What would be the point of an abortion debate?

About that debate that nobody wants and yet seems to be raging all the fucking time nonetheless...

I will have more to say about this (biiiig surprise, regular DJ! readers are thinking), but for now (I'm really busy) I just want to put a couple of points out there.

Here's a question no one seems to be asking: What would be the purpose of an abortion debate?

Rabid political partisans are obviously betting that it can score them some votes or at least some points.

Rabid anti-choicers want to roll history backwards and if not recriminalize abortion altogether (which even they admit is not on), then create some kinda law -- any kinda law -- on it.

The sneakier of those two groups take another tack. They want to debate the funding of abortion. This gang has an ally in Prime Minister ShitHead who said yesterday that abortion funding can't be part of the Maternal Health Initiative because it's extremely divisive. (Bulletin, Mr Harper: So is vaccination.)

Media outfits want an abortion debate because it's sure-fire click-bait -- have a look at any story about it and check the comment count. Some pundits want to sell books or freelance pieces. A few boyos want to exercise their middle-school debating skills and they'll do it purely for fun.

I call this aim the #AbortionDebateClub -- debating the fundamental human right to autonomy for FUN and PROFIT!!!!

Am I missing anything? Political points, legislation, funding, FUN. What other end could an abortion debate serve?

Here's my question for now. If legislation is the purpose, under what aegis?

Criminal Code of Canada? All recent Conservative private member's bills have been framed as amendments to the Criminal Code. Effectively this means criminalizing some types of abortion (medical bad, surgical OK?), some aspects of abortion (early OK, late [howlate?] bad?), some reasons (sex-selection VERY BAD) for abortion.

We need only look southward to see where partial criminalization leads. Once there is a law, people will inevitably try to screw around with it. The more forthright of the fetus fetishists admit that they will not stop until abortion is so ringed around with restrictions and regulations and paperwork that it becomes practically unobtainable.

How about the Constitution then? Section 2 of the Charter could have a few words added, no biggie.

2. Everyone (including the zygotal, embryonic, and fetal) has the following fundamental freedoms:

Easy peasy, yes?

Or maybe the Canada Health Act? Again, we could insert a couple of words.

An Act relating to cash contributions by Canada and relating to criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services, except abortion

My serious question again: What is the desired concrete outcome of an abortion debate?

Because if we can't agree on a purpose for a debate, it does seem to me to be simply "extremely divisive."

And totally pointless in a country where a lawless abortion regime has worked very well for more than a quarter of a century.


ADDED: Joyce Arthur offers a distinction between "backwards" and "forwards" abortion debates. What we should be talking about she says is access, funding for women in developing countries, and international advocacy for our successful #LawlessAbortion regime.

Juxtapose!

What the whistler whistles.

[September 5, 2012] Woodworth maintains that M-312 is not about abortion but fact-finding, and that Parliament should act on whatever evidence was presented by medical and scientific experts.

What the dogs hear.

September 10, 2012 – Motion 312 is recognized by many as having direct implications for the status quo on abortion in Canada.

Just so we're clear.

Bloviatin' on the CBC

Yesterday morning on the Sunday Edition, Michael Enright bloviated on the Abortion Debate (starting at 3:23, running to 7:25).

I made some notes:

Parliament is a house of debate, highest temple of debate in the country

Parliament should be able to debate on any subject

Bertha Wilson

Abortion is the most divisive, radioactive in US politics, we don't want this here

Parliament should debate any and all ideas

Limiting debate would reduce the power of Parliament, democracy itself

I was yelling at him throughout. Well, except at the very end about reducing the power of Parliament when I snorted tea out my nose.

M. Enright has drunk the KoolAid. Let's straighten him out, shall we?

Alternatively, there's a place for comments -- which are public after all -- here.

Damn. I just commented there, but didn't copy it first and now it's in 'pre-moderation' limbo. I'll come back with it, if/when it is approved.

h/t Niles

ADDED: CBC allowed my comment.

Really, Michael?

