preborn child countries in the world.

Not hard-line my foot.

How Canadians can ban late-term abortions

LiveAction goes undercover again, this time in America's late-term abortion industry.

Notice how the abortion doctor continually calls the unborn child "the pregnancy". And she seems to have no problem in going ahead and aborting the 27 week old baby.



But there is something else noteworthy in this video. It is that two congresswomen stand up and speak out very openly and forcefully against abortion.

Republican Diane Black says:

"there is undisputed scientific evidence that babies over 20 weeks and over gestation can feel pain and that late-term abortion can impose severe health risks also for the mother...There is no federal law to protect pain capable unborn children or their mothers by restricting late-term abortions."

Republican Ann Wagner says:

"Everyone talks about the right to choose, but no-one discusses the implications of that choice."

Those are two gutsy women.

Why do we so infrequently have Canadian MPs speaking out against late-term abortion? Is it because our Prime Minister muzzles them? Is it because the pro-abortions will draw and quarter them? Or is it both these reasons?

We know what happened when Rona Ambrose spoke out in favour of Motion 312.

NDP MP Libies Davies actually said that Ms. Ambrose "betrayed the women of this country."

And Joyce Arthur said Ms. Ambrose "threw women under the bus".

One can easily see why our pro-life MPs (especially female ones) are very reticent in speaking out for women and their pre-born children. They know as soon as they say anything on the subject, they will be publicly humiliated by these extreme feminists.

Motion 312 was a Motion to call for a Parliamentary committee to study when a child becomes a human being. What part of that Motion exactly, betrays women and throws them under the bus I ask you?

Between 60 and 77% of Canadians believe late-term abortions should be banned.

There isn't a whole lot we can do about pro-abortion extremists except ignore them.

But there is something we can do about Mr. Harper.

It's time for the Conservatives to call a leadership review.

Stephen Harper afraid of Niki Ashton

In this article in the Hill Times: PM's tight grip, PMO's 'boys in short pants' frustrating some restless Tory bacbenchers, Jessica Bruno says that:
"former deputy chief of staff to the PM says restless backbenchers are also frustrated by the caucus control of "the boys in short pants" running the PMO. "Certainly the level of control is higher even from when I was there," said Keith Beardsley in an interview with The Hill Times..."If he had let that go forward, the way the media responds—the attacks from the Niki Ashtons of the world and so on—would be that Harper’s direction is going back on abortion, he’s breaking his word”

I think Mr. Beardelsy is on to something here. Have you ever heard those noisy NDPers like Niki Asthon speak? There are many of these attack dog female MPs who always manage to link everything under the sun to Mr. Harper reopening the abortion debate. Ms. Ashton just seems to be the latest alpha female devoted to this line of work, and I think Mr. Harper doesn't like it.

Kind of ironic really, because we all know that we aren't allow to have an abortion debate in Parliament.

Below are a few examples of how this works.

Before Stephen Woodworth’s motion 312 was debated, is this exchange between Ms. Ashton and Rob Nicholson:
Niki Ashton. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would not reopen the debate on abortion. Nevertheless, that is exactly what one of his Conservative members is going to do tomorrow in the House. Canadian women have been fighting for decades for this right. Why is the Prime Minister not speaking out loudly and clearly against what his own party is trying to do here in the House?

Rob Nicholson. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the rules with respect to private members’ bills. That bill will be debated as all other private members’ bills are debated in the House, in accordance with the rules of the House. I do not see why that should be a problem for the hon. member.

Niki Ashton. Mr. Speaker, during the election and in the House the Conservative government has said that it is not going to reopen the abortion debate, but that is exactly what it is doing in this very House. While other members have done this in the past, the Prime Minister has done something to stop it. This is not the case this time. He is saying one thing in the House while through the back door he is rolling back Canadian women’s rights. Will the Prime Minister stand in the House right now and tell his party that a woman’s right to choose in Canada in 2012 is not up for negotiation?

Rob Nicholson. Mr. Speaker, the government’s position has been very clear. Unlike the NDP, we do not muzzle our members as that party now does. The bill will be debated as all private members’ bills are debated.

Notice how Ms. Ashton completely ignores Mr. Nicholson's comments about private member's business, and instead goes for Mr. Harper's abortion juggler, about him not reopening the abortion debate. (Notice the forshadowing here though with Mr. Nicholson's statement that "Unlike the NDP, we do not muzzle our members as that party now does.")

