Pro-life people - do not be discouraged

Justin Trudeau - what were Catholics thinking?

So we got what we deserve I guess. A liberal government headed up by the most pro-abortion leader Canada has ever known, Justin Trudeau. We voted for him, and we got him.

Canada has 13.07 million baptized Catholics.

And Here in Ottawa Vanier Mauril Belanger got over 43% of the vote. Shameful considering there are a ton of Catholic Francophones in Vanier.

I hope they all went to confession today.

Mauril Belanger - assisted suicide and applause

There was another thing that came out of last night's debate. Mauril Belanger said:

"I have always voted for assisted suicide, never euthanasia. I will never support that."

What was depressing, was the big round of applause Belanger got for his support for assisted suicide.

We used to say it was tragic when someone committed suicide. Now we clap our hands.

Ottawa-Vanier - splitting the left vote

Interesting debate last night at Colonel By high school for Ottawa-Vanier candidates. I thought all the candidates did fairly well. Not too sure though about the Marxist-Leninist candidate, couldn't quite understand him and his thoughts weren't overly coherent.

There were a lot of the left leaning persuasion persons in the room and they seemed to applaud a lot for the NDP, Liberals, and Green parties. But it definitely wasn't a crowning of Belanger as I had feared.

There was some disruptive laughing/snickering/rudeness going on when Conservative David Piccini was speaking about how his party is allowed to vote with their conscience. I know that Harper controls his MPs pretty tightly, but really? Isn't it both the Liberals and NDP who don't even allow people into their party who are pro-life (and so never even get to vote their conscience) and NOT the Conservatives?

My take away from the debate is that I found the NDP and Green candidates were both quite strong, especially the NDP's Emilie Taman. Hopefully this will translate into taking away votes from Liberal Mauril Belanger who is well past his best before date.

Confessions of a pro-life bigot

Today I learned that I am a bigot. HJHORNBECK says so, because I am pro-life. So it must be true:

"When you tolerate bigots, they find safe harbour with you. And if the Conservatives regain power, Harper will find it harder to keep them under control…"

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, a bigot is

"a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)".

I must admit I'm confused though. Because if I am a bigot, what does that make Justin Trudeau, who refuses to accept pro-life people as members of his Liberal party?

Oh well. No matter.

So today this bigot, and her bigoted sister Maureen, went out to deliver flyer's in our riding of Ottawa-Vanier. Liberal Mauril Belanger has held this riding for 20 years. Time for a change I say. We're tired of having an MP who is pro-choice and whose party refuses to accept pro-life people as members of said Liberal party.

We've now delivered about 300 flyer's. We will continue to deliver flyer's until election day. Bigots that we are.

Time for change in Ottawa-Vanier

The following quotes regarding abortion were made by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau:

“It’s not for any government to legislate what happens – what a woman chooses to do with her body."

(Justin Trudeau doesn't understand basic biology: a fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate human being.)

“I have made it clear that future candidates need to be completely understanding that they will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills.”

(Justin Trudeau discriminates against pro-life persons.)

"Since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that a woman's right to choose in this matter is part of her fundamental rights and freedoms. And the Liberal party is the party of the Charter. And Canadians need to count on the fact that Liberals, with our votes, will defend women's rights and Charter rights."

(Justin Trudeau doesn't understand the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms or the

1988 Morgentaler decision. There is no Charter right to abortion and the Supreme Court never recognized a Charter right to abortion. See morgentalerdecision.ca)

“As someone who was raised Roman Catholic, and who attended a Jesuit school, I understand that it is difficult for people of deep faith to set their beliefs aside in order to serve Canadians who may not share those beliefs.”

(Justin Trudeau expects Catholics to set aside their beliefs in order to qualify for public office. Does he expect Muslims or Jews, or those of any other religious faith to set their beliefs aside too? And do Catholics have to set aside just their beliefs about abortion? What about other beliefs Catholics hold like duty to help the poor, to respect and be good stewards of God's creation, to minister to the sick, etc. Do Catholics have to set aside those beliefs too? Why does Justin's belief system (that abortion is a "woman's right") trump the belief system of others?)