Parliament should be able to debate everything? Including Woodworth's disingenuous attempt to muddy the distinction between biological human and legal person with the sole purpose of recriminalizing abortion?

Parliament should debate the curtailing of some people's rights?

Because that's what this is about. Endowing fetuses with rights deprives women, aka incubators in this view, of their rights to autonomy.

This is known as a zero-sum game.

Let's have Parliament debate the rights of bloviating, entitled old CBC hacks to sully my morning with ill-considered baloney, shall we?

Yo! Progressive Bloggers!

On March 16, DJ wrote:

Yesterday on Twitter, a few pundits (Kady O'Malley for one) deigned to admonish us pro-choicers as alarmist, over-reacting, yadayada. We were told to consult the numbers. This motion will never pass, they said. Don't worry your purty little heads.

Well, as of this writing, 4,500 Canadians (mostly) are pretty fucking alarmed that the abortion debate is being reopened.

Feminist bloggers have been on it for months. Alison at Creekside here and here. JJ the Unrepentent here and here.

And of course, DAMMIT JANET! passim and ad nauseum.

Yes, yes. We are fully aware of other horrible things Harpolini and gang are doing to Canada and do not propose taking our collective progressive eye off any of those slime balls.

But could we get a little help here?

Particularly from male progressive bloggers who might like to alert their readers to this aspect of The Hidden Agenda® that is decloaking at the moment?

If you're really really busy on More Important Matters, maybe you could help out with a tweet directing people to this petition.

THXKAIBYE

OOPS! Forgot Dave at The Galloping Beaver. Thanks, Dave.

Sunday UPDATE: Kev at Trappped in a Whirlpool speaks up. Thanks, Kev. And Anti-Choice Is Anti-Awesome.

How to Kill an Abortion Bill

Step one: Wait for a politician to say something stupid. Repeat.

This is what we have to do to stop Motion 312, aka Woodworth's Wank. (Read the whole thing.)

“One of the things that happened in Idaho was that the legislators assumed people weren’t going to pay very much attention,” says Luther, who helped organize a social-media campaign against the bill. On the ground, Monica Hopkins, executive director of the ACLU in Idaho, agreed: “The public outcry is what killed this bill.” She pointed out that a 20-week abortion ban passed relatively quietly last year. “I think really it’s a nationwide trend that Idaho is participating in.”

Activists in other states that have successfully beat back anti-reproductive rights laws have noticed a similar pattern: A legislator says something terrible and condescending; women use social media to stoke nationwide outrage about the comment; and the legislators, cowed by the unexpected attention, back down.

We've already made a good start. The petition, started on March 22, already has more than 3300 signatures. It has a nifty feature: one can mouse over 'view' in the Comment column to read what people have added. A great many of them express shock, dismay, and disgust that we have to fight this battle again.

But, sadly, most Canadians are too distracted by their own troubles to pay attention. I mentioned this to my dentist's assistant the other day and she had heard nothing about it.

To put it bluntly, we have to make pains-in-the-ass of ourselves. Tell everyone. Bug the hell out of our friends, relatives, and co-workers to sign the petition, write to their MPs.

Continue writing blog-posts and tweets.

We cannot allow this crack to open even a nanometre.

Because this is what they have in store for us:

Eenie-Meenie, Pro or Anti

After I wrote the open letter to opposition women's caucuses and Antonia Zerbisias retweeted it, it got some attention from Elizabeth May and Carolyn Bennett. (Djaouida Sellah is on twitter [@DSellahNDP] but hasn't weighed in and BQ's Maria Mourani seems not to have a twitter account.)

May said:

@ElizabethMay: @AntoniaZ @DSellahNDP @Carolyn_Bennett Thanks so much for your work! Do not leave out #CPC women MPs. Many (most?) are pro-choice. #cdnpol

Well, Antonia and I got busy checking both at ARCC and Campaign Lie.

According to ARCC, there are only six known pro-choice CONs: John Baird, Michael Chong, Peter Kent, Gordon O'Connor, Joe Oliver, and Lisa Raitt.

This surprised Ms May.

