Why we need a public debate on ‘Roxanne’s law’

(Published in the National Posts's blog, Holy Post yesterday.)

There has been very little coverage in the media of Rod Bruinooge’s private member’s Bill C-510 — also known as “Roxanne’s Law” — that is scheduled for a second reading Parliament vote on Dec. 15.

The bill is named after Roxanne Fernando, a young woman from Winnipeg whose boyfriend murdered her in 2007 after his repeated attempts to coerce her to have an abortion failed.

The bill would allow pregnant women to press charges when they find themselves facing coercion to abort. Such empowerment could prevent coercion from escalating to violence like it did with Roxanne. Ideally, it would act as a deterrent to coercive behaviour in the first place from boy friends, husbands and families.

Considering that this is the first bill dealing with the subject matter of abortion to be voted on in 20 years, the lack of media coverage seems odd — notwithstanding the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated he will never reopen the abortion debate and nor will he support this bill.

One would hope that in a country where there are no restrictions on abortion there could at least be a public debate — especially about a bill whose sole purpose is to protect women from unwanted abortions. Remember that there is no consensus on abortion; polls consistently tell us show that many Canadians want some limits on abortion.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s abortion law. But the court did say that Parliament has the right to legislate protection of the unborn.

Even though Mr. Harper would not support such a bill, he doesn’t have to. Bill C-510 is a private member’s bill, not a government bill. The purpose such bills is to give backbench MPs from all parties the opportunity to bring forward legislation they believe in, independent of what’s on the government’s agenda.

Mr. Harper would get one vote — just like any MP — and he could vote as his conscience dictates.

The National Post has been covering the recent events at Carleton University where the students union, CUSA, has decertified the anti-abortion group LifeLine.

There is a striking parallel between what is going on at Carleton University and what is going on in Parliament.

As the Post recently stated: “The fact that these young men and women are anti-abortion should have nothing to do with whether they are worthy of coverage. This is about certain students, CUSA, acting like petty tyrants because they do not like the views of some of their fellow students. This goes against every principle of free speech. Why is there not more outrage about this?”

And why is there not more outrage about abortion debate being shut down in our Parliament? This also goes against every principle of free speech.

Think about it: why should CUSA allow pro-life students to speak out about abortion, when our political leaders won’t allow pro-life MPs to speak out about abortion? CUSA has learned that it’s okay to shut down free speech on unpopular topics.

And where that kind of thinking ends God only knows.

God's mind

"Men mistake the mystery of the perfection of providence for the impossibilities of a contradiction if they insist on limiting God's mind by the measure of their own. We must take things as they are, use them, minister to them; for our constructive capacity does not go beyond the world of the artificial--houses, barns, clocks, cloaks. We do not make trees or cats or sunrises. Because these things are beyond our planning, we absurdly conclude that they are beyond all planning, that they need no mind behind their orderly existence. These things do not need men, so they do not need God; they are necessary, with no word of explanation of that necessity."

St. Thomas Aquinas -- Summa Theologica

CIHI is not ATIPable

My letter below was published today in the National Post. Below my letter are the numbers of abortions done in Canada in 2006.

As an interesting side note to the fact that Statistics Canada does not publish abortions statistics anymore since they transferred the responsibility to The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), is that CIHI is not subject to the same Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) rules as Statistics Canada is, since CIHI is not a government organization.

This is what CIHI told me:
"CIHI is a not-for-profit organization and is not subject to any federal or provincial access to information or privacy legislation."

Yet The Office of the Information commissioner of Canada website states:
"the right of individuals to access information held by public bodies and marks the benefits of transparent, accessible government."
"Access to information is a right of everyone
Access is the rule—secrecy is the exception
The right applies to all public bodies
Making requests should be simple, speedy, and free
Officials have a duty to assist requesters
Refusals must be justified
The public interest takes precedence over secrecy
Everyone has the right to appeal an adverse decision
Public bodies should pro-actively publish core information
The right should be guaranteed by an independent body"

So remind me again how the transfer of abortion statistics to CIHI bodes well for "transparent, accessible government"? I'm just saying.

--------------------------------------------------
A 'sensible' debate on abortion

National Post · Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010

Re: Can We Sensibly Debate Abortion?, letter to the editor, Nov. 24.

Letter-writer David Bowland says that "what passes today as argument on a critical and fundamental issue like abortion [is] emotionally charged language devoid of fact but designed to tug at one's heartstrings rather than appeal to one's rational mind."

OK, let's talk facts. Canada has no abortion law and abortion is legal up until a woman gives birth. We have about 100,000 abortions a year. According to Statistics Canada in 2006 we had 464 (reported) late-term abortions. Also in 2006, Statistics Canada reported 55,006 abortions "of unknown gestational age."

We aren't allowed to have a debate about abortion in Canada -- especially not in Parliament. The letter writer doesn't like the term "culture of death." Since abortions are the willful destruction of unborn children, which are members of the human species, we can't call this a "culture of life." He also doesn't like the phrase "widespread extermination of ... our humanity." We are exterminating pre-born humans, and 100,000 is quite a few.

Those are the facts. Disliking them doesn't change them.
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.
--------------------------------------------------------

2006 Abortion statistics
Under 9 weeks 13,368
9 to 12 weeks 17,848
13 to 16 weeks 3,241
17 to 20 weeks 1,383
21 to 40 weeks 464
Unknown or not reported (2) 55,006 60%
Total abortions 91,310
(2) Note the large percentage of abortions with an unknown or not reported gestation age of fetus.

Source: Statistics Canada from an ATIP request, November 2010

No words needed

Life's Hard

It's wonderfully ironic that the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) is telling Carleton Lifeline that they are being de-certified for violating CUSA's anti-discrimination policy.

Hmmm, let's see...in actuality, CUSA is discriminating against Lifeline because--are you ready for this--they are pro-life AND, according to CUSA, Carleton Lifeline believes in:
"equal rights of the unborn and believe that abortion is a moral and legal wrong."

What rabbit hole did CUSA fall down anyway?

But it gets better. CUSA is saying that if Lifeline would only, you know, support abortion, why then, all would be forgiven. Say what?

The real irony here, is this. Because CUSA has issued this ridiculous discriminatory-anti-free-speech-rights-edict (DAFSRE), Lifeline gets national press on the front page of the National Post. Go Carleton Lifeline!

If I may take the liberty to quote that late great philosopher John Wayne:
'Life's hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.'