“But for me, this is what liberalism is all about. It is the idea that private belief, while it ought to be valued and respected, is fundamentally different from public duty.”

(Justin Trudeau thinks private belief is different from public duty. Do we really want to put our trust in someone to be Prime Minister of Canada when he can so easily park his conscience at the door?

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/search/label/Mauril%20Belanger

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/search/label/Justin%20Trudeau

Say no to Justin Trudeau

Say no to Mauril Belanger

Justin Trudeau - the truth is what you believe it to be

Justin Trudeau said:

'War on science ends with the Liberal government'

Okay. Well science says that a pre-born child has the same DNA as a human being. Science says that a pre-born being of human parents is a human being. Science says that a pre-born human is a separate human being from its mother. Science says that a pre-born human has it's own blood type, it's own blood circulation and its own brain that controls all of its bodily and psychological functions.

Science does not say that a pre-born human is an artichoke or a cat. Science does not say that a pre-born human is a part of its mother's body.

So if the war on science ends with the Liberal government, does this mean Justin Trudeau will reverse his stand on abortion? That he will recognize a pre-born child for what it really is, a biological, physical, emotional, and spiritual human being separate from its mother, and worthy of protection?

Or will Justin Trudeau continue to cherry pick which category of human beings should be protected under the Canadian Charter with his own relentless war on science (in this case, the science of of human embryology)?

"Everyone Some human beings has[ve] the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"

Because when we change the truth to make it what we want it to be, and not what it objectively is, the truth becomes meaningless.

Ottawa Vanier: time for a change?

Yesterday on CFRA, Rick Gibbons had the three main Ottawa-Vanier federal election candidates from the Conservative, NDP and Liberal party, on his show.

Liberal incumbent Mauril Belanger told us that he attends all the community AGM's and has regular coffees with constituents. That's funny. He's never invited me to any of his coffee dates. Come to think of it, he never answers my emails either. Although he has hung the phone up on me. I guess he invites his other constituents to coffee: the ones who agree with him on abortion. Or maybe they just don't know about his stand on abortion.

But the discussion got interesting between Belanger and Conservative candidate David Piccini when discussing the possibility of a tunnel going through the downtown core, to divert truck traffic.

Piccini: "I was at those King Edward task force meetings. I didn't see our Member of Parliament there."

Belanger: "Come on. I'm present all the time. Don't lie."

Unfortunately moderator Rick Gibbons stopped the exchange as there was only one minute left and he asked each of the candidates for their final words. I would have loved to know more about those meetings Belanger said he attended.

Belanger then had this to say:

"If people are not satisfied with the work I do, and I do work very hard, I would not have been re-elected seven times."

I think if a Liberal lamp post ran in Ottawa-Vanier, it would win too.

Ottawa Vanier - time to kick Mauril out

John Robson is voting Libertarian. I think I am leaning this way myself.

Yesterday on CFRA when Lowell Green had his Sephen Harper love-fest going on. He kept saying there were only three parties to vote for, Conservative, Liberal, and NDP. Good grief. What about Christian Heritage (which is who I would vote for if there was a candidate in my riding) or Libertarian? 

I contacted my Conservative candidate David Piccini to ask him his stand on abortion. Three times. No response. 

A friend said she had talked to him and that he is pro-life. If someone can't tell me what they believe in when I ask them, then I can't assume they really are pro-life, and if they are they better say something.

Here is what Coreen Corcoran, my Libertarian candidate, said when I asked her about her stand on abortion and euthanasia:

"The abortion debate, if reopened, will be long and difficult. I personally feel that where we need to start is with the fact that Canada does not have a law on the books making live birth abortions illegal. By the way, I was pleasantly surprised to see your name on an article from the National Post that I have referred to many times. I've heard arguments that this is rare and only done under very specific circumstances, but it is available nonetheless. As a Libertarian, the rights of the individual come first, and it would be pretty difficult to disagree that a full-term baby is not an individual. I also think science is going to be on the side of stricter laws at some point because we have technology available today that allows us to save premature babies born earlier and earlier. We seem to trumpet those success stories when the baby is wanted, but don't hear about it when the baby's life is terminated. 