Then this here:
"We should not return to using coat hangers (or) vacuum cleaners,” NDP status of women critic Niki Ashton said during the Woodworth debate.

“This is the Conservative party’s ‘Trojan horse’ agenda. During an election and even here in the House of Commons, they tell Canadians one thing and then they win . . . a majority government and we see what they truly mean. If the prime minister didn’t want a woman’s right to choose to be debated, we wouldn’t be here tonight.”

And this one here:
"In the Commons, New Democrat MP Niki Ashton blasted Harper for allowing Tory MPs to “reopen the abortion debate” despite his own promises.

“New Democrats are the only party united that will stand up to vote for women’s equality because this is not a matter of conscience. It is a matter of rights.”

Probably the best example, is this one regarding the born alive and left to die after abortion story. Watch Niki Ashton and Maurice Velacott being interviewed by CBC. Ashton completely ignores the story being discussed, i.e. born alive babies being left to die and Mr. Velacott asking the RCMP to investigate this fact as possible murders. Ms. Ashton either has no idea what she's talking about, or she purposely ignores the born alive aspect. Then she starts in on the expected: Mr. Harper "reopening the abortion debate" and "when will the Prime Minister put a stop to this".

So why do these female MPs do it? Because they know by equating everything to abortion, Mr. Harper digs his heels in a little deeper and abracadabra mission accomplished: no abortion debate. 

Is Mr. Harper afraid of Niki Ashton? Sure looks like it. And she and her cronies win every time. They keep all protection for the unborn from ever being discussed or debated in Parliament by simply uttering the magic words that Mr. Harper is reopening the aboortion debate and can't he keep those renegade MPs quiet.

This past week we witnessed a private member's motion actually being thrown out of Parliament when Mark Warawa's motion was deemed not votable. Now the Niki Ashtons are really winning because the Conservatives are now "muzzling" their own MPs from their rights associated with private member' business...

Bet Stephen Harper didn't know he worked for Niki Ashton.

Harper or Obama: who would you choose?

There are two ways to be "pro-choice". The first is the Barack Obama way. The second is the Stephen Harper way.

The way Mr. Obama does it, is the in your face approach. There can be no doubt about where Mr. Obama stands on "women's rights". He is not even against partial birth abortion. And neither is Mrs. Obama.

This is what Mr. Obama said regarding the Born Alive Act, a bill that requires doctors to give care to babies who survive abortions. In the audio Mr. Obama argues against a law that would require another doctor to come in and save the baby if it's viable.

(Also notice he has some trouble with what to call the born child, calling it a fetus):
"That if that fetus, or child, however you want to describe it, is now outside of the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's non viable but there's lets say movement or some indication that they're not just coming out limp and dead that in fact they would then have to call in a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved?"

In fact Mrs. Obama actively campaigned for her husband in 2004 calling partial-birth abortion “legitimate” medicine:
“The fact remains, with no provision to protect the heath of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned.”

That great abortion mecca in the US, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), even gave Obama a "100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007".

Mr. Obama also cozies up to International Planned Parenthood. So much so, that the White House actually produced a video on Youtube where he thanks IPPF.



Now we come to the Stephen Harper way of being pro-choice. Where does Mr. Harper stand on abortion? Well, he's never said that he supports abortion. He's also never said that he's against abortion. (Though I did find this quote in 2002 where he says he's "moderately pro-life". Whatever that means). Ever since of course, Mr. Harper has refused to discuss abortion in any way shape or form.

Even though Mr. Harper won't talk about abortion, his actions clearly tells us he is pro-choice.

For instance, in the fall of 2008, Mr. Harper conveniently called an election, killing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, Bill C-484, which had previously passed the Second Reading vote in the spring of 2008 (Note: all bills die when an election is called). Then Mr. Harper voted against Roxanne's Law against coerced abortion (Bill C-510). Next Mr. Harper voted against study to look at when life begins (Motion 312). And finally, Mr. Harper tells us his government will vote against a Motion against sex-selection abortion (Motion 408).

And last and probably most, Mr. Harper won't let us discuss abortion in Parliament, which is quite puzzling. Mr. Harper is not afraid of debating any other issue in this country. So why is he so afraid of debating or discussing abortion?

