When the Conservatives act like Liberals

You know Pierre Lemieux makes a really good point in his latest email to his supporters. When the pro-abortion Liberals decided to spend more of our tax dollars on abortion in poor countries, why haven't we heard anything against this from the Conservative party?

"You may have missed a significant announcement last week. 

The Liberals announced that they are giving $20 million this year to help International Planned Parenthood provide more abortions overseas. 

If you missed it, it wasn’t because the Liberals tried to hide it. They’ve been pre-positioning it for weeks. 

Rather, it is because Conservatives, as Opposition, are saying nothing."

Why the silence? Do the Conservatives condone this spending? Surely not. Aren't the Conservatives all about fiscal prudence? We have a 635 billion dollar debt in this country, and no Conservatives are talking about this shameful waste of money. Oh it's about abortion, is that it? Can't be seen as opposing anything to do with abortion?

Seems like the Conservative party is becoming an awful lot like the pro-abortion Liberals when they refuse to hold the Liberals to account to us for this shameful spending on killing unborn children in poor countries:

"When life issues are “out of bounds” for us as Conservatives, the Liberals are able to implement their agenda without any accountability or challenge."

Here's the question then. Why do we need a Conservative party at all? When the Conservative party we thought we had is really just a Liberal party?

Thomas Mulcair as Prime Minister - maybe it's not all bad

So what would happen if Thomas Mulcair becomes Canada's next Prime Minister?

Now there are some definite problems with this. Saving Canada Post's door to door delivery, $15 a day daycare, and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage, to name just a few big NDP government spending nightmares.

But maybe it's not all bad.

For starters, I, and many other Canadians, are very tired of Mr. Harper and how the party itself has fared under him. Mr. Harper is a control freak. He won't allow discussion on abortion in Parliament. He's completely standoffish, refusing to engage with ordinary people or the media. Maybe he cares about the average Canadian, but if he does, he doesn't show it. It seems to be only about power for power's sake.

As far as Justin Trudeau goes, he scares me to death. Really, would I trust the country to someone who has said and done so many dumb things? Who won't respond to a letter from Canadians signed by 395 people? Who actually thinks a woman has a charter right to abortion; etc, etc.?

On the plus side of the Conservative party, we know that it is the only party of the three main parties, that will allow MPs to have a choice on whether or not they are "pro-choice", never mind the irony of that fact. But that never seemed to actually help them do anything pro-life as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives.

So what's the not so bad part of Mr. Mulcair as Prime Minister? Because it frees up pro-life Conservative MPs to do something while in opposition. We know that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair won't even allow pro-life persons to be a candidate in the election. And as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives and they are in power, no pro-life MP will ever be successful with any pro-life motion or bill brought forward in Parliament anyway.

But if the Conservatives don't get into power then Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper won't be leader anymore. Conservative MPs in opposition, will at least be be free to speak out on abortion. And bring forward pro-life private member's bills or motions.

Who knows how this could turn out? At the very least it will be a very interesting election.

Conservatives - Tell a story, change the world

This is an excellent talk by Ann McElhinney given at the Heritage Resource Bank. It's about 35 minutes long.

Ann is the maker of the upcoming Gosnell documentary. Kermit Gosnell was the biggest serial killer in American history.

If you haven't already donated to the Gosnell movie, Ann asks that you donate just one dollar. (But this is not the main point of her talk.)

Ann tells us how the left makes movies, and their movies contain the left's messages. We see it all the time. Their "story" is always part of the movie.

We need to learn from the left to get our own messages out (I can't believe I'm saying that but it is true). We have to tell our stories. Just like they do.

Striking a nerve about not voting Conservative

Today's National Post published three letters in response to a letter I wrote. All the letters are below.

(Note that my original letter actually had another line that never made it to print. It addressed two of these letters objections, about who we could vote for instead of the Conservatives? The deleted sentence read: "I would vote for the Christian Heritage party since I couldn't vote NDP or Liberal." One letter writer thought that "I should do what's best for Canada". I fully intend to do this, and as it currently stands, that means I won't be voting Conservative. Not unless I see some big changes with their leadership and/or their "pro-choice" stance. There is a lot more meat in these letters to argue with, and I'll leave it to others to do that.)

