Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Before we start that 'respectful' conversation, Mr Woodworth. . .

Did you have a respectful conversation with your constituents before the election about your plan to reopen the abortion debate?

Ooo. Seems not, according to local political blogger King and Ottawa.
Yet this week when directly asked if he supported a woman’s right to choose in a debate televised on Rogers TV, Woodworth refused to give a direct answer. Instead he called for a dialogue on abortion, something that Stephen Harper lead us to believe was off the table. Mike Farwell who moderated the debate picked up on this discrepancy and wrote about it on his blog.

There is no doubt about where he stands on the issue. He tweeted it earlier this year.

'My principles incline me to favour preservation and enhancemt of human life in all end of life issues.'
-- Stephen Woodworth on Twitter as preserved by Tweetcommons

His position is also on the public record thanks to Campaign Life which recommended its supporters vote for him due to his social conservative views. In the quote section, he supports the traditional definition of a family and in the questionaire section he promises to strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward.

Supporters of his pro-life position must be concerned about his answer this week. Should they continue to support him if he isn’t going to deliver on his commitment? Or do they know something we don’t. Has Stephen Harper asked him to refrain from talking about this issue? Have Woodworth or another Tory MP been promised they can introduce the issue as a private member’s bill after they win a majority government? That is how they tried to kill the long gun registry.

And here's K&O on Woodworth's recent gambit:
Woodworth loves to play word games. I suspect he prides himself on fancy rhetorical footwork worthy of Mohamed Ali. He never allows himself to be pinned down. He bobs and weaves around just about any policy issue. Pick any issue you like and have a dialogue with him on Twitter, you’ll see exactly what I mean. He refuses to answer a direct question even when I tried to do so around his opposition to funding International Planned Parenthood and what that might mean for women in Canada. He appears to relish the type of slippery logic that gives both lawyers and politicians a bad name.

I recommend that we respond, “Even if a dialogue on when human life begins could be beneficial, we do not trust you and the Harper government to lead the dialogue and act on it. Instead, we want your government to act to eliminate poverty and prevent unexpected pregnancies both across Canada and around the world. “

“Oh, and by the way, let’s take care of the economic uncertainty!”

Your constituents don't trust you, Mr Woodworth. You got elected by people who believed that you were toeing the Contempt Party's nauseatingly oft-repeated line of 'our government will NOT open the abortion debate'.

We will not debate anyone so patently disingenuous.

3 comments:

JeninCanada said...

As I've repeatedly said IRL to anyone who will listen, the CONs dont' need to have a debate. They intro the legislation and pass it thanks to having a majority in the House (and a stacked Senate). While it gets taken to court, women suffer. Fuck the Cons.

Anonymous said...

Remember that Woodworth ran (unsuccessfully) for the Liberals previous to his squeaking in for the Cons. So, definitely dealing with a Trojan's horse's ass here.

k'in

deBeauxOs said...

A Trojan horse's ass ....!!!

Priceless. You're the Queen of the killer one-liners, k'in.

Post a Comment