At least Obama is up-front about where he stands on abortion, he supports a "woman's right to choose" and says so. Mr. Harper just zippers his lips. But if you aren't against something, you're for it. So Mr. Harper is pro-choice.

If I had to choose between the two "pro-choice" strategies, I'd choose Mr.Obama's any day. At least we know what we're up against.

For so long Social Conservatives thought Mr. Harper was pro-life and just waiting for that majority, which he got, yet nothing changed. Except maybe, Mr. Harper dug in his pro-choice heels a little bit deeper.

I have only one question I'd like to ask. We all know that behind every great man stands an even greater woman. This is certainly true of the Obamas, the Clintons, and others. What about the Harpers? Is the great woman behind Mr. Harper the driving force behind his irrational refusal to discuss abortion? Interesting question, n'est ce pas?

Pro-abortions: what's wrong with them?

I think the pro-abortions are getting desperate. How else can we account for such pathetic behaviour?

Watch the rabid pro-abortions heckle and scream and use profane language to shout down MP Stephen Woodworth.

I'd call their behaviour infantile or childish, except I wouldn't want to insult infants or children.

It's actually kind of funny that one of them actually said (when they wouldn't let Stephen Woodworth speak) that:
“That kind of speech, that kind of facts, are not acceptable...we decided to go by the route of using satire instead of intimidation…we decided to make Stephen Woodworth feel as uncomfortable as he makes us feel.”

Not using intimidation? You're pulling my leg, right?

Did these pro-abortions ever hear of something called: having a debate and presenting some intelligent arguments to advance your point of view? Apparently not.

And then there's the Ottawa police officer who confiscates a phone from a peaceful pro-lifer and deletes all his files. Doesn't sound too legal to me.

So what's going on here? Do pro-choicers really need to resort to these kinds of threatening and despicable tactics? Haven't we been always told that it is the pro-lifers who use violence, etc?

Maybe they're frustrated because they aren't making any new friends and influencing people to their pro-abortion way of thinking. Maybe they're losing ground. Maybe they're afraid they've run out of misinformation and untruths to tell us. Maybe they know their arguments don't make any sense anymore and people see through them. Maybe they're just tired. Maybe they need to take a time-out, go sit in the corner for a bit, and have a nice cookie and a drink from their sippy cup.

When you get too extreme, well, I guess there's no where else to go but backwards.

Who does your MP work for?

I wish Brad Trost were my MP.

After Motion 312 was defeated, Mr. Trost told his constituents that he--are you ready for this--works for them, and not for Mr. Harper. I am not kidding.

On Octocber 9, 2012 in a piece on his website called "Working for You" (the audacity; the boldness; the chutzpah; what was he thinking?). Mr. Trost said this about the MPs who voted their conscience on the Motion:
"...a majority of Conservative MPs went against Prime Minister Harper’s strongly expressed view on this issue. This vote illustrates a reality in the House of Commons that has often been forgotten. Members of Parliament don’t work for the leader of their respective party. They work for their constituents.

In a parliamentary system like Canada’s, Prime Minister Harper is not my boss, he is the first among equals. The constituents of Saskatoon-Humboldt are my bosses. Whether you agree with my votes or disagree with my votes, you need to let me know because I really do work for you."

I would love to have an MP who worked for me. But alas, no.

I wonder if Mr. Trost will let me adopt him?

What it means to be pro-life

Father Jerry's homily on Oct 7 tells us about being pro-life on both ends of the life continuum.

After Motion-312 was defeated, Father Jerry went home and wept. He wept for our Prime Minister and he wept for our MPs who voted against the bill. He wept for the babies killed by abortion and he wept for the babies threatened by abortion and who will never see the light of day.

He also spoke about spending many hours with Father Bedard as he lay dying in the hospital.

Listen to his homily. Father Jerry is a true witness to the Gospel of Life. What an example he is for all of us.

When some women think they speak for all women

There is a funny thing that goes on in this country, where the so-called feminists think they speak for all women, when clearly they don't, but that doesn't stop them from saying they do, and really, you know, it gets kind of boring.

