Thursday, 22 December 2011

Will Woodworth be smacked-down by Stevie's Politburo?

Yesterday fern hill posted this about Contempt Party MP Stephen Woodworth's attempt to re-open the abortion *debate* in Canada.

As things stand now, health care practitioners provide abortions to women who choose to terminate their own life-threatening or unwanted pregnancies.

Zygote zealots and fetus lobbyists want to change that - they want the government to dictate the terms of this medical intervention.

Ironic isn't it? When it comes to allowing a total free-for-all - with regard to gun ownership - the Cons support libertarian rights. No government meddling or gawdfersake us, registration of weaponry, much of it not designed for mere duck hunting.

In spite of MASSIVE obfuscation by the mini NRA lobby (Canadian chapter) that claims it's all about sportsmanship, marksmanship and skills, the gawdgiven right to end life seems pretty evident with regard to the unbridled possibility of owning objects whose only purpose is killing or inflicting serious injury.

Abortion however ... a woman's right to end a pregnancy?

Can you hear the fetus lobbyists shrieeeeek MURDER?

And Con MP Woodworth is their mouthpiece, it seems. He keeps re-framing his *Q* to imply that prochoice advocates do not consider fetus to be human. Well, duh. If it's inside a woman's uterus, what else could it be?

On Radio-Canada today, Hélène Buzzetti pointed out that the Contempt Party caucus is completely muzzled - or provided with speaking points - by Stevie's Politburo on every single issue except for ... abortion.

And yet, Buzzetti claims that Laureen Harper made her spouse promise that the Cons would not challenge a woman's right to choose.

Ha! Well now the ConJobs have their *Strong Stable Majority* and Stevie owes nothing to Laureen who provided his election campaign with the required ideologically expedient photo op.


Beijing York said...

I really wish Laureen would come clean and spill the dirt on Harper.

fern hill said...

@BY: Wouldn't that be something? How old are the kids? That old 'staying together for the children' schtick, in my experience, lasts to about age 14 or so.

ck said...

"Laureen Harper made her spouse promise that the Cons would not challenge a woman's right to choose."

Like Steve would listen to his Stepford wife. And she'll never leave him. Why? She likes the perks too much. She's used to being kept in that particular life style. Go off on her own and that life style, of course goes down, that's why. I doubt she has any marketable skills to go on the work force even. Steve woulda seen that she be completely dependent.

Make no mistake, Steve, hisself, is as anti-choice as Trost, Woodsworth, Dean of Gastro, etc. Private member bills will be flying.

JJ said...

"Like Steve would listen to his Stepford wife."

Laureen doesn't strike me as a "stepford wife" or totally dependent at all -- she rides a motorcycle, which makes her pretty cool in my books. It takes a lot of guts and independence for a woman to wrangle one of those bad boys down the road or the trails, trust me.

So she's got bad taste in men, so what. Who among us can say we've never made a bad choice in that context? Not me.

Hahaha, I can just picture her in full leathers, kicking Harpie's fat ass all over the house before she takes off on her bike for some Quality Time in the wind without El Gordo Harpo.

deBeauxOs said...

JJ, I agree with you. It appears to be a mystery in Ottawa why Laureen - who's a pistol and ^NOT a Stepford wife - tolerates Stevie Spiteful, unless she's made a deal with the devil that ensures her kids get the advantages she didn't have and when that's done, she takes off and leaves him choking on her dust.

Anonymous said...

Also, as long as the Liberal Party is led by Bob "yes it was over 20 years ago but I fucked up Ontario so bad that the voters of the Trillium province have elephant brains" Rae, Steve's Ontario fetus-fetishist MPs know they're in no danger of losing their seats.

And - re Laureen. Steve's bestest moment in the HoC (& truest) was when he stood up & smirked that "even his wife has never accused him of being seductive"...


Beijing York said...

k'in, you owe me a bottle of brain bleach. Had to wipe out the image of Steve trying to be seductive in the bedroom. Where is the vomit bag when you need it.

JJ said...

deBeauxOs, wise woman, I think your assessment is spot-on.

We all make deals in life, and I suspect this is Laureen's.

I think it's telling that she almost never gives interviews. Some would cite this as evidence of Harper's "control" over her, but I think it's her choice. She polls way better than him, so a higher profile for her could only be helpful to him. Plus if people are paying more attention to her, they're paying less attention to the havoc her husband is wreaking. Harper knows all about the politics of distraction, so I suspect he'd be delighted if Laureen developed her own "cult of personality". It seems to me she's chosen not to enable this.

fern hill said...

That's interesting, dBO and JJ. I haven't spent much time thinking about Laureen, but what you say sounds reasonable.

Plus, can you imagine how vindictive Stevie Spiteful would be if she caused a scandal of some kind? That would terrify me if I were her.

deBeauxOs said...

The Cons will be taken by a scandal, but Laureen won't be the cause of it.

Some observers in Ottawa believe that Bruce Carson is just the tip of some very sleazy and nasty lobbyist iceberg. It will all come out eventually, and we will support that effort as best we can.

fern hill said...

Wouldn't it be grand if it were APTN that got the goods?

Post a Comment