My letter as published in the NP:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Re: For Harper’s Conservatives, 2013 Was All About The Senate Scandal, Rex Murphy, Dec. 27.

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.

I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject.

As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.

I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

And the three responses in today's NP

‘The moral facts of abortion are not the purview of the state’

Re: I Used To Be A Hard-Core Conservative, letter to the editor, Jan.2.

A sure path to election defeat would be a decision by the Conservative party to take an anti-abortion position. I am also a staunch supporter of the party and the idea that government would be able to make decisions regarding a woman’s right to choose sends us back to the dark ages. Religious dogma has no place in political party policy.

Carol Joseph, Burlington, Ont.

Letter-writer Patricia Maloney is critical of the Prime Minister’s policy on abortion. I am also a hard-core conservative, but I support Stephen Harper for several reasons. First, he made a commitment to eschew the subject and has stuck by his word. He has not stated what his true stand on abortion is, but we all know that all opposition parties favour the matter; a dangerous, if not destructive political situation. In addition, legally prohibiting abortion would no more to stop it than prohibiting alcohol or drugs — those laws, in fact, made drug and alcohol use many times more destructive.

The moral facts of abortion are not the purview of the state, but are the responsibility of religion and Ms. Maloney should look to her religion to rectify this tragic situation. Finally, if I don’t vote Conservative, I have nowhere to go.

Hugh Buckley, Vancouver.

Patricia Maloney said that as a conservative, she would have a hard time supporting the federal Conservatives in the next election because of inaction on creating abortion law. Has she considered the alternatives? Justin Trudeau, who is Catholic, espouses many beliefs that are contrary to Catholic doctrine. So did Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, all Catholics. I doubt if Thomas Mulcair could be counted on to defend the unborn, either.

Stephen Harper is not a Catholic but his government is focusing foreign aid on developing countries that work to save the lives of new mothers and their children. With men like Jason Kenny and John Baird in his cabinet, I have no doubt which party is the best for this country.

I sincerely hope that Ms. Maloney will rethink her position and do what is best for Canada.

Sybil Fretz, Pickering, Ont.

Federal Conservatives don't support all conservatives

Rex Murphy talked about 2013 and how Prime Minister Stephen Harper reacted to the senate scandal:

"As always in a crisis, Mr. Harper drew up the drawbridge and retreated to the fortress, i.e., his political base. There is a genuine hardcore of Conservative followers who will stay with the party however dark the clouds; and when in difficulty, Mr. Harper tends to them and them only. (The Liberals and NDP both can claim a similar core of diehards.) But in Mr. Harper’s case, the power of the Senate scandal was such as to detach even some from this otherwise unshakeable support group."

Here is my response to this in a letter in today's National Post:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Re: For Harper’s Conservatives, 2013 Was All About The Senate Scandal, Rex Murphy, Dec. 27.

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.

I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject. [This motion was deemed non-votable because it was supposedly outside of federal jurisdiction. So how could it be legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?]

As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.

I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Will Motion allow MPs to speak out on abortion?

So we now know that Justin Trudeau is putting forward his own motion to:
"open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

But this has confused me, based on a prior tweet to a CBC reporter when he said that:
"Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right. See my policy on democratic reform at Justin.ca"

So I just sent Mr. Trudeau the following email to ask him to clarify his tweet, in light of this Liberal Motion.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

Recently you said in a tweet that you are: "Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right. See my policy on democratic reform at Justin.ca"

And today you made this statement that:

“Members of Parliament from all parties should be community leaders, free to share the priorities and express the views of those they represent,” said Mr. Trudeau. “That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities."

The Liberal Opposition Day motion, to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons on Monday, would change House of Commons rules to ensure that every MP has an equal opportunity to raise issues of importance to their communities. Currently, that process is controlled by party leadership, which decides who will speak and on what issues.

“Canadians must have confidence that the candidates they elect will represent their views in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s views to them,” said Mr. Trudeau. “Our motion is a strong step in the right direction and we hope that all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, will agree to support it.”

Can you please clarify for me whether or not, you would allow an MP to use their Member Statement (SO31) to speak out against abortion?

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

I'll post his reply once I hear back from him. Stay tuned.