So, Like Naomi Lakritz, who does a fine piece on  MP Rona Ambrose, I also:
"didn't ask [NDP deputy leader Libby] Davies to speak on my behalf, and I don't feel betrayed in any way, so I don't appreciate being lumped into the grey bloc conveniently labelled "Canadian women."

I am a Canadian woman and those women do not speak for me now, they didn't speak for me before, and they definitely won't speak for me later. They simply do not have a corner on speaking for Canadian women.

So please. Can you do us all a favour? Get over yourselves.

CCBR launches - Face the Children

Press release from CCBR:

"September 25, 2012: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

National Anti-Abortion Group Sends Message To MPs on Eve of Motion 312 Vote

The Toronto and Calgary-based anti-abortion group the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: www.unmaskingchoice.ca) released video of abortion-supporting members of Parliament Nikki Ashton (Churchill, Manitoba) and Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe, Ontario) defending abortion in Canada interspersed with gruesome clips of aborted fetuses.

CCBR says it is sending a message to all Members of Parliament ahead of the vote on Motion 312: “If you won’t protect the children, you will face the children.”

“Too long have Canada’s pro-abortion politicians had a free pass while pro-life politicians are viciously attacked,” said executive director Stephanie Gray. “It’s time to show Canadians what they are defending, and who they are betraying.”

The group says the video is just the start of a much larger project they are working on that includes both an online and on the ground component, which they have dubbed “Face the Children.”

“If politicians are going to abandon the most vulnerable Canadians, it’s time their constituents were aware of their position,” said Gray. “And we are prepared to educate voters on what abortion is, and what their MP said about it.”

Jason Kenney will support Motion 312

Cabinet Minister Jason Kenney will vote in favour of Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

Mr. Kenny stated:
"I have said I will vote in favour of the motion and I respect all the point of views of all the ministers and all the MPs...I think we can have a respectful debate on this question and, like I said, the big tradition of all parties in government is to allow a free vote on questions of conscience.”

Surely if Mr. Kenny can vote in favour of a respectful debate, so can other MPs. Let's hope a lot more of them will do so. After all, that's what we are talking about here: Debate. In a democracy. Like Canada. Simple really.

Brian Lilley talks to Linda Gibbons

Question: What do you call a pro-lifer in court?

Answer: Guilty

Watch Brian Liley's interview below Abortion appears to trump everything including free speech with Linda Gibbons. What a national treasure Linda is. I wish I had her guts.

Pro-choice

I think our MPs need to look at what the folks over at CCBR are doing.

They might want to rethink whether or not they still want to vote against Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

There's nothing like the unvarnished truth of watching an abortion procedure--juxtaposed with Joyce Arthur speaking about her dogma of "women's rights"--to make you sit up and take notice.

If this is what "women's rights" is all about, could any MP actually vote against the motion?

What about the rest of us. Do we really believe in "women's rights"?

From CCBR's press release:

"Anti-Abortion Group Releases Most Shocking Abortion Footage Yet Leading Abortion Rights Advocate's Words Exposed

September 24, 2012. The Toronto and Calgary-based pro-life organization the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca) released a video showing Joyce Arthur, the head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, defending abortion intercut with footage of an abortion procedure in-progress and abortion's results.

The video can be viewed here:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0XzVjYXuCWs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"The recent debate on Motion 312 has been dominated by the worst kind of  sophistry from Canada's abortion advocates," explained executive director Stephanie Gray, "So we decided to make a video unmasking the rhetoric so Canadians understand what abortion advocates mean when they say things like 'choice' and 'reproductive freedom.'"

The video, which the pro-life organization promises is the first in a series of many, shows interviews of Ms. Arthur talking about the "social peace" Canada has reached on the abortion issue while playing gruesome footage.

Gray explained, "Canada's abortion advocates have been permitted to talk about abortion for too long without people knowing what 'abortion' actually refers to. From now on, we plan to use video footage of what this horrific procedure actually looks like to show abortion as the act of dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment that it is."

Pro-life people are not going away

The priests at our parish are unabashedly pro-life. Thank God for that.

This morning we were lucky to hear a pretty pointed pro-life homily from Farther Jerry.

He told us about Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 to create a committee to look at when an unborn child becomes a human being. He told us he called Mr. Woodworth's office Friday night and left him a message to congratulate him on his motion.