@AntoniaZ @fernhilldammit @DSellahNDP @Carolyn_Bennett I am surprised. Thanks for checking. #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything #cdnpoli

— Elizabeth May MP (@ElizabethMay) March 27, 2012

ARCC's 'probable' anti-choice MPs list

Listings are based on voting record, anti-choice designation in previous elections, partial survey responses to Campaign Life Coalition, indicative public statements, and/or statements made to individual constituents. They are all Conservatives unless otherwise noted, and newly elected MPs are in bold. These MPs are also included on the Unknown list.
• Eve Adams
• Steven Blaney
• Ray Boughen
• John Carmichael
• Tony Clement
• Jim Flaherty
• Parm Gill
• Ed Holder
• Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)
• Ben Lobb
• Lawrence Toet
• John Weston
• Terence Young

All of these are rated by CLC as 'caution', with a cute little yellow traffic light. They are 'still evaluating'.

There are a good number of MPs whose position is unknown, including three Liberals, rated by CLC with a 'caution': Sean Casey, Kevin Lamoureux, and Francis Scarpalggia.

Interestingly, CLC rates Shelly Glover and Mike Wallace, who told a constituent he'd vote against M312, as pro-abortion.

For CON MP Bruce Stanton, who told a local paper he'd vote against it, CLC has 'evaluation pending', but notes his position on M312.

For the record, here is Carolyn Bennett's reply:

@ElizabethMay @AntoniaZ @DSellahNDP #cdnpoli We are appalled @pmsh gone back on promise not2 reopen #choice debate nds2 reel in @woodworthmp

— Carolyn Bennett(@Carolyn_Bennett) March 27, 2012

Do you know whether your MP is pro-choice or anti-choice? Take advantage of Campaign Lie's handy-dandy search tool. All you need is the MP's last name. When the 'Bio' comes up, click on the next tab 'Contact' and zip him or her a quick question on M312, or as I'm calling it, Woodworth's Wank. You might want to include this link to ARCC's counter arguments.


ADDED: Go read JJ. Is there a blogburst brewing? Do we have WOMBemtum?

An open letter to Opposition Women's Caucuses

Dear Djaouida Sellah (NDP), Carolyn Bennett (LPC), Maria Mourani (BQ), and Elizabeth May (GPC):

As you are no doubt aware, Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 (snappy nickname yet to be determined) is a thinly veiled attempt to reopen the abortion debate.

Prime Minister Harper pledged that his government would NOT reopen this settled matter and yet here we are.

There are far more pressing matters facing Parliament and Canadians than this complete waste of time and resources.

But, ever vigilant, ordinary Canadian women and their allies are taking steps to inform people and Parliamentarians about this American-style attempt to run the clock backwards.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has prepared counter arguments and launched a petition, with at this writing over 2100 signatures in five days.

Two (at least) Facebook groups have been formed: here and here.

An anti-choice Facebook page has also been formed, co-opting Mme Justice Bertha Wilson's name in a disrespectful and sneering way.

All the usual anti-choice suspects, like Campaign Life, are gearing up for the fight.

One CPC MP, Bruce Stanton, has voiced his opposition to this 'divisive' manoeuvre.

This would be a grand opportunity for the Women's Caucuses of the opposition parties to cooperate and coordinate a response to this forthright attack on hard-won women's rights.

Personally, I'd love to see each Opposition member rise during the debate and say something along the lines of 'Mr Speaker, with respect, I decline this opportunity to waste this House's time on a matter most Canadians consider settled' and sit down.

However you choose to oppose M312, it is time for pro-choice MPs to stand up for women's rights and say a resounding 'NO' to a Canadian 'War on Women'.

We look forward to hearing your response.

Thank you.

UPDATE: A woman named Alysha emailed her Con MP, Mike Wallace, about the motion. Here is his reply: 'I am opposed to this motion and will be voting against it.'

That's two.

Woodworth's Wank

While the jury deciding on a name for Stephen Woodworth's abortion debate gambit may still be out, I have decided what I'm going to call it: 'Woodworth's Wank'.