In terms of when I think life begins, I don't have as solid an answer for you. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. With the availability of birth control and the openness about sex and sex education now, there really should be very few unplanned pregnancies anymore. I am not entirely against first trimester abortions. Women will still find a way to get them even if they are illegal, at the very least they need to be done in a safe environment. They should also only be done in rare cases.

On the topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide, I don't have a firm opinion at this time. I know all lives are important, but quality of life is important too. I have not done the research to understand how other countries have adopted it so I don't feel that I have enough evidence to give an educated opinion. But you have given me something to work on."

Of course Mauril Belanger is "pro-choice" following his pro-abortion leader Justin Trudeau.
(I wonder if the good people of Ottawa-Vanier realize just how "pro-choice" he is? If I have time I hope to drop off a flyer into all the mailboxes of people with Mauril lawn signs to educate them. And for crying out loud, the man's been in power for 20 years. Maybe a change is due folks?)

And well I didn't even ask the NDP, since their party is pro-abortion as well. 

Ms. Corcoran seems to be the most pro-life of all the candidates, so at this point she has my vote.

Mauril Belanger: will he win in Ottawa-Vanier again?

I wonder how many residents of Ottawa-Vanier know that our current MP Mauril Belanger is pro-choice? I wonder if they realize that his party's leader, Justin Trudeau, has banned pro-life people from being candidates in this riding? Something to think about.

Taking care of our elderly - a call to action

My sister Maureen and I have been humbled and blessed. Three weeks ago we started volunteering at a long term care facility near our home.

When we signed up we told the volunteer coordinator that we would like to do one on one visits with residents. She asked us which residents we would like to visit. We both wanted to work with those who were in most need. That of course was the Alzheimer and dementia floor.

For us to get to know some of the residents Lucie suggested we participate in their activity program for a few weeks. So we have been doing that.

Many of the residents seemed unaware that we were there. Others seemed withdrawn, yet lit up and smiled during the activity when they were asked if they would like to participate. Many did, and some were just content to watch. These are all lovely people. Worthy of human dignity and care.

Today I read ARPA's "Respectfully Submitted" Policy report for Parliamentarians. It is on assisted suicide and euthanasia. I couldn't help but wonder what might happen to these precious people in this home, when assisted suicide becomes law in Canada.

I will write to my MP Mauril Belanger using ARPA's easy mailer (see below). I hope you will too.

This new policy report is a way for you to draw this issue to the attention of your MP. This is important, as there is less than a year before Canada is left with no laws at all restricting assisted suicide. We have provided 3 EasyMail letters and want to encourage you to send one of these to your MP. We were discouraged to see only 14 EasyMail letters sent last month on this issue - from across Canada. We can do better!

Before you send your EasyMail letter, please read the report yourself - you should find it well worth your time. Then, choose one of the following letters to send today:

1.     Letter 1: Request MP to read and respond to report

2.     Letter 2: Shorter request for MP to read report

3.     Letter 3: More detailed call for MP to do the right thing (no reference to policy report)

Assisted suicide: notwithstanding clause and palliative care‎

For Immediate Release                                                                               February 10, 2015

Vellacott urges use of “notwithstanding clause” in face of Supreme Court allowing doctors to use lethal injection on their patients

OTTAWA –In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Carter case, in which the Court gave Parliament one year to enact legislation in light of the Court declaring unconstitutional the Criminal Code provisions that “prohibit physician‑assisted dying for competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering,” MP Maurice Vellacott said:

I am deeply concerned and saddened by the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize in some circumstances what it calls “physician-assisted death.”