Liberal strategy - have a good weekend Mr. Harper

Well well well. Maybe Justin Trudeau isn't just another pretty hair-do. Seems like he's pulled a pretty big rabbit out of his hat.

Check this out from the Liberal's website:

Liberals to Introduce Motion to Give all MPs a Greater Voice For Their Communities in the House of Commons

Posted on April 19, 2013

MONTREAL– The Liberal Party will launch a debate in the House of Commons next week to help make Parliament more democratic and more representative of Canadians and their priorities, said Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau today.

“Members of Parliament from all parties should be community leaders, free to share the priorities and express the views of those they represent,” said Mr. Trudeau. “That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

The Liberal Opposition Day motion, to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons on Monday, would change House of Commons rules to ensure that every MP has an equal opportunity to raise issues of importance to their communities. Currently, that process is controlled by party leadership, which decides who will speak and on what issues.

“Canadians must have confidence that the candidates they elect will represent their views in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s views to them,” said Mr. Trudeau. “Our motion is a strong step in the right direction and we hope that all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, will agree to support it.”

Background:

The Liberal Opposition Day motion is as follows:

That Standing Order 31 be amended by adding the following:

(1) The Speaker shall recognize Members in alphabetical order by Party. For the purposes of this Standing Order, all Members who do not belong to a recognized party shall be grouped together.

(2) When a Member is unable to present his or her statement on the date required by Standing Order 31(1), he or she may indicate in writing to the Speaker at least one hour prior to the beginning of Statement by Members, the name of the Member with whom he or she will exchange position.

Not only will the Conservatives not let us discuss abortion, they don't seem overly fond of freedom of speech either. It was one thing when Mr. Harper's threw social Conservatives under the bus--driving over us a few times for good measure--when he killed Motion 408.

But he did all of this in OUR Parliament. He somehow thought it was HIS Parliament. Imagine that?

We know that the Liberals are pro-choice, but no more pro-choice than Mr. Harper. Yet now we find out that the Liberals seem to be pro-freedom-of-speech.

Well if I had to "choose" between the Liberals and the Conservatives right now, guess which party it would be Mr. Harper?

Pretty smooth move, Mr. Trudeau. Great manoeuvre on a Friday. Bet Mr. Harper's having fits right now.

Oh well, you reap what you sow I always say.

"I do not work for the Prime Minister's Office"

Tory MP seeks more freedom on the Hill

Edmonton's Brent Rathgeber gives us a back bench primer on democracy.

He is one of the 10 Conservatives who has asked the Speaker to look at the recent democratic lock-down on Parliament Hill.

Here is some of what he said as reported by the Ottawa Citizen:

Q. What's the role of an MP, and how do you balance that role with the responsibilities to party?

The role of the MP is to represent his or her constituents in the Parliament of Canada. However, we are elected under party banners. So you owe a significant loyalty with respect to the party and the party leader under whose banner you ran. It's a difficult compromise.

Q. Does that necessarily mean that caucus always has to speak with one voice?

I don't believe so. It's a moving line and a constant struggle of tug of war. I'm elected as a Conservative member of Parliament. My constituents expect me to support the prime minister and the cabinet. I don't have a problem doing that. Confidence motions, budgets, throne speeches - anything that could compromise the ability of the government to have the confidence of the House and therefore govern, I have an absolute obligation to support the government.

With respect to private members' business, I think it's a very different set of considerations.

Q. You've written that the last thing a government needs is sycophants and yes-men.

Well, absolutely. Different members of Parliament view their role here differently. There are those who believe an appropriate role for a backbench member of the government caucus is to be part of the communication machinery of the government. To use the talking points.

Q. When you write in your blog, have you ever had the PMO come down on you?

In the early days, individuals from Langevin (the building that houses PMO staff) - very, very junior individuals - would call me and suggest that they should become the editor of my writing. And although I was flattered that they wanted to become involved in my project, I was not convinced that that was going to be a workable relationship.

Q. How polite were you in telling them it was none of their business?

I was diplomatic. I think anybody who understands the Canadian Constitution knows that I do not work for the Prime Minister's Office. I am not a member of the prime minister's staff. I am a member of Parliament.

