Will this be Harper's legacy?

In response to Local organization wants national debate on abortion and Alliance For Life Ontario's We Want the Debate campaign, I wrote the following letter to the Guelph Mercury:

Canada needs an abortion debate

October 31, 2011

We need a national debate on abortion. The reality is that if we shut down this debate, we shut down freedom of speech and we harm our democracy.

When our political leaders refuse to debate an issue that 52 per cent of Canadians want to have we, wittingly or unwittingly, are causing harm to our country. That the subject matter is abortion should make no difference. If the subject matter were murder, rape, women’s rights or what we teach our children in school, would we censure those debates? Of course not. Then why are we not allowed to debate abortion?

If Stephen Harper does not allow Canadians to have the abortion debate that we want to have, he is complicit in jeopardizing our democracy. This, in fact, may result in the law of unintended consequences and Harper may end up as being known as the prime minister who shut down democracy in Canada.

Somehow I don’t think Harper would be very pleased with a legacy such as this.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa

Educating Francoise

On Sept 29, MP Françoise Boivin (NDP) said some curious things in the House of Commons, regarding the funding of International Planned Parenthood and the infamous "Women's rights" ideology:

She started with this:

"Mr. Speaker, women's rights should not be open for debate, yet members of the government seem to think they are. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly ruled that access to abortion is a fundamental right."

Actually...the Supreme Court ruled no such thing. The Morgentaler decision never stated that abortion was a fundamental right at all. And they most assuredly didn't say it was a constitutional right.

Then Ms. Boivin said:

"Either the Prime Minister has lost control of his caucus or his government's new policy is to outlaw abortion and turn back the clock on women's rights. Which is it?"

Well...it's neither. I think we all know that Mr. Harper never loses control of his caucus. Come on, you know that. And outlaw abortion? For someone like Mr. Harper, who categorically refuses to even think about abortion, never mind discuss it, it would be kind of difficult to outlaw it, don't you think?

Then this:

"Mr. Speaker, I have the impression today that we have literally gone back 20 years to a time when another Conservative government wanted to again criminalize abortion. This is not the first time that a member of the Conservative caucus has attempted to attack women's rights. This is becoming routine. Will the Prime Minister put an end to these attempts and guarantee, once and for all, women's right to choose?"

I thought we covered this Francoise. How can the Prime Minister guarantee a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child, when no such constitutional right exists?

Then on Oct. 3 Ms .Boivin tried again:

"Mr. Speaker, last week, a Conservative member of Parliament said that his government was in the process of successfully modifying its approach to the abortion issue. On Friday, another Conservative MP said exactly the same thing. Is this government changing women's rights against their will or is the Prime Minister unable to control his caucus?"

Hmmm...I'm a woman. And last time I checked, nobody's changing my rights, either against my will or with my will.

And what about Mr. Harper losing control of his caucus? Well Francoise, like I said before, that's sort of impossible. Mr. Harper wouldn't know how to lose control of his caucus.

Mr. Harper to caucus:

"Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"you're the boss."

Mr. Harper:

I can't hear you! Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"YOU'RE THE BOSS!!"

Mr. Harper:

"That's better."

Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP):

"Three Conservative MPs are trying in a roundabout way to reopen the debate on abortion. In Canada, abortion has been legal for decades. Clearly, some Conservative MPs do not accept that, even though a majority of Canadians do."

Well, you have that, um, wrong again. The majority of Canadians, unlike you Francoise, are not afraid of having an abortion debate." In fact 52% of Canadians said we should not be afraid of an open debate on abortion.

And did you know Francoise, that a majority of Canadians (61%) oppose government funding of all abortions? And that 72% of Canadians want legal protections for the unborn according to a recent Environics poll?

I bet you didn't know that either, did you? I was afraid of that.

And last but not least:

"Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not allow a private member's bill on abortion to be introduced?"

Oh dear, now I'm really confused. Is it possible that a member of Parliament does not know the definition of a Private Member's Bill? Well just in case, I'll help you out...thanks to...well...to Parliament...you know....that place where you work?

"Public bills initiated by a Minister are referred to as "government bills", while those initiated by private Members are called "private Members' bills".