How we respond now to this landmark decision will affect the people of Canada and the values we hold dear for years and decades to come. We are at a turning point in our history. In responding to this decision, we are called upon to grapple with tough questions about our nature as human beings and as social beings, questions about the sanctity of human life, compassion, hope, autonomy, fear and despair.

The road ahead for Canada in the aftermath of this life and death decision imposed on us by the Supreme Court is unclear. Many are fearful of what lies ahead for them, that protections on which they once relied will be gone. The medical profession is looking to Parliament to set parameters on the power the Court has now given them to help their patients end their lives.

Given all the stakeholders who will need to be consulted on this emotional and sensitive issue, and given the profound consequences for individuals, for the medical profession, and for society, it defies understanding why the Supreme Court would give Parliament only one year to respond with new legislation.

Canadians are divided on this issue which involves the deliberate taking of human life. No major political party is united on this issue. All parties support access to palliative care for all Canadians who need it.  If ever there was a time to take back the political principle of “the supremacy of Parliament,” the time is now.

As such, I am calling upon all party leaders to set aside their partisan differences and unite in support of using the Charter’s section 33 “notwithstanding” clause in order to give Parliament the time itneeds to conduct broad enough consultations to discern: how we can implement a plan to provide the resources and substantial palliative care‎ to significantly alleviate suffering so that requests to die will be reduced to a minimum; and how to provide appropriate parameters and safeguards in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Now is the time for Parliament to act with courage, for the sake of all Canadians, and for the future of Canada. Let us not look back years and decades from now with regret that we didn’t take the time to get it right when we had the chance.

– 30 –

For further information and comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249; email: maurice.vellacott.a1@parl.gc.ca

NDP MP Chris Charlton faces the children

The riding of NDP MP Chris Charlton is the latest target of CCBR's postcard campaign.

"CCBR targeted Charlton because of her opposing vote on Motion 312, which called for a committee to reevaluate Canada’s abortion laws."

Good.

"Charlton says she is concerned about the emotional effect these images could have on the families and children who may see them. Her office has heard from dozens of upset callers."

This kind of reaction always puzzles me. If abortion on demand, for any reason, or for no reason, at any time, is just another publicly funded "medically necessary procedure", as the pro-abortions would have us believe, why do they get upset over these postcards? The postcards are just showing the truth of what abortion is.

Could it because they know abortion is the killing of an innocent, voiceless, human being?

Charlton said:

“From my perspective people have the right to debate ideas with me... but I really believe I ought to be the target—not residents in my riding”

But the residents of Hamilton have a right to know where their MPs stand on abortion. This is an excellent way to accomplish this, Ms. Charlton.

For instance, for my own MP Mauril Belanger, people in Ottawa-Vanier also have a right to know that he is "pro-abortion-choice".

It's all good, when people are made well aware of where their MPs stand on the dismembering, decapitation and disembowelment of innocent human beings.

(CBC censored out the graphic part of the image below. Pretty much what I'd expect from the "pro-abortion-choice" CBC)

The Liberals aren't thinking clearly

This is a stupid move on the part of the Liberals.

"The Liberal Party of Canada is in favour of decriminalizing medically assisted suicide, adopting a resolution on the controversial matter at the end of its four-day policy convention in Montreal."

This is strategically a really dumb mistake for them to make. As it was, they could have picked up some disenfranchised social conservatives in the next election, especially Catholics who have tended to vote Liberal in the past.

What were they thinking? Not that I would ever vote Liberal myself. Especially with Mauril Belanger as my candidate (shudder).

But there was a small chance that other social conservatives might have considered voting Liberal. Probably not now though. Especially the elderly and more vulnerable citizens. For them, voting Liberal could be a death sentence.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Long winding road to read petition

(or Petitions 101)

On March 12, 2012, I emailed my Member of Parliament Mauril Belanger, and asked him to read a petition with 25 signatures. I was told by his office to send them in, which I did, and by which time I  had 50 signatures.

This was my petition:
"Whereas Canada is the only nation in the Western world and in the company of China and North Korea without any laws restricting abortion; And whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation; Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible."