Q. Do you consider yourself a rogue member?

Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I don't believe I am the rogue at all. I am standing up and acting the way parliamentarians have acted for 800 years. They represent their constituents and they hold government to account. Loyal to this government, but not a simple yes-man.

I absolutely dispute the notion that constructive criticism of the government is somehow equivalent of rogueism.

Being a constructive critic of the government leads to better legislation, whereas a yes-man or a sycophant will continue to cheer blindly on the advent of imminent policy derailment.

Q. Is Parliament turning into bad theatre?

With more and more reliance on talking points and speeches written by someone else, you are seeing bad theatre where people are just reading their lines as opposed to actually debating.

It's no different than a play or a movie. You have a series of writers who write the lines and a series of actors who go into the House and read the lines. All parties are doing it. And that's not what Parliament was intended to be.

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Are you paying attention? What's happening is not the way Parliament is supposed to be. Our Honourable Members do not work for you. They work for us. It's not really that difficult to understand. Okay?

Thanks for listening and looking forward to the necessary changes soon. How about tomorrow? Does that work for you?

Sincerely...

Motion 408: keeping the government accountable

In response to my email to Mr. Harper, I received this response from his office:

Dear Ms. Maloney:

On behalf of the Prime Minister, thank you for your correspondence of March 21 regarding Member of Parliament Mark Warawa's Private Members Motion, M-408. Please be assured that your concerns have been noted. We appreciate your input.

We understand your deeply held views on this subject. However, the decision to deem motion M-408 non-votable was made by two all-party committees.

Our Government ran and was elected on a pledge not to raise this issue. The Prime Minister has been very clear, as he was during the last election, that we have no plan to reopen this debate.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Here is my reply:

Thank you for your email.

You state that: "the decision to deem motion M-408 non-votable was made by two all-party committees."

If I am not mistaken, two members on that committee were Conservatives, were they not? Why then didn't they uphold the principles of democracy, instead of following the sheep-like lead of the other parties? It shouldn't really matter to the Conservatives what the other parties did; I hold the Conservatives to a much higher standard than the other parties, yet the Government has failed us with this breach of Parliamentary procedure.

You then say that: "Our Government ran and was elected on a pledge not to raise this issue. The Prime Minister has been very clear, as he was during the last election, that we have no plan to reopen this debate."

With all due respect, what does this have to do with the subject at hand? Mr. Warawa's motion had absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Harper's desire to not reopen the abortion debate, and everything to do with Private Member's Business. It has nothing to do with Government business at all, and to imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Please ask the Prime Minister to honour our Canadian democratic principles, and to allow Mr. Warawa's Motion to proceed in a manner that upholds the integrity Canadians expect from their Government.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

A sign of the times

Check out Andrew Coyne in today's National Post: This is our politics — three parties offering more of the same, saying little and differing less

"Previously, party leaders were obliged to pretend to believe in policies before they could abandon them...The day is not far off when parties will have more or less ceased to exist except as extensions of the leader, which if nothing else would be clarifying.

Pride of place, of course, goes to the Conservatives, who have devoted most of the last decade to shedding any vestigial belief systems in the service of electing what they learned to call a Harper government. This was called “moving to the middle,” or in other words giving up, and was greatly applauded by the wisest heads as a sign of maturity. For as long as they continued to believe things they could never win power, and without power they could never put into effect all the things they no longer believed in...

...Party discipline was now absolute, again to the cheers of the pundits. For, as it was said, how could the party hope to govern if it would not itself be governed? And wasn’t that really the role of members of Parliament: to shut up and do what they were told?

But the Conservatives are no longer alone...

...This is our politics, then, at least for the next two years: three parties offering more of the same, saying little, differing less, wholly in thrall to their leaders, and applauded on all sides for their pragmatism and discipline. Bliss is it in this dusk to be alive."

Yep, it's all about the leader of the party. Bow down and kiss his boots. And shut up while you're at it.

It's not about democracy. Its not about the people. It's not about our country. It's not about the unborn. It's not about values. It's not about morality. It's not about the family. It's not about compassion. It's not about anything that matters to you and me.

It's all about ego. It's all about power.

It was the best of times it was the worst of times.

Freedom of speech: winners win, losers suppress

George Jonas is not talking specifically about abortion in this article; rather about freedom of speech issues at Queen's University.