He told us about the 40 days for life initiative which starts this week. This is an international campaign of prayer and peaceful witness outside of the world's abortion mills to highlight and defeat the scourge of abortion in our time. This prayer campaign has helped to close abortion clinics, and has saved thousands of babies.

He told us how Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and others have spoken up for the unborn.

Father Jerry wrote his first letter to a Prime Minister when he was 8 years old. He was sitting at the kitchen table and asked his father what abortion was. His father answered him, that's when the government kills babies.

Father Jerry also had a message for Mr. Harper regarding pro-life people. He wants Mr. Harper to know that pro-life people are not going away. That pro-life people have courage. He told us not to let anyone tell us to mind our own business. He told us, this is our business.

We will end abortion. We will do it in God's time. And according to God's plan.

Update on September 25 - Father Jerry's full audio of his Sunday homily:

Who will the MPS listen to?

Check out Ted Gerk's excellent analysis of what Chief Justice Bertha Wilson said about abortion rights and abortion law. And about how Parliament is the place for debate on this subject to take place.

We already know only too well, how many Canadians are influenced by the extreme pro-abortion advocates in this country and it is unfortunate, since much of what they say is a perversion and twisting of reality. As Ted points out the pro-abortions even contradict themselves, changing their tune as they scoot along their merry pro-abortion way.

As a result of this loud and noisy revisionist nonsense, many Members of Parliament are also afraid to allow Canadians to debate abortion on any level, even when the discussion is only about a discussion on when does a child become a human being.

As for the pro-abortions, are they afraid of what might happen if we get to have this discussion? That their abortion rights house of cards might come tumbling down?

Let's hope our MPs use their own consciences today to decide for themselves whether or not Canadians should be allowed to discuss the point of Stephen Woodworth's motion.

New reality TV show

In a new reality TV show to be aired this fall called Woman to decide what she does with her body, we see a rare and unusual pairing of the NDP and Conservatives.

I take you now to the the entertainment capital of the world (Parliament Hill) where the show's pilot was taped. 

The first show opens up with Ms. Francoise Boivin standing in the House of Commons, looking admiringly at Mr. Stephen Harper.

We are transfixed as we listen to what this NDP MP is telling Mr. Harper about Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

This is what she said:
“I appreciate that the prime minister…has clearly stated that there will be no support for M-312...before the birth there is absolutely no point for me to tell you what I think because the law in Canada is it’s up to the woman to decide what she does with her body,”

Yes TV watchers you heard it right. Ms. Boivin likes what the Prime Minister is doing. I am not kidding. And you heard it here first.

What a show this will be. The NDP and the Conservatives. Together. For the very first time. If I hadn't heard and seen the taping of this groundbreaking show for myself, I wouldn't have believed it.

With a season opener like that, this reporter is unclear as to what we can expect next. Because Parliament has only just begun. But I think we can expect a lot of high drama during this session.

Maybe in upcoming shows, Ms. Boivin will learn that there are actually two distinct bodies when a woman becomes pregnant. How will she react? Will she get it? What will she do? Will she change her tune? Will she become a Social Conservative? We just don't know.

Which is why it is really really really important that you stay tuned. To this station. This fall. I am not kidding.

(Disclaimer. This story is pure fantasy. Or not. You be the judge. It was inspired when I read Daniel Proussalidis PM Sides with NDP on ‘human life’ motion)

When Mr. Harper speaks we all listen

In this piece by Chantal Hebert Harper must deftly handle two potential time bombs Fetal rights and language both on the agenda, Hebert says about the upcoming Stephen Woodwrorth Motion-312:
"On the abortion issue, Harper has made his wishes crystal clear. He wants the motion defeated. If his view prevails, he will have achieved his goal of shutting down the debate for the duration of this Parliament.".

Mr. Harper "shutting down debate for the duration of this Parliament". Yes sir. No sir. Whatever you say Mr. Harper.

How's that for democracy?