Simple, right? Wrong.

Now remember, I am not allowed to just waltz into the House of Commons any time I please, and stand up there and read my own petition in Parliament. No siree, I can't do that. I must follow the rules, and the rules say that I have to get my MP to do that (1).

I continued to email and call Mr. Belanger's office on a regular basis for the next two months, to ask if he would first of all, read my petition in the House, and second, when would he do it? I never got any absolute confirmation to either of these questions until May 24 when I was told it would be "tabled" in Parliament, but not "read".

Now I wasn't exactly sure what "tabled" meant and how that differed from "read". And this was not the first time Mr. Belanger's office had used this word. I always used the word "read", since that is what I asked my representative in Parliament to do for me: to "read" my petition. So I needed to do a bit of research.

There are two ways to "present" a petition. One is done orally by an MP (tabled and read in the House and written up in the Debates (Hansard) and Journal), and the other is to file it with the Clerk of the Petitions (tabled only and written up in the Journal only) (2). In both cases, the government responds officially to the MP. (3)

I thought about this and decided that no, if I couldn’t have my petition actually read orally in the House, and written up in the Debates, then I didn't want it just "tabled" (i.e. filed with the Clerk of the Petitions only). I wanted my petition back.

So on May 25 I called again and spoke with Mr. Belanger.

It was quite the interesting conversation.

I asked Mr. Belanger if he was going to read my petition. He said no. I said, okay, then I want it back unless you are going to read it. He said I will not read it and it has already been certified. I said I don't care what's happened to it, it's my petition and unless you are going to read it in the House I want it back. He said no. I asked him why he refused to read it. He said that it was his choice to read it, or not to read it. I am not kidding. I asked him if he was always rude to his constituents. He said he wasn't being rude. I said I want my petition back. He said no. I said I want my petition back. He hung up on me.

So I made a few phone calls...

And then, miracle of miracles, last Thursday I received another email from Mr. Belanger's office. This is what it said:
"Enclosed you will find the electronic link to the Hansard of yesterday. My colleague Sean Casey, Liberal M.P. for Charlottetown, presented the petition you had sent to my office, as per your wish that it be read into the record as opposed to being tabled."

Please refer to page 8574:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/House/411/Debates/130/HAN130-E.PDF

Halleluiah! My Petition had been read. In the House of Commons. By an MP. Which is all I ever wanted.

And here is what was said in the House of Commons, and is now in the Debates (Hansard) record:
"Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, each of which may sound a bit familiar given the petitions that have already been presented today. The first one is on behalf of residents of the greater Ottawa area, including Gloucester, Nepean and Orléans. The petitioners point out that Canada is the only nation in the western world, in the company of China and North Korea,without any laws restricting abortion. They call upon the House of Commons to speedily enact legislation that would restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. "

Persistence paid off.

(1) Presentation of Petitions
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch22&Seq=4&Language=E
"As outsiders are not permitted to address the House directly, petitions are presented by Members. Therefore, groups and individuals with petitions for the House must enlist the aid of Members to have their petitions certified and presented. Members are not bound to present petitions and cannot be compelled to do so; [53]  nevertheless, it is evident that many Members consider it a duty to present to the House petitions brought forward by citizens. [54]  The Member, whose role it is to make the presentation on behalf of the petitioners, is not required to be in agreement with the content of any petition he or she may choose to present, and no such inference is to be drawn. [55] 

(2) "Certified petitions may be presented in two ways: orally during Routine Proceedings, [62]  or by filing them with the Clerk of the House during any sitting of the House. [63]  In practice, the majority of petitions are presented during Routine Proceedings"

(eg. Statistics compiled by the Clerk of Petitions indicate that 2107 of 2361 petitions presented in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1996-97) were presented orally during Routine Proceedings)

"When petitions are presented during Routine Proceedings, the Members’ remarks are recorded, transcribed and printed in the Debates for that day. An entry is also made in the Journals, the official record of House proceedings. The petitions are listed as having been certified correct and presented pursuant to the Standing Orders. Petitions filed with the Clerk are of course not mentioned in the Debates, but they are listed in the Journals. Certified petitions once presented to the House (by either method) are then delivered to the Clerk of Petitions who is responsible for their reception and processing."