Yet his comments are applicable to the abortion debate in general, and in particular, to what happened recently with Mark Warawa's Motion 408 being killed two weeks ago.

All of Parliament went into top-down, lock-down mode, on freedom of speech rights when this happened.

The following is the discussion Mr. Jonas had with his father:
"Assume you come upon a bitter dispute,” I remember saying to my father many years ago, “with the two sides ready to kill each other.”

“Okay,” my father said, “so far it’s easy.”

“Assume further,” I continued, “that you have no inkling what the dispute is all about, and the more people try to explain it to you, the less you understand it. How can you tell who is right?”

Father thought you couldn’t, not for sure, anyway, without understanding the issues, but you could still take a pretty shrewd guess. “See which side is trying to stop the other from speaking,” he said. “That’s the side that’s likely to be wrong.”

“Wrong to do it or wrong on the merits?”

“Both,” father said. I still remember it. It’s not foolproof, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. Show me someone who silences or censors another, and I’ll show you someone with a losing argument. Winners win, losers suppress — that’s how the game plays out most of the time. Except, of course, if the losers suppress successfully, the winners lose."

The politically correct pro-choicers in this country, including most MPs and the Prime Minister, don't want us to talk about abortion. They don't want us talking about abortion in Parliament. They don't want us talking about abortion in the Universities.

They don't want us talking about abortion period.

Of course that doesn't mean we won't talk about abortion. We will. They can try and suppress us but they can't. Because the pro-abortions only have losing arguments.

Election strategy: banning late-term abortions

I was startled to read this: Aggressive Incrementalism: A Winning Strategy for Pro-Lifers by Pete Spiliakos. Not because Spiliakos said anything I don't agree with, but because the author talks about how available late-term abortion on demand is in the US. Of course it is, but I always think that well, at least the Americans have some legal abortion restrictions unlike us Canadians. I guess I'm naive.

Spiliakos makes some good points about political pro-life strategies for Republicans. Our own Conservative MPs could learn a thing or two from his advice.

Spiliakos says:
"In the last few presidential elections, the strategy of the Republican presidential candidate has been to talk about abortion only when asked. The purpose seems to be to signal pro-life views while not alienating voters for whom abortion is a low priority issue. This strategy is about mobilizing an existing voting base and not at all about persuasion. It is almost an exaggeration of the general Republican approach to electoral politics recently.

This “speak only when spoken to” approach to abortion seems cautious, but it is really foolhardy. It allows Democrats and their media allies [to] decide when and how the abortion issue is discussed. So in a country in which third trimester abortions are legal on-demand, our abortion discussion centers on questions like “So why are you against the removal of a tiny clump of rapist-produced cells?” Republicans not choosing to talk about abortion doesn’t mean that we don’t talk about abortion. It means that we only talk about the issue when and how liberals choose."

Tim Hudak immediately comes to mind. Mr. Hudak barely spoke at all in the last Ontario election, when he was spoken to about abortion. Rather he fell all over himself with what many of us had thought was his pro-life world view, only to make a quick retreat to distance himself from himself.

In the next election he won't even do that. He'll pull a Mr. Harper. With his nice big spread in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, the A word wasn't raised, and if it ever does get raised, he'll shut it down quicker than you can say I told you so. Judging from the number of abortion related letters I've sent to numerous Conservative MPPs that elicited not so much as the expected form letter response, I think I can safely conclude Mr. Hudak has told his MPPs to keep their mouths shut on the abortion issue. When the abortion issue is raised there will be no reply at all: see no evil hear no evil speak no evil. That's how the Ontario Conservatives will try and get in power.

I have already made a decision about how I will vote in the next election, Federal or Ontario. I will start by asking all the candidates in my riding about what they think about abortion. Their answer, if they have to courage to answer me, will decide how I vote.

I have voted Conservative pretty much my entire life. That automatic nod to the Conservatives has now come to an end unless the Conservative candidates respond favourably to my question.

Speaking of naive, many of us pro-life people kept telling ourselves that once the Conservatives got into power Federally that things would change. Then after they won a minority government we thought, okay they haven’t done anything, so let's wait for that majority and then they'll do something. They didn't. Silly us.