EFC and Motion M-312 - Let’s not debate abortion just now

Thursday, Aug 30, 2012

The ABC’s of Motion M-312 – Abortion, Bioethics & the Canadian Medical Association

Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 2:53PM

By Don Hutchinson

Let’s not debate abortion just now. I won’t deny that both the EFC and I are unabashedly pro-life. Such a denial would be foolish because that position is both well stated and well documented. But let’s not debate abortion or euthanasia or assisted suicide or any of those other pro-life issues just now. Let’s consider Motion M-312 as introduced by Kitchener Centre MP Stephen Woodworth:

That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party;

that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2); that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

Mr. Woodworth is also a pro-lifer. He’s made no secret of that. However, his motion is not about abortion (some call it the “a-word” because they seem to fear even uttering it under their breath) but about a bigger question, “How does Canadian law define ‘human being’ and how does that definition impact Canadian life beyond a sub-paragraph in the Criminal Code?” Not only is a big question being asked, but it’s being asked in the House of Commons where the Canadian legal definition of ‘human being’ resides, according to the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of our constitution.

Mr. Woodworth hasn’t proposed a change in the law, but a study of the law by a committee of MPs composed and functioning in the usual manner and structure of Parliamentary committees (plenty of opportunity for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be appointed members and/or alternates) – with the committee to report back to Parliament, also in the usual manner of Parliamentary committees.

For those who have expressed concern that this is a backdoor to reopening the debate on the a-word, it is simple enough to observe that the debate on abortion has not stopped in Parliament (with well over a dozen related private members actions by either motion or bill over the last two decades) – where the Supreme Court of Canada said in R v Morgentaler (1988) the debate belongs; the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to hear cases dealing directly with maternal rights issues, the (non-existent) rights of the pre-born child and the interest of the state in the life of a pre-born child; and, the debate has continued in public through voices on both sides of the issue with strong commentary in the traditional and non-traditional media on an ongoing basis. I fully expect that there will be those who would wish to make submission to the committee who will address the issue of abortion. But the questions posed are bigger than abortion and the mandate is more fundamental to Canadian law.

The motion proposes a study of a key matter for bioethics. I was on the elevator in our building with an obviously pregnant woman and the following brief conversation took place:

Me: Congratulations. I see you’re pregnant. Are you hoping to have a human being?

Woman: What?

Me: As the law currently stands in Canada, your baby isn’t considered a human being until he or she fully emerges from your body. I’m a lawyer studying this issue and am interested in your reaction to finding out your child isn’t a human being yet.

She looked quizzical as she left the elevator. I elected not to follow, discretion perhaps being the better part of valour.

As a matter of simple bioethics, the status of the child in the womb is important to medical considerations and scientific experimentation (including eugenics, sex selection, assisted reproduction and legal debates over stored genetic materials). That brings me to the C in this list of the simple ABCs.

On August 15, 2012, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) passed a resolution that states:

The Canadian Medical Association favours maintaining subsection 223 (1) of the Criminal Code, which states that a child “becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother […].”

This resolution could easily have been drafted and proposed by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) – the insurance and legal defense side of medical practice in Canada. Who else would have come up with such a self-serving idea? The CMPA has been representing doctors in the courts for over a century – including arguing that there is no entitlement to damages for medical actions that result in the death of a child that does not survive to become a human being as defined in subsection 223 (1) of the Criminal Code. For those doctors engaged in surgery on the child in the womb, abortion procedures (where care is taken to make sure the child will not breath outside the mother’s body and become a human being lest it be entitled to protection under the law) and other pre-birth foetal engagement, the measure of legal protection is seemingly absolute as long as the child does not completely proceed in a living state from the body of its mother.

Doctors and scientists are dealing with genetic material, embryos and pre-born children as human, in the context of a law that says “not human beings.” The CMA’s own guidelines note that at 20 weeks gestation the child is capable of becoming a legal “human being,” i.e. it can survive outside the mother’s body, and as such it is ethically wrong to perform an abortion after that point. (It’s kind of bizarre that we Canadians are living with a law that describes a child as a “child” while in the womb but not a “human being” until it has emerged from its mother’s body as subsection 223 (1) does.)

Mr. Woodworth’s motion raises the question, “Are we living with an arbitrary legal fiction about what is and is not human?” As such, the proposed committee would have the opportunity to examine when being human begins, including recent efforts to advocate that “human being” should begin at some point after birth; as in Holland for infanticide of children born with evident “defects” or as suggested in this article from the Journal of Medical Ethics, perhaps as late as 3 years after birth.