(3) Government Responses to Petitions  http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/PracticalGuides/Petitions/petitionsPG2008__Pg04-e.htm

Making politicians accountable, one letter at a time

A while ago I wrote about how important it was to make sure we send our letters to the right politician in Rob Nicholson is the man.

Mr. Harper had forwarded that letter to Mr. Nicholson. Below is the email exchange between myself and Mr. Nicholson.

I also include the response I received from Mr. Belanger, who wins a gold star for the most useless-computer-generated-email-of-the-year award. I've now received at least seven of these "letters".

**********

Dear Mr. Harper and Mr. Belanger,

It is time to open up the floor for a debate on the legal status of children in the womb. You are my Prime Minister and my Member of Parliament respectively. You are both where you are today because Canadians voted you to represent us. And a majority of Canadians (Seventy-two percent) surveyed in a September National Omnibus poll support legal protection for unborn babies. Most (62%) want protection from conception, or two or three months' gestation on. Another ten percent favour protection from 6 months on (Source: Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada).

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) said the current Criminal Code provisions, which allow children to be terminated up until the moment they have fully exited their mother's birth canal, are "convoluted" and "dumbfounding." They support the effort of Tory MPs Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre) and Jeff Watson (Essex) to have Parliament re-examine Canada's legal definition of the beginning of human life.

I also support this effort and congratulate both Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Watson for their willingness to have this discussion. Their speaking out is to be commended, when so many other MPs either remain silent or are pro-abortion.

It is time to advocate for our pre-born citizens and heed what the Supreme Court judges said in 1988 when they struck down Canada's abortion law (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). That Parliament has the right to legislate protection for unborn children (e.g. Chief Justice Dickson said, "Like Beetz and Wilson JJ., I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective."). A perfect place to begin this discussion, is with the re-examination of the legal status of children in the womb.

Mr. Harper, you have never offered a principled reason for censoring a public discussion on abortion in this country. If now is not the time, then when?

I look forward to hearing back from both of you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

**********

Dear Ms. Maloney,

The Office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning abortion.

As you know, in 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Criminal Code prohibition of abortion was unconstitutional and struck it down. The Government of Canada has indicated it will not reopen the debate on abortion.

In Canada, the provinces are responsible for the administration and funding of health care services. As is the case for other medical procedures, the delivery of abortion services is determined by the policies of the provincial governments and the standards set by the medical profession itself.

I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.

Yours truly,
The Honourable Rob Nicholson

**********

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email.

I appreciate hearing from the constituents of Ottawa—Vanier. Rest assured that your correspondence will be reviewed and acted upon should it be required.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Mauril Bélanger, M.P.

Ottawa—Vanier

(Really Mr. Belanger. Do you think you could find five minutes to provide a real answer to a constituent's letter? Apparently not.)

**********

Dear Mr. Nicholson,

Thank you for your recent response to the email that I sent to the Prime Minister regarding our need to debate the legal status of children in the womb.

I must however, respectfully disagree with your statement that the 1988 Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of abortion was unconstitutional. The 1988 Morgentaler decision did not give women the constitutional right to abortion in Canada. As well, the Supreme Court judges said that it was reasonable to put some restrictions on abortion because protection of the fetus is a legitimate government objective. And that Mr. Nicholson, is a legitimate objective of your government, which is also my government.

You say that the Government of Canada has indicated that it will not reopen the abortion debate. With all due respect Mr. Nicholson, it is not the Government of Canada who says this, it is Mr. Harper who says this. And just because Mr. Harper refuses to reopen the abortion debate, really is moot to whether or not the abortion debate should be reopened. As I noted below, 72% of Canadians support legal protection for the unborn and it is the will of the people that should be listened to. Mr. Harper can have his say in the abortion matter, certainly. Just like I, and every other Canadian can have a say. Yet we are systematically shut down, time and time again, in ever being allowed to have a voice in this country on this subject. And when we voice our concerns to our political leaders, we receive cut and pasted answers, or computer generated replies, that are a very poor substitute for real active engagement and debate on the subject.

