One reason I thought DJ! would be interested is because the pro-forced birth stance in the formal debate is being presented by a self-identified secular Canadian.
This Canadian, Kristine Kruszelnicki, who appears to be giving MP Woodworth not only fan props but a run for his forced-birth money by being solidly in the ranks of this Very Concerned Group Of Americans Who Kindly Let Canadians Join Up.
My biggest take away from what I've been able to scrape up on the 'scientific' defenses in play by these secularist vagina controllers is it's pretty much the religionist forced-birth ideology with the heavenly serial numbers filed off, complete with reinterpretations of science in what was termed American election night on Fox News as "math he does as a Republican to make himself feel better...?" (he being Karl Rove denying Obama took Ohio's EC votes).
The pro-women's-autonomy stance in the debate was taken by feminist ally Matt Dillahunty of the ACA, a gender irony he notes himself during the debate, but it seems it was his work that brought this hyperskeptical-evidence-thin secular pro-forced birth group to greater scrutiny in the non-theist community*. He has since apparently stated he's willing to keep challenging secularist forced-birthers as often as they can match schedules. Given that the ACA is also home to a strong core of feminists including Matt's partner, Beth Presswood, there could be some very interesting higher profile pushback coming up in the North American non-religionist communities.
I predict such pushback will garner greater cries of conflation between alleged immorality of atheism and support for legal, unfettered abortion. Be interesting to see how that plays in Canada.
I dunno. Is a non-religionist who still stumps for incubator status of women, a He-ist or an Aiiieeeist?
*bonus points. DJ!'s blogroll biologist on matters embryological, PZMyers of Pharyngula blog, snaps like a dry twig and makes an appearance at the end of QnA.