I agree with Margaret Somerville, director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, “that we need to recover our sense of amazement, wonder and awe at the creation of new human life” and, as she suggests, we need to have this in-depth discussion. The place for the discussion as proposed by Mr. Woodworth – and as recommended by the Supreme Court of Canada – would be Parliament, using the usual means of Parliamentary study to engage with the public in examination of Parliament’s own law that is founded in the medical science of 400 years past. No backdoors, only an open front door for all to see and have opportunity to participate in a routine legislative review that is apparently centuries overdue.

Big abortion and the CMA

The CMA has officially come out in support of maintaining a section of the Criminal Code that declares a child becomes a human being at the moment of birth.

One doctor, Dr. Genevieve Desbiens said this:
“I’m asking for you to recognize that women must retain their full and complete rights.”

Really? Can't the CMA do better than that? This "woman's rights" horse manure, really is getting too boring for words. Can't the feminists invent a new slogan? This one is just so 70's.

But here's what I cannot comprehend on any level. Shouldn't doctors know better than to say that the child is not a human being before the child is born? What exactly do they think is inside the mother's womb? A cat? A dog? A ten headed serpent? Why would a doctor do fetal surgery on a baby if not a human being, a real live person, a baby by any other name?

Oh yes I know, the CMA represents those other human beings (abortionists) who actually do the dirty deed to the defenseless human beings (the babies), so yeah, I guess it makes sense the CMA wouldn't want to admit that the children are human beings because that would be admitting some of their own colleagues are, you know, killers.

And sure, saying they support "women's rights" sounds so nice, so inclusive, so adorable. That will ease their guilty consciences, after all, how can anyone who supports "women's rights" be the bad guy?

If you'd like to read something that, God I pray, these doctors would actually spend five minutes out of their busy abortion schedule to read, it's this excerpt from Dave Andrusko (about fetal pain and testimony by a former abortion doctor) who does away with that rubbish lie and greatest urban legend of all time of "women's rights":

“Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp [an instrument for grasping and crushing tissue] grasping anything you can. At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”

“you know you did it right if you crush down, a white material runs out of the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. Then you can pull out skull pieces. Many times a little face will come back and stare back at you…And if you think that doesn’t hurt, if you believe that isn’t an agony for the baby, please think again.”

It is becoming crystal clear to me what's going on here. An organization that has members who do the above described activity for a living wouldn't want to admit that what they are ripping tiny arms and legs from, and crushing the skulls of and spilling the brains out of are, you know, tiny defenseless human beings. Because if they admitted that, their consciences might compel them to stop--and then what would that do to that big old abortion industry ($70M in Ontario alone)?"

So no, we certainly cannot have that discussion. It's so much better for the CMA to worship at the abortion altar of "woman's rights," than to face a truth they simply cannot handle. A truth that slaps them in their conscience, and hits them in their pocket book. The truth about what an unborn child is.

A really important news story

You’d think the Globe and Mail would have more important things to write about than "wooly wombs." Like maybe the democracy crisis looming in Ontario with the government’s decision to perform all abortions in secret and the hiding of all abortion statistics.

But no. The Globe hasn’t covered that story yet. I guess they aren't interested in those kinds of news stories.

Instead they prefer to haul out that tired old outdated hobby horse about how some women won’t tolerate "any changes to women’s reproductive rights."

And how some of said women want to bring attention to that so-called, really boring actually, tired, should-be-put-down-hobby-horse, straight out of make believe land, you guessed it, the "right of a woman to have control over her own body."

Yawn. Is there something on the other channel?

But what these women really mean, but just can’t bring themselves to say because it is oh, so politically incorrect--is that what they really want is to have the right to have control over somebody’s else's body.

You see, in MP Stephen Woodworth’s motion M-312, Mr. Woodworth wants to have a discussion to study "Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being".

Sounds like a conversation worth having if you ask me even though I’m quite sure they won’t ask me but you get my drift.

So these wild west wooly womb knitters (try to say that with a mouthful of potatoes) don’t want to let Canadians have that discussion. Why? Well because...because...because they don’t want to discuss it. That’s all. Just because. Trust me.

Instead of giving us some really good arguments why we shouldn’t have this discussion in a democracy like Canada where we are used to having debates on most topics, present topic excluded, they knit wooly wombs.

And get this. They are going to send them to Parliament. Yes they are. I kid you not. That will change the course of history. No need for a good argument when a wooly womb will do.

I need to go now. I need to take a nap.