Mike Schouten wrote in the National Post on May 25 that many voters see abortion as a social justice issue, and that Mr. Harper may be paying the price for shutting down the abortion debate.
I agree.
Mr. Schouten says:
"The Prime Minister believes that an abortion debate would hurt his party in the polls. I submit the opposite: Paradoxically, the recent drop in support for Harper’s party may have something to do from his refusal to act as a principled social-justice champion on an issue that many of his (former) supporters care about."
Then a letter writer responded with this:
"I also support Stephen Harper's decision to not open the abortion debate. I believe that women must continue to have the right to choose abortion should this be compatible with their life situations...proabortion persons equally must have the opportunity to live according to their belief system. All Canadians deserve the opportunity to make their choices about abortion and the Prime Minister is correct in not opening up this divisive issue."
To which I responded with this letter. Below is the full text of that letter to the editor:
The letter writer "believe[s] that women must continue to have the right to choose abortion should this be compatible with their life situations". Let's say that I have just decided that my "life situation" includes my choice to murder someone. Would he support that? He might argue that murder is not legal. Agreed, but being legal, doesn't make something moral or right.
For instance, in many countries in the world female genital mutilation is fully legal, but I don't imagine the writer supports this practice. Yet in these countries where this practice is performed, sanctioned and legal, it occurs because like "pro-abortion persons", pro-female-genital-mutilation persons also wish to "equally...have the opportunity to live according to their belief system."
A belief system is no guarantee of legitimacy or of rightness.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
How to get there from here
I agree with Jakki Jeffs that:
"The Canadian pro-life community has worked since 1969 to promote respect and protection for every innocent human life."
But I disagree with Ms. Jeffs when it comes to the most effective strategy for achieving legal protection for preborn children.
Those who believe in what some call the "all or nothing" approach, will only accept a complete abortion ban, and will never accept restrictive abortion legislation as a means towards this ultimate goal of full protection.
But given the current political, social and legal reality we Canadians find ourselves in today, a complete abortion ban would be impossible to achieve. However, fully 72% of Canadians believe children should be protected at some point prior to birth. This means most Canadians today would support some restrictions on abortion.
Imagine the following situation:
Two firemen arrive at the scene of a burning nursing home. Hundreds of elderly residents will soon die as the building is completely engulfed in flames.
One fireman looks at the building and says:
"This is horrible. Everyone will perish in this building very soon. I know I can't save all of those people because I simply do not have the means to save them all. This is so tragic but what can I do? I can't do anything."
The second fireman looks upon the same scene. He also realizes that all the residents are about to die. He says to himself:
"I think if I go in there right now, I can save one person."
The second fireman rushes inside, grabs a resident and is able to carry an elderly woman to safety. The building collapses and everyone else perishes. One person is saved.
I am fireman number two.
The pro-life community wants full protection for every human being, yes. But if we will only ever accept full and total legal protection in one fell swoop, babies that otherwise could have been saved, will die.
I prefer some protection against abortion, rather than no protection. Then as hearts and minds continue to change, further protective laws will become possible and more lives will be saved.
Ponder this if you will. The pro-abortions want complete non-restrictive access to abortion. Some pro-lifers will accept nothing but a complete and total ban on abortion. As I see it, both strategies achieve the same results.
This is why, in good conscience, I and many Canadians I know, support a new pro-life initiative called "We need a Law" (www.weneedalaw.ca) which advocates for:
"legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.”
"The Canadian pro-life community has worked since 1969 to promote respect and protection for every innocent human life."
But I disagree with Ms. Jeffs when it comes to the most effective strategy for achieving legal protection for preborn children.
Those who believe in what some call the "all or nothing" approach, will only accept a complete abortion ban, and will never accept restrictive abortion legislation as a means towards this ultimate goal of full protection.
But given the current political, social and legal reality we Canadians find ourselves in today, a complete abortion ban would be impossible to achieve. However, fully 72% of Canadians believe children should be protected at some point prior to birth. This means most Canadians today would support some restrictions on abortion.
Imagine the following situation:
Two firemen arrive at the scene of a burning nursing home. Hundreds of elderly residents will soon die as the building is completely engulfed in flames.
One fireman looks at the building and says:
"This is horrible. Everyone will perish in this building very soon. I know I can't save all of those people because I simply do not have the means to save them all. This is so tragic but what can I do? I can't do anything."
The second fireman looks upon the same scene. He also realizes that all the residents are about to die. He says to himself:
"I think if I go in there right now, I can save one person."
The second fireman rushes inside, grabs a resident and is able to carry an elderly woman to safety. The building collapses and everyone else perishes. One person is saved.
I am fireman number two.
The pro-life community wants full protection for every human being, yes. But if we will only ever accept full and total legal protection in one fell swoop, babies that otherwise could have been saved, will die.
