Catholics cannot support a pro-abortion politician

Speaking of pro-abortion politicians, listen to what Fr. Mark Goring has to say in this short (two minute) video:

"As a Catholic you cannot support or vote for a politician who is pro-abortion. By voting for such a politician, they share the responsibility of the death of these unborn children. The blood of these unborn children is on your hands if you vote for and support an aggressively pro-abortion politician..."

Let's see...Justin Trudeau...Thomas Mulcair...Hillary Clinton...to name but a few.

Thomas Mulcair: please don't quit, we need you

Chris Selley thinks Thomas Mulcair is the man to hold Justin Trudeau to account for all his election promises:

"They have, after all, pledged to “save home mail delivery”; to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees by year’s end; to modify anti-terror laws in a way that satisfies civil libertarians and to implement more robust national security oversight; to ditch the F-35s and find cheaper fighter jets somewhere; to legalize and regulate marijuana; to table electoral reform legislation within 18 months; to restore the retirement age to 65; to comprehensively reform access-to-information procedures; to appoint an advertising commissioner to decide whether government ads are partisan; to “establish an independent commission to organize leaders’ debates”; to reform Senate and Supreme Court appointments; to allow MPs free votes on everything except platform items, “traditional confidence matters” and matters pertaining to “our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter”; to alter the House of Commons’ standing orders to prohibit mammoth omnibus bills; to empower and enrich the Parliamentary Budget Office and to extend its purview to parties’ election platforms; to make government accounting “consistent and clear”; to restore the mandatory long-form census; to establish “a pan-Canadian framework for combating climate change” within 90 days of the Paris conference; to “renew Canada’s commitment to peacekeeping operations”; and to “enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” which at the federal level means calling an inquiry into missing and murdered women, adopting and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “eliminating the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in custody over the next decade,” closing the aboriginal educational achievement gap in a single generation, building a Residential Schools National Monument in Ottawa, “restoring and increasing” funding for CBC, statutorily exempting criminals suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome from all mandatory minimum sentences, having new citizens swear observance to treaties with indigenous peoples and outlawing spanking."

Good idea.

Notice this promise:

"And matters pertaining to “our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter”

Mr. Trudeau thinks of course that abortion is a shared value and is protected by the Charter--untrue and untrue. See here and here.

And this one:

"to comprehensively reform access-to-information procedures"

I look forward to this promise. I remember when Harper said something smilar with his Federal Accountability Act, which of course didn't amount to a hill of beans. Let's hope Trudeau does a better job of it. We'll be watching.

A just society must protect the right to life for all humans

Fr. Yves included this in his homily today, regarding voting tomorrow:

"We must be informed by our Christian faith...respect for life and human dignity from conception to natural death. Any candidate or party that opposes that fundamental right cannot serve us to build a truly just society. It's the first of rights, the right to life of the unborn in the womb. If that right is opposed, it is violated, and we cannot build a just society."

Canada's shame: Leaders refuse to protect pre-born children

Mike Schouten in today's National Post:

"Justin Trudeau’s attempt to play wedge politics with the abortion issue fell flat at last week’s French language debate. This must have been disappointing for him as his position has been clear for some time: he supports every form of abortion — including for the sole purpose of terminating the lives of girl babies simply because they are female — at every stage of pregnancy. He even issued an edict stating that anyone who questioned the status quo was not welcome in the Liberal party. 

The de facto position of Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper is, in principle, no different. When questioned directly by Trudeau last Friday, Harper said the same as he has been saying for years, “My position for 10 years has been I don’t intend to re-open this debate...”

...In effect Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau all support sex-selective abortion. They care less about the fact that girls are targeted for abortion much more frequently than boys. Their refusal to act is a sign that they endorse this misogynistic practice in Canada. 

All three leaders also support late-term abortion. They show no regard for the reality that every year thousands of babies lose their lives by being aborted in the latter stages of pregnancy, after the stage when children of the same age are born, survive outside of the womb, and live productive lives as Canadian citizens..."

The inconsistencies of Justin and Thomas

First we had Justin Trudeau and his own relentless war on science, while saying that a Liberal government would end the war on science. Now we have Thomas Mulcair saying this about his $15 a day daycare:

"Starting a family is not only good for that couple, it's good for the economy."

So if starting a family is good for the couple and the economy, why does Mr. Mulcair support abortion?

Why doesn't he instead help women choose birth over abortion? Why doesn't he instead really help women and outlaw abortion coercion? Why doesn't Thomas Mulcair do something good for women, for families and for the economy?

Imagine if instead of aborting 100,000 Canadians every year, Canadian women gave birth to them? Now that would be growing the economy.