If it weren't for a very few brave MPs like Mr. Woodworth, and a few before him, who have had the courage to speak out in the defense of the unborn, like the Supreme Court said they should, at great cost to their own political careers I might add, the silence from the rest of our elected leaders, you included, would be deafening.

That is not what democracy is Mr. Nicholson.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

MPs need to be accountable to the people

Maybe it's just me, but why aren't MPs more accountable to their constituents? The fact that they seem to be accountable to anyone but their constituents, came through loud and clear for me during the recent Private Member's Bill Roxanne's Law, Bill C-510. This bill would have offered women additional protection from abortion coercion. How could any reasonable human being be against such a bill?

Let me tell you, and I'll start with my own MP, Mauril Belanger.

I sent Mr. Belanger two emails asking him to vote for the Bill because, well, he is my MP. Both emails were ignored until the day after the vote when I finally received a reply. It said in part:
"My colleague Hon. Marlene Jennings...was against this proposed legislation. Being of the same opinion I voted accordingly…Incidentally, the Prime Minister's Office has also indicated that it does not support this legislation."

Does this mean that Mr. Belanger answers to Ms. Jennings? Or does it mean he answers to Mr. Harper? Or does he answer to himself? Because I'm pretty confused. I thought MPs answered to their constituents. Ms. Belanger doesn't say anything about his constituents wanting him to vote for, or against the bill.

Then there was the new rookie MP, Bob Sopuck from Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette Manitoba, who was brought into the House of Commons for the very first time on the day of the vote. Mr. Sopuck is a Conservative MP who, from what I understand, represents a strongly pro-life riding. He also voted against the bill. Has Mr. Sopuck been assimilated into the Harper-never-discuss-abortion bunch that quickly? Uh oh, that was fast.

Then we have four stalwart so called "pro-choice" MPs, Jean Crowder, Nicole Demers, Marlene Jennings and Irene Mathyson, who were absolutely indignant during the first debate that Mr. Bruinooge dared discuss abortion in the House of Commons. What was he thinking? Oh, democracy, right.

Ms. Demers was "ashamed" to be involved in a Parliament where pro-life MPs "lie to women who need help". Lie? Strong unsubstantiated claim there, Ms. Demers. She also didn't like it that men were deciding what was good for women. If I had to choose between pro-life men and pro-abortion women, I'll go with the men, thanks.

Then Ms. Crowder referred four times during the same debate, to a radical pro-abortion group, the Abortions Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). ARCC's pro-abortion coordinator Joyce Arthur, is the same person who praised a, need-to-have-their-mouth-washed-out-with-soap blogger who called Mr. Bruinooge names unfit to print, or repeat. Does Ms. Crowder get her marching orders from these pro-abortions? I hope not.

Let us remind ourselves what we were talking about here. This was a bill to protect women from being coerced into having an abortion she did not want or choose to have. All of these MPs voted against this bill. And by no means am I pointing fingers at just these six MPs. There were another 172 MPs who also voted against the bill.

A common criticism of Roxanne's Law was that abortion coercion is already illegal. But legal counsel for the EFC Faye Sonier dismissed that argument--and many other arguments against the bill, here and here.

The "pro-choice" people used to always say "every child a wanted child". Conversely, and I don't mean to be flippant here, but shouldn't every abortion be a wanted abortion? So why would 2/3 of our MPs vote against a bill that bans no abortions, except coerced ones? That--is not “pro-choice”.

Are MPs afraid to go against Mr. Harper's repeated mantra of not reopening the abortion debate? If so, why? Because if this is the case, democracy is very ill and hopes for its recovery are not good.

It's time to make MPs accountable to us, and not every Nicole, Marlene and Stephen.