If another candidate gives me an answer that would support some legal restriction on abortion, say a ban on late-term abortions, they would get my vote.

Spiliakos then says:
"In my experience, a substantial number of self-identified pro-choicers are in favor of generally restricting late-term abortions. Many are not even aware that such abortions are legal or that President Obama supports them. It isn't simply that such pro-choicers could become allies in moving politics in a slightly more pro-life direction (though it is that too.) To some extent, presence can determine issue salience. It is all well and good to have some vague idea that late-term abortion exists and that President Obama is "pro-choice." It is another altogether to see human beings and know that some politicians are in favor of their destruction at-will."

Spiliakos could be writing about Canada. I think we all know that there are a lot of Canadians who are against late-term abortions, yet they don't all call themselves pro-life. In fact LifeCanada's latest poll  commissioned by Environics and published just last week tells us that :
"Two-thirds (65%) of Canadians think abortion should be illegal in the last three months."

Unlike most politicians, I don't think publicly stating that one is against late-term abortion is a nail in the coffin of a political career. And apparently a majority of Canadians are also against late-term abortions. All we need, is for a few good, closet anti-late-term abortion men and women candidates to say so. They might be surprised at the result.

Government Whip yields big stick

May 4, 2012

Asking for a study whether the unborn becomes a human being only at “complete birth” generates hostile response in Canadian Parliament

By Patricia Maloney

 

Conservative Member of Canadian Parliament Stephen Woodworth

In Canada there are no legal restrictions on abortion. None. Abortion is legal at any time throughout the nine months, for any reason, or for no reason.

So when on Thursday April 26, Conservative Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth brought forward a motion in the House of Commons to simply ask for a committee to discuss when an unborn child becomes a human being, it really seemed like a legitimate request to ask our Parliament.

Simply put, Woodworth’s motion 312, was to ask “that a special committee of the House to be appointed and directed to review section 223(1) of our Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth…”

In other words, let’s talk about when an unborn child becomes a human being. This motion is not about enacting a law to prohibit abortion in any way. This motion is about a study; to discuss; to research; to debate. To, you know, participate in the democratic process.

Naturally we expected opposition from our two opposition parties, and we weren’t disappointed.

But it was the vociferous objections that came from Woodworth’s own party when Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor said:

“The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision…in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount and take precedence over that of the state…I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code…There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one…Whether one accepts it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of abortion. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.”

(In Canada the Whip is the MP responsible for ensuring party discipline among members of the Government caucus. In other words, the Whip carries a very big stick.)

No need to read between the lines here. Our Prime Minister has said many times he will never reopen the abortion debate. But for the Government Whip to come out with statements like this, implies that the government is going much further than simply remaining silent on the subject of abortion. This sounds like a pro-choice position to me.

You know, this is actually sort of funny, in a warped kind of way. This tells us that the Conservatives in Canada are really no different than our other parties on abortion policy.

So what happens next? Well, one more hour of debate in June, and then a vote later in the year to see if the study will take place.

Will any of our brave pro-life MPs be willing to vote for the Motion with the courage of their convictions? Or will they allow themselves to be whipped into shape? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Patricia Maloney is a Canadian pro-life blogger.

The Making of a Myth (or how the result of the election will "prove" Canadians don't want to debate abortion)

The result of this election will "prove" that Canadians don't want to reopen the abortion debate. Here's how:

As we get closer to election date, the opposition (as they do in every election) will smear the Conservatives with Mr. Harper's supposed "scary hidden agenda" to recriminalize abortion and send women back to the dark ages and back-alley butchers, despite Mr. Harper's repeated promises not to reopen the abortion debate (Peter Mansbridge interview and Charles Lewis article)

If Mr. Harper doesn't win his majority, he will blame it on the opposition's fear-mongering about abortion, thus "proving" Canadians don't want to debate abortion and are happy with the status quo (limitless and completely funded by the Canadian taxpayer).

The irony is, of course, that Mr. Harper could lose his chance at a majority precisely because he adamently refuses to allow a debate on abortion (i.e. enough social conservatives may just decide to stay home and not vote).