I prefer some protection against abortion, rather than no protection. Then as hearts and minds continue to change, further protective laws will become possible and more lives will be saved.
Ponder this if you will. The pro-abortions want complete non-restrictive access to abortion. Some pro-lifers will accept nothing but a complete and total ban on abortion. As I see it, both strategies achieve the same results.
This is why, in good conscience, I and many Canadians I know, support a new pro-life initiative called "We need a Law" (www.weneedalaw.ca) which advocates for:
"legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.”
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Goose family on a warm summer day
The Canada Goose family I see every year is back in town. This was taken on the Aviation Parkway this morning. Welcome back guys.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Mr. McGuinty...you have some explaining to do
Dear Mr. McGuinty,
Your government recently performed a stealth attack on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Your government recently amended the Act to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services. Individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services:
(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)
This amendment to FIPPA was very quietly slipped in as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. This was done by your government.
The irony, of course, is that this manoeuvre actually greatly decreased financial accountability since all access to abortion related information in the province of Ontario is now prohibited.
These changes have nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice ideology.
These changes are comprehensive and are a complete perversion of the democratic process. What happened here is a shameful abuse of power.
And this all happened under your watch.
In light of these facts, and as leader of the Government in Ontario, and since the Government in power answers to its citizens, of which I am one, can you please answer the following questions for me?
1) Why were abortion services the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA? Why were no other "medical procedures" excluded?
2) Why was there no information made available to the public about these changes beforehand so that we would be aware of the far reaching implications of these changes, and could lobby against them? Why was this done in secret?
I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest possible convenience.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Your government recently performed a stealth attack on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Your government recently amended the Act to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services. Individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services:
(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)
This amendment to FIPPA was very quietly slipped in as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. This was done by your government.
The irony, of course, is that this manoeuvre actually greatly decreased financial accountability since all access to abortion related information in the province of Ontario is now prohibited.
These changes have nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice ideology.
These changes are comprehensive and are a complete perversion of the democratic process. What happened here is a shameful abuse of power.
And this all happened under your watch.
In light of these facts, and as leader of the Government in Ontario, and since the Government in power answers to its citizens, of which I am one, can you please answer the following questions for me?
1) Why were abortion services the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA? Why were no other "medical procedures" excluded?
2) Why was there no information made available to the public about these changes beforehand so that we would be aware of the far reaching implications of these changes, and could lobby against them? Why was this done in secret?
I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest possible convenience.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Mr. Hudak where were you?
Dear Mr Hudak,
As you know, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services.
As you know, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services.
The effect of section 65 (5.7) of the Act is that individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services:
(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)
This amendment to FIPPA was very quietly slipped in as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.
Mr. Hudak, you might want to read this article published today in the Calgary Herald written by Margaret Somerville.
Dr. Somerville says about these changes:
“This change has ethical implications. It might also raise legal issues. For in-stance, a right to freedom of speech is seriously cur-tailed if one is prevented from obtaining the facts needed to form one's opinion. And we often speak of such restrictions, when they are imposed in non-democratic countries, as a breach of human rights...
“This change has ethical implications. It might also raise legal issues. For in-stance, a right to freedom of speech is seriously cur-tailed if one is prevented from obtaining the facts needed to form one's opinion. And we often speak of such restrictions, when they are imposed in non-democratic countries, as a breach of human rights...
FIPPA is meant to augment the transparency, openness and accountability of all levels of government for their decisions and actions, and our right, as Canadian citizens, to participate in democracy and democratic decision-making. My guess is that if the same approach were taken to information on breast cancer, people would be outraged.”
To be very clear, this issue is not a pro-life or a pro-choice issue. It is a pro-democracy issue, or to be more exact, this is an anti-democracy issue. Because it doesn't matter if you are pro-life or you are pro-choice. The result is that all access to abortion related information in the province of Ontario is now prohibited. It is comprehensive.
To frame this a bit differently and to expand on what Dr. Somerville says, can you imagine what would have happened in Ontario, if the exclusion clause instead excluded "breast cancer services"? This would mean that we would no longer know how many women get breast cancer, how many die from breast cancer, and whether or not our Ontario health care system was taking care of women who have breast cancer, and what the outcome was of their breast cancer treatment. The outrage would be deafening.
In light of these facts, and as leader of the official opposition in Ontario, and since your role as Opposition leader is to keep government accountable, can you please answer the following questions for me about this bill?
1) Why were abortion services the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA?
2) This exclusion was never debated or even mentioned in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Can you please tell me why you and your party did not object to this exclusion, and never raised a red flag to the people of Ontario?
3) You did not vote against the third reading of this bill. Can you please tell me why?
I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest possible convenience.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
2) This exclusion was never debated or even mentioned in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Can you please tell me why you and your party did not object to this exclusion, and never raised a red flag to the people of Ontario?
3) You did not vote against the third reading of this bill. Can you please tell me why?
I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest possible convenience.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)