Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge introduced a new bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, aimed at protecting pregnant women against abortion intimidation.
Yes. That Rod Bruinooge (isn't Open Parliament nifty?), chair of the secretive pro-lie parliamentary caucus and staunch defender of
"The bottom line is that people like myself are not going to stop until, at the very least, unborn children have more value than a Canadian kidney."
Also, don't forget, brother of the MASSIVE Morgentaler poll fraudster.
As Joyce Arthur says at the Winnipeg Free Press link above,
"They're trying to intimidate and scare abortion providers," she said. "Providers could find themselves facing prosecution for coercing abortion."
Arthur maintains the bill steps on the toes of a successful system that's already in place and undermines the good work pregnancy support groups do. Counsellors at clinics are on the front-lines educating people on the rights of the woman, outlining the choices they have and how the decision to see the pregnancy to term is theirs and theirs alone.
"It's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist," Arthur said. "Typically, women who are coerced into having an abortion are already caught at the counselling stage."
The geniuses at Freak Dominion are sneering at it as 'incrementalism', which is exactly what it is of course, and are predicting that it will go nowhere.
Especially since the ever-truthful Stevie Peevie is on record saying that his government would not support any private member's bill to do with abortion.
In other news of that non-debate we're having about abortion, remember the ReformaTories demanded new legislation at their grassrootsy convention to replace C-484, aka Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill?
How's that coming along?
Not so well.
More than 18 months after he pledged to crack down on those who assault pregnant women, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has yet to keep his promise and won’t say when he will.
Speaking to reporters, Nicholson dismissed suggestions he has shelved his plans. However, he refused repeatedly to say when he will table a bill or even whether he will act within the coming year.
(snip)
Opposition critics Dominic Leblanc and Joe Comartin say it is a “cynical” ploy to satisfy Conservative supporters by promising legislation while at the same time avoiding a potentially explosive debate over a bill some say could restrict abortions.
Cynical? Say it ain't so!
But, hey, it seems to be working. The moronic fetus fetishists keep voting for them. And the rest of us will keep them in minority -- or, hopefully, miniscule opposition -- forever. Because we know Stephen Harper cannot be trusted.
5 comments:
Aw geez, is Bruinooge still abusing that kidney analogy again?
Nah. Link to old post. But it's too good to ever let the world forget it.
Ok, putting my tinfoil hat on, I'm finding it very interesting that this comes out in the same media window as the two 'experts' concern-trolling about doctors refusing fetal sexual characteristics information to pregnant women.
Key linking point is 'coerced abortion'. The 'expert' posited situation brings up the 'alien ethnic culture' connection more overtly and lets blame spill over on to the woman 'as designer' somewhat.
Bruinooge's point retreats to a less coloured cause, but still manages to creep along lower income lines while simultaneously ignoring the real issues of bullying and domestic violence -- because (and yes, I'm crystal ball presuming based on his evangelical professions) ending political dominion of men over women isn't his point. Quite the opposite really.
I'm also getting a strong whiff (it's the melodramatic in me) of 19th century madonna martyrdom in the exploited imagery of the flower of womanhood valiantly, (albeit uselessly because she's just a frail woman hence the need for LAW!), defending her unborn child alone against Simon LeGree and his cruel, cracking whip (who apparently is not ur-heinous because he's brutalizing the life out of a woman but because he's aborting her wanted pregnancy; did I get that right?).
The supposition slipped in under both tales seems to be *all* pregnancies are wanted and would be just fine, if the silly damn women weren't talked out of/intimidated out of carrying through on them by, well, just about anything it seems. So, pick the most lurid examples of women suffering coercion and run with them, screaming 'teh babeeeeez!'
I expect similar 'women can't be trusted' pieces in the near future. I would really love to get Bruinooge's take on men's dominion over women to see if I'm wildly off the mark about natural law discipline in his world.
And while we're talking about forced medical decisions - lets call back to a subject we've addressed lately, namely Crisis Pregnancy Care Centers.
If this bill isn't about abortion as its author claims, but 'coercion', shouldn't it also outlaw coercing anybody who wants one to NOT get an abortion?
I would be willing to bet that there's more evidence of agressive partners, strict parents and deceptive fake clinics 'coercing' woman who want an abortion to not get one with tactics ranging from lies to violence.
So if this bill isn't about abortion but coercion, shouldn't it go both ways?
Cliff, you're bringing logic to a gum fight.
(gum fight: where the purpose is to smear as much gum as possible into your victim's hair. Why? Because your doing that makes *them* losers. If you think that reasoning is stupid, you're bringing logic to a gum fight again)
The Immutable Law aka The Little Black Duck Law aka "That's Different, Pain Hurts Us" is that what they do is righteous and only what they do is righteous. Using the exact same tactic against them isn't the same thing at all, because you did it.
Post a Comment