If Mr. Harper wins a majority, he will say this "proves" that he was right to promise not to reopen the abortion debate, because such assurances have attracted more "liberal minded" people to vote for him (taking for granted the social conservative vote because who else are they going to vote for, right?).

In reality, there will be no way to know whether Mr. Harper's promise not to reopen the abortion debate and/or the opposition's fear-mongering will have had anything to do with the final outcome of the election without knowing the reasons why people voted the way they did, or didn't vote. But that's not going to stop anyone who doesn't want an abortion debate from using the election results to "prove" in perfect post-hoc fashion that Canadians don't want an abortion debate.

To sum up: If Mr. Harper wins his majority, the story will be that it was because he effectively quashed any fears he'd reopen the abortion debate.

If Mr. Harper loses, the story will be that it was because the opposition was effective at scaring Canadians into believing he would ban abortion.

Either way, the mythology that Canadians don't want to reopen the abortion debate (and by extension that it's political suicide for any politician to try to) is strengthened and perpetuated.

Money for nothing

The Conservatives have already started fundraising as of March 26 (pretty quick off the mark I must say).
 
But you know, I read their email letter (see below) looking for something about, you know, protection for the unborn. Did I find anything? Nope, nothing.

There was also no mention of even a glimmer of hope, that the Conservatives might actually tolerate any abortion debate any time soon. And there was definitely nothing about their dismal voting record on Roxanne's Law, a law that would have provided some legal protection to a woman who was being coerced into having an abortion she didn't want to have.

How could anybody not be against forced abortion? I have no idea, but 178 MPs actually voted against Roxanne's law.

A suggestion would be for all you folks out there, who received this election funds solicitation, to reply with a Dear Stephen letter:

Dear Mr. Harper,

Sure I'd love to help you out, but honestly I just can't do it. You see, you voted against the first bill in the House of Commons to be debated on in twenty years on the subject matter of abortion. Remember Roxanne's Law? The one that you and some Conservative MPs, who I thought were pro-life, voted against?

Perhaps if you came out with a public statement telling Canadians you've had a change of heart and will allow some proper abortion debate in Canada, then hey, I might even find a few dollars to contribute to your campaign.

But until then, well, I think I need to hang on to my money.  Let me know if you change your mind.

Sincerely,
Jane and John Q public.

Here is the email the Conservatives sent out:
"I’m sure you have already heard that yesterday, the Ignatieff-led Coalition with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois united to force Canadians into an unnecessary and unwanted election.

By forcing an unnecessary election in this time of fragile economic recovery – Canada’s fourth in seven years – Michael Ignatieff and his coalition partners are irresponsibly and recklessly putting at risk Canadians’ jobs, our economy and stable government.

The budget our Prime Minister tabled this week – the next phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan – is critically important to complete our economic recovery. It is Stephen Harper’s low-tax plan for jobs and growth. It’s a balanced plan to strengthen the financial security of Canadian families, and protect and create jobs. The Coalition’s actions today make clear they don’t care about any of the practical initiatives in the budget. Or the fact that without it, Canada’s economic recovery will be put in jeopardy just as we enter the home stretch.

Simply put, in forcing this unnecessary election the Ignatieff-led Coalition has recklessly placed their own political ambitions ahead of Canadians’ financial security. Their self-interest ahead of Canada’s stability.

This campaign is a clear choice between principled leadership and a political opportunist; between a stable government and a reckless coalition. And between a low tax plan for jobs and growth and a high tax agenda that will stall our recovery, kill jobs and set families back.

The next five weeks will be a challenge as we face the Ignatieff-led Coalition. We need to fight back and train volunteers in every one of Canada’s 308 ridings. We also need to reach out to Canadians across our country through advertising. We will also need help in getting out our vote on Election Day.

All these campaign priorities cost money, which is why I am sending you this email today.

With your support, we are looking to elect a stable national government so we can complete the economic recovery and keep taxes low. A re-elected Harper Government will work to assure a strong economy, a secure country and the safety of Canadians through steady, responsible, and practical government.

We are asking all of our loyal supporters if they can contribute $200 or $100 so we can give this campaign a running start. Please, make a contribution of $200 or $100 right now by following this link and using our secure, online donation page .