(Note that this study by IMF shows that universal daycare harms children.)

These people are not honourable

John Robson can't vote Conservative and neither can I.

"...Harper wrote his 1991 master’s thesis on “public choice” theory that, as his abstract put it, “policymakers are motivated by political goals, in particular electoral goals, rather than the social optima assumed by traditional macroeconomic policy prescriptions.” As a Reform MP and National Citizens’ Coalition president, he understood this to be a warning. Now he treats it as an operating manual. 

Power has corrupted him and his party. I wrote nearly two years ago that Harper is unfit for office because he lied to Parliament over the Wright-Duffy affair, insolently telling incompatible tales five days apart in October 2013, and lying about having contradicted himself. 

Instead of recoiling from this cynical deceit, his party enthusiastically embraced it. If they think him worthy of public trust, they aren’t either. 

It doesn’t matter where you look. The Tories talk tough in foreign affairs and praise the military. But they gut defence to fund cynical handouts. They rope in the rubes by feigning concern about traditional marriage, abortion and God. But they do nothing. Indeed, when Health Canada approved the abortion drug RU-486, this administration, which takes credit for every sparrow that takes wing in Canada, suddenly hid under the bed. 

Justice Minister Peter MacKay told reporters to talk to Health Minister Rona Ambrose. Ambrose passed the buck to Health Canada. Jason Kenney said nothing. (MP David Anderson condemned the decision but declined to be interviewed.) 

These people are not honourable. Indeed, they laugh at honour. They cherish the low blow, the devious tactic, the unprincipled bribe, in a relentless, sneering, partisan tone. People I know and like retweet Pierre Poilievre with vicious glee. I weep for them and my country..."

I'm hoping for a Christian Heritage candidate in my riding. Because also like Robson, I also can't vote Liberal and I can't vote NDP.

Letter to Justin Trudeau re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). 

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have two questions I would like you to answer for me.

Question 1) Back in 2010, then Liberal leader Bob Rae put forward a motion to fund abortion through the Maternal Health initiative:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy; that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning."

As you know, 'the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options' in the Liberal's motion includes abortion, and IPPF is one of the major abortion organizations in the world.

Can you please tell me if you still support the $6M Canadians have given to International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) as part of the Muskoka initiative? 

Question 2) As current leader of the Liberal party, I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood? Can you please confirm or deny this at your earliest convenience?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Letter to Thomas Mulcair re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Mulcair,

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have a question I would like you to answer for me.

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

I understand that if elected you would restore funding for abortion under the Muskoka initiative (or under another similar initiative):

"The NDP would restore funding for abortion and family planning to Canada's keynote development initiative which promotes maternal, newborn and child health."

I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood.

Since Canadians have funded IPPF in the past, and in light of these recent allegations of IPPF's activities, would you continue to support funding to IPPF?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Letter to Stephen Harper re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Harper,

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have a question I would like you to answer for me.

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood.

Since the Harper government has funded IPPF in the past, and in light of these recent allegations of IPPF's activities, would you continue to support funding to IPPF?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Do our leaders still support Planned Parenthood?

By now we've all seen the horrors that await preborn children in Planned Parenthood clinics:
The Center for Medical Progress videos 

And now we see the latest cavalier way PP employees view the aborted bodies of these children. To these employees, these body parts are a profit making venture.

In fact what does Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau say about this practice? Especially since we in Canada paid $6 million dollars to International Planned Parenthood Federation, one would hope they all would speak out in horror? But not a peep out of any of them. Does this mean they condone the practice? Will the next Prime Minister continue to fund IPPF knowing what we know now?

In fact I have written to the three of them. None have responded except the PM's office to tell me my letter had been forwarded to the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of International Development. So now I've asked Mr. Paradis for a response as well.

Mr. Harper's letter
Mr. Mulcair's letter
Mr. Trudeau's letter

I suggest people email the three leaders and ask them if they condone this practice. And ask them if they still support Planned Parenthood. Emails here:

stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca

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.

The best man for the job isn't a man

To hang with Justin Trudeau. To hang with Thomas Mulcair. To hang with Stephen Harper.

CARLY FIORINA: "Let's talk about the legislation that is sitting on the Senate floor right now. Let's also talk about Hillary Clinton's position. Let's talk about what extreme is. It is not a life until it leaves the hospital. That is Hillary Clinton's position. It is Hillary Clinton's position that a 13 year old girl needs her mother's permission to go to a tanning salon or a tattoo, but not to get an abortion. 

It is Hillary Clinton's position that women should not be permitted to look at an ultrasound before an abortion and yet people who harvest body parts can use an ultrasound to make sure those body parts are preserved so they can be sold...