In other words, a private member's bill is for a member to introduce and not for a government to introduce. So Mr. Harper would have absolutely no say in allowing a private member's bill to be introduced or not. Understood?

So I'm just wondering Francoise, have you considered going back to school?

Our society has chosen the evil

Mark Peninga at the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, does an all-encompassing and reasoned look at abortion legislation (or lack thereof) in Canada in Saving some is not a compromise - The case for advancing abortion legislation in Canada one step at a time

It's fairly lengthy at about 12 pages but well worth the read. A few notable quotes below.

Regarding the political efforts in Canada around abortion legislation:

"The bottom line is that Canadians would be shocked at how few people there are working in the genuinely political realm. There is very little strategy or long-term vision."

and this

"When pro-life politicians in this country have tried to do what is possible by advancing legislation, they are given very little support by the key organizations representing the political arm of the pro-life movement. These politicians are often singled out as "compromisers." With immense opposition from pro-abortion activists, the media, and even their own party, is it any wonder that after 20 years of this, most MPs, even pro-life MPs, are hesitant to touch the issue?"

Regarding the reality that some pro-life groups do not support "incremental legislation":

"Just because part of the pro-life community does not support many pro-life laws does not mean that we should avoid those laws and concentrate on those they do support. Although it sounds considerate, we end up trying to be nice rather than do what is really best for the unborn. Prudence requires the right law at a specific time and in a specific context. We have to be wise in those situations and boldly advance abortion legislation that would be effective in limiting evil. With lives at stake we can't devote all of our time to talking to ourselves. There are some foundational differences within the pro-life community (our view of human nature, the role of government, the end times, etc) that we will debate as long as we live. That debate should happen, but we can't put aside our political responsibility while doing so."

this

"If we did boldly advance abortion legislation that is in keeping with public opinion today, well over 500 lives could be saved every year"

and this

"By supporting incremental legislation, we are not in any way compromising. We are working to abolish all abortion by taking the steps humanly possible in this sin-filled and limited world. By promoting a law that bans abortion after 18 weeks, for example, we are not in any way condoning abortion up till 18 weeks. The pro-life leader quoted earlier who opposed gestational limits wrongly believes that such a law would mean we are allowing some evil to save some children. But we aren't allowing the evil. Our society has chosen the evil. The train is hurtling down the tracks whether we like it or not. Our sin-filled human hearts have chosen the evil. Our government has the responsibility to limit that evil as much as possible. If a ban on abortion is not humanly possible in such an evil society but restrictions on abortion are possible, it is the moral duty of government to enact those restrictions, to begin to engage the brakes on the train. We may not be able to stop the train dead in its tracks, but we should begin to apply the brake."

I encourage anyone who believes that "politics is the art of what is possible" to read this paper.

No international right to abortion exists

The Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations Anand Grover wrote a paper called Right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Grover believes that women around the world should have full abortion “rights”.

But there is no such thing as an international right to abortion.

The San Jose articles--signed by a group of human rights lawyers and advocates, scholars, elected officials, diplomats, and medical and international policy experts--refutes this notion:

“It is now commonplace that people around the world are told there is a new international right to abortion.

Those who receive this message are people who have the power to change abortion laws; parliamentarians, lawyers, judges and others.

Those delivering this message are influential and believable people; UN personnel, human rights lawyers, judges and others.

The assertion they make is false. No UN treaty makes abortion an international human right.”

The San Jose articles can be downloaded here.

As one would expect from an abortion manifesto such as Grover’s, there is no reference made to the object of these “women’s rights”: the destruction of unborn persons.

The pro-abortions never want to talk about that simple equation: abortion rights = dead fetuses

Abortion rights can only exist, because the pro-abortions deny that unborn persons have any value. Abortion rights become problematic when value is assigned to the fetus.

The pro-abortions also like to say the fetus is not a human being and therefore it has no rights. They can say whatever they like. It does not make it true. The unborn person is human. That is fact.

Grover never mentions the unborn child or the fetus in his 20 page document.

But Grover does talk about The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which ironically, states that:

“Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal  Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children, the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth. (emphasis added)"

Grover even quotes The Convention on the Rights of the Child in his document, but conveniently ignores its above guarantee to provide legal protection to the unborn.

No international right to abortion exists.

Eventually the media will get it