Sincerely,
Dan Hilton
Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada"

Government must listen to calls for improved abortion statistics

It seems everyone is calling for better information on abortion statistics. Yet we continue to have numbers that are contradictory, unreported, or unknown.

Anastasia Bowles of LifeCanada recently reported a discrepancy between CIHI's figures, and a recent study done by an Ontario group, Project for an Ontario Women’s Health Evidence-Based Report (POWER).

Bowles states:

"By comparison, the new POWER study uses OHIP billing records and several different databases, making it more reliable than other recent data. This may account for a large discrepancy between the study’s and CIHI’s figures. The study does not give absolute numbers for abortions but it does provide the abortion to live birth ratio. Since Statistics Canada reports the number of Ontario live births as 138,000, this would suggest the number of Ontario abortions in 2007 may actually be around 51,000, much higher than CIHI’s figure of about 32,000."

If we extrapolate the discrepancy for these numbers from Ontario, and assume that this discrepancy is the same for all provinces, we may not be looking at 94,010 abortions per year in Canada (as per CIHI), but rather a staggering 150,000 abortions in Canada each year.

Of course all of this is simply best-guess numbers because our Government refuses to make the collection of abortion statistics mandatory. And it isn't just pro-life groups that want accurate statistics.

In an Access to Information request I made to Statistics Canada (to learn how Statistics Canada decided to change participation in the Therapeutic Abortion Survey from mandatory to voluntary), I learned many others also want accurate statistics including pro-choice groups.

In a document entitled A note on Slipping Timelines and Declining Data Quality of Therapeutic Abortion Statistics Program Canada, written in 1998 by Surinder Wadhera, the Program Manager of the Therapeutic Abortion statistics, Wadhera stated:

"Phase I - Sept. 1964 - July 1986...Abortion reports for the 16 year period (1970-1986) were timely, comprehensive and met the increasing data needs of the users. The satisfaction element of users is reflected in positive feed back: (a) in the form of a letter from Justice Minister to the Chief Statistician at that time; (b) appreciation from Canadian Medical Association, Media, Pro-life and Pro-choice abortions groups and international agencies like World Health Organisation, Population Council.

Phase 11- August 1986- July 1998 Statistics Canada cancelled the therapeutic abortion program in August 1986 and the reason assigned was budgetary constraints. The activity of data collection and analysis was suspended for the next 15 months till November 1987. At that time the Minister in charge of Statistics Canada announced the re-instatement of the program, which was as a result of pressure from users across Canada, comprising of members of provincial legislatures, Members of Parliament and other interested parties like Pro-life and Pro-choice groups."

(I need to digress here for a moment. It is tragic that the preceding information is only available to me because Statistics Canada is ATIPPable. Now that CIHI produces and collects the abortion statistics, other abortion related information like the information above, will no longer be available to Canadians. It will remain permanently hidden from our purview.)

Here is an example of abortion analysis Statistics Canada used to produce in this document called Pregnancy Outcomes. The author states is his introduction:
"Data on pregnancy rates and outcomes are important for planning, implementing, and evaluating maternal and child health and family planning programs. Such information also has implications for the provision of facilities and treatment now and in the future."

This is just as true today as it was in 1996 when this was written. But we don't get this kind of analysis anymore from Statistics Canada since the responsibility for abortion collection and publication was transferred to CIHI.

In a counterpoint article to Ms. Bowles article, Ruth Croxford, Sheila Dunn, and Lorraine E. Ferris of the POWER project, also advocated for improved data collection. (Ms. Dunn conducts clinical trials of hormonal contraceptives and means of medical abortion.):

"We were pleased to see Ms. Bowles make the point for improved data collection. Health services researchers have long advocated for better data about all health care services. The provision of effective and efficient evidence-based health care can only thrive in an environment rich in data."

Abortion reporting is not mandatory for clinics, so numbers will only get worse, especially as more and more abortions are performed at clinics. The few statistics we do have are poor. Pro-life, pro-choice, and many other groups want better statistics.

So what's to be done?

The Conservatives need to honour their promise that:

"Government will become more transparent and more open. It will provide Canadians with access to more information from Crown corporations, Agents of Parliament, and government-funded foundations".

This can be accomplished by the government mandating reporting of abortions performed by all abortion clinics, along with a law to disclose the statistics to the public.