My position is very clear, it has been clear and consistent... yes I support exceptions, but the majority of the Americans now believe that abortion for any reason at all to be paid for by tax payers after 5 months in an abomination... this video tape is depraved. "

 I want Carly Fiorina for Prime Minister. This woman is amazing.

We need a Law announces election tour

From We need a Law:

"It is our goal that Canada's leaders don't ignore the injustice that is being committed against 100,000 of our pre-born neighbours every year. Lord willing, lifeTOUR will be hosting events in 18 cities from Charlottetown to Vancouver!

Canadians are perhaps, more than ever, fixated on important political issues during an election campaign. The 2015 election gives us a prime opportunity to inject the narrative of pre-born human rights into the issues being discussed by media and the politicians vying for Canadians' votes.

We invite you to check out lifeTOUR.ca and stay tuned for more details as the summer progresses."

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

Thomas Mulcair and Nycole Turmel's "reproductive medicine" kills babies

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  

[Translation]

    In developing countries, 800 women die every day from causes related to pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe abortions. Funding for reproductive medicine is key to putting an end to this tragedy. Nevertheless, the Conservatives refuse to give funding to groups that provide safe and legal medical procedures, even when those procedures are required because of war rape.

    Why are the Conservatives refusing to fund these basic health care services for women, when they know that 800 women are dying every day?

[English]

[Expand]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):  

    Mr. Speaker, it is important, and the Prime Minister deserves a significant amount of praise for the leadership he has demonstrated. We have got many other countries off the bench and into the game, providing a substantial amount of funding to support these mothers and support their young babies. Canadians can be very proud of our leadership initiatives.

 

Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP):  

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' ideological stubbornness is appalling. They refuse to contribute to the United Nations Population Fund because the fund supports family planning and reproductive health, which are topics that make their anti-choice friends unhappy. However, 800 women die every day in developing countries as a result of pregnancies, deliveries or botched abortions.

    Why do the Conservatives refuse to fund these groups that provide safe and legal treatment, particularly in the case of rape?

[English]

[Expand]

Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC):  

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in achieving results, not just in rhetoric, like what the New Democrats are talking about.

    Let me say what I just said. At this time, the Prime Minister is in Toronto with other world leaders talking about women's, newborns' and children's health.That initiative has saved the lives of over 1.3 million children and newborns as well as more than 60,000 young mothers. If that is not a result, then I do not know what is.

Justin Trudeau's Liberal Charter of Values

Chris Selley on Trudeau's moral exhibitionism

"Are we really at a point where Liberal MPs must believe Norway’s abortion laws are a misogynist abomination? 

Odd as it is, it is what it is. There is clearly no political gain to be had for any party from engaging this issue — except by trying to out-pro-choice the others, or so the Liberals and New Democrats seem to believe. (NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is also touting a pro-choice-only rule, though this seems less surprising.) But if you want to run with Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals, it’s apparently not enough to be content to leave the abortion status quo alone. If you have the slightest appreciation for the abortion laws in the aforementioned feminist paradises, it seems you are unwelcome — because those governments, in Mr. Trudeau’s words, dare to limit “what a woman chooses to do with her body.” 

It’s a weird position. It seems totally unnecessary. It smacks of moral exhibitionism more than anything else. And I’m sorry, but I can’t quite get past this: Mr. Trudeau, you’re a practising Catholic. Are we really at a point where Liberal MPs must believe Norway’s abortion laws are a misogynist abomination, but are free every Sunday to give alms to one of the most powerful anti-abortion organizations on the planet? And if so, are their evangelical colleagues who disavow reopening the abortion debate also now free to worship? Or will they still hear the whispers of hypocrisy, hidden agendas and political conspiracies from across the aisle?"

I guess we can next expect Trudeau to come up with his very own Quebec style Charter of Values.

He can then dictate how all Liberals will be allowed to think, what their personal beliefs can be, how they should look, what they can wear, what they can eat and who they can associate with.

That'll fix em, eh Justin?

Why we do what we do

I am continually surprised at the lack of publicly pro-life politicians in this country. Federally there are some, and they are very brave indeed. This posting is not about them. It's about the rest.

In Ontario, I can't even think of one publicly pro-life politician. Maybe there is one. I just wish he or she would make themselves known.

Why is that? Is it because they're scared of being demonized by the pro-abortions? Is is because they are cowards? Is it because they just don't care? Or is it all of the above?

Abortion--it's discussion in any kind of public way; the increasing lack of availability of obtaining accurate abortion statistics; the inability to get a politician to answer questions on the subject; what is all that?

The subject is going underground. It is verboten.

We used to be able to depend on Statistics Canada to provide us with accurate data. But when the quality of those statistics started deteriorating because of non-disclosure by the provinces, Statistics Canada didn't want their name attached to such inaccurate numbers. Now CIHI's numbers are inaccurate and under reported. It isn't very helpful to have numbers that paint only a partial picture of what is going on in Canada with abortion. Accurate statistics should be legislated. Why aren't they?

Federal Access to Information requests increasingly yield "cabinet confidences" and "solicitor-client privilege" excuses at an alarming rate. And information commissioners are toothless to to anything.

Ontario freedom of information requests aren't even allowed anymore. The Ontario Conservatives--who one would hope would keep the Liberals in check--did nothing to stop this from happening. These Conservatives seem to have a don't-talk-about-abortion-ever policy. They're whipped by the Government in power--a mean feat if there ever was one.

All the while children continue to be killed

Those of us who are marginalized because of our pro-life views keep on doing what we can to change the tide. It sometimes feels like we will never make any headway.

Looking over the past year though, I notice a common hopeful thread in all the people who I know who are pro-life. They are committed to the plight of the unborn. Really committed. They are driven. They don't give up and they don't give in. They speak up. Continually. They educate women. They support women in crisis pregnancies. They pray in front of abortion clinics. They write letters to the editor and op-eds for newspapers. They push for legal protection and advise politicians who will listen. They legally challenge the government, sometimes for no pay.

They do what they can, and they never stop doing it. They do it for the children. They inspire me to keep going. They are my super-heroes.

Happy New Year and God bless every one of us.

Opposition leaders need to speak out

Dear Ms. May, Mr. Rae, and Mr. Mulcair,

As you know, last week MP Mark Warawa's Private Member's Motion 408, "that the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination", was deemed non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This means that the motion will not be allowed to go before Parliament to be voted on by members in the House. Yet the Motion was in fact deemed to be votable by the impartial Library of Parliament according to strict rules by the House.

I understand that the three of you are all pro-choice and that your parties are also pro-choice. Although I do not agree with the pro-choice position, which apparently is always against any legal protection for the unborn, in a democratic society, you and your parties are free to have these views.

What I don't understand, is why none of you have publicly spoken out against this perversion of the democratic process in Parliament, that took place in deeming this Motion non-votable. The fact that you are all pro-choice should have no bearing on the politics that allowed this to occur.

As leaders of the opposition parties, your role is to ensure that the government in power is accountable to the people, and such attacks on democracy are prevented.

Will you please look at this situation and bring your influence to remedy it? Democracy is waiting for you, and so are all Canadians.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Born a girl is a deadly devastation

The UN estimates that there are 200 million missing girls in the world today.

Mostly in China and India.

Watch this video by rapper Omékongo Dibinga brought to you by It's a Girl:
"...We kill innocent victims who have no choice..."

Won't our political leaders: Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Rae, please protect girls by supporting Motion 408?

Won't all political parties please condemn sex selection abortion?

Won't Canada please condemn Gendercide?

It is what it is

I don't understand what NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is saying regarding Mark Warawa's Motion 408.

This motion calls on Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

This is what Mr. Mulcair said:
"Of course these are complicated issues, there’s no denying that, but we know what it’s really about. It’s Stephen Harper and his Reform party base trying to reopen the abortion debate. We’re not going to be fooled by it.”

Mr. Mulcair says that this is a complicated issue. It really isn't very complicated though. Is Mr. Mulcair against sex-selection abortion, or is he for it? If he's against it, he should vote in favour of the Motion. If he is for sex-selection abortion, he should just say so.

And if Mr. Mulcair truly believes that these are complicated issues, then maybe he should first inform himself on these complicated issues, instead of jumping to that really boring, old, hidden agenda fairy-tale, about Mr. Harper reopening the abortion debate. Nobody believes that anymore. Mr. Mulcair is as knowledgeable on that hypotheses as the rest of us: Mr. Harper will not now, and never will, let us talk about abortion. Not today, not tomorrow, and not in fifteen years from now.

So why is Mr. Mulcair pretending like this?

Instead of making wild leaps of logic from "complicated issue" to Mr. Harper's reopening the abortion debate, why doesn't Mr. Mulcair actually read Mr. Warawa's motion and see if it is something that he can support, based on what it actually says? Because if he did read the motion, and it's really not that complicated, he could decide in about ten seconds what he thinks of it.

For anyone to be against this motion, then they must be in fact, in favour of female feticide. And if they are in in favour of female feticide, then they should just say so, and stand up for what they believe in.

Nope, it's not complicated at all.