I suppose it could be called 'The Fetus Lobby's Wank' because they are all panting to join the circle, but hey, this is personal.

It's a wank because it serves no purpose other than the gratification of the participants.

It's a wank because -- if successful -- it will create a mess that others will have to deal with.

And it's a wank because it has nothing to do with Reality® (I know, I know, another one of those 'liberal' concepts).

And it is not just a 'discussion' as Woodworth the Wanker insists. It is the opening of The Wedge and look what that has wrought in the Excited States.

RESIST!
• Sign the petition opposing it.
• Check out the Facebook page.
• Send a letter to your MP.
• Include ARCC's counter arguments to aid your MP's thinking.

Canadian women have fought too hard and too long to go backwards.

We Will NOT Go Back

We have a date, April 26, 2012, for a one-hour debate on Stephen Woodwank's Motion 312 on the ever-popular topic of 'When Do Women Lose Their Right to Autonomy'?

The Fetus Fetishists are stoked. More on that in a bit, but first some history, or 'just how long has this been in the works?'

Woodwank, who represents Kitchener-Waterloo, put out a media release on his little notion on December, 21, 2011.

But way back on May 22, 2011 (just after the federal election), the Ontario Knights of Columbus vowed to find and work with an MP to 'introduce a Parliamentary Bill seeking the restoration of full legal protection for the lives of the unborn.' Woodwank is a Knight of Columbus.

On October 23, CTV had a story about an Ontario anti-choice group -- located in Guelph(!) -- launching a campaign called 'We Want the Debate'. It was to be a four-month campaign. Website here.

Four months would take them to mid-February, just around Woodwank's press conference. (I don't know what came of the campaign; I've seen no coverage of it.)

Coincidences? Sure, why not?




Woodwank is now promoting a site called Not Yet Born where you can download and print and harass your neighbours and co-workers with glurge like this.




Nope. No loaded language there, is there?

More reactions from the Fetus Lobby. Faytene of 4 My Canada, a fundy nutbar group, is pumped.

Campaign Lie's got a special-edition website called I Am a Human Being which demonstrates yet again their staunch but mistaken faith that images of miraculous fetal development will change hearts and minds.

When Canada de-criminalized abortion in 1969, technology did not exist to let the world see inside the womb. To a certain extent, abortion advocates in that era of scientific ignorance who honestly believed the unborn was merely a “blob of tissue” might be excused. But thanks to modern microscopic imaging and video technology, we can now see the newly created human being inside the womb.

Pro-tip: Such images have little effect.

In addition to cheerleading and waving around the same old pix, some fetus fanciers are doing happy dances to thoughts of the pro-choicers driven insane by finally having to debate their AWESOME science and logic.

Here's Mrozek.

Should be good–I’m sure a number of pro-choicers will be lighting their hair on fire with the contrived sort of fake anguish that only MPs in the House of Commons can muster.

And sob-brother Kelly McParland.

It’s diabolical. An arrow straight at the deliberate self-deceptions used to justify abortion. Abortion supporters will be up in arms.

In fact, even PMSHithead acknowledges that the debate is 'not the priority of the Canadian people'. (There he goes again, telling us what we think, but twice a day even a broken government clock. . . )

As we've argued countless times here at DJ!, there are a bunch of excellent reasons NOT to reopen the debate.

First, of course, is that the state has no business in the uteri of the nation.

Also. The Fetus Lobby lies, moves goalposts, and just generally argues in bad faith.

And. Most people are sick to death of hearing about it.

But mainly, because WE WON.

The game's afoot nonetheless and here's what could happen. One hour of debate in April, with a bunch of self-selected MPs flapping their gums. Then another hour sometime later and a vote. Simple majority wins and Woodwank gets his loaded committee to hear testimony from a bunch of fetus fetishists and whichever sane people think this is worth their time. Then a report to the House.

After that? Dunno.

First line of resistance is the MPs' debate in April. I'd like pro-choice MPs to stand up and say: 'I refuse to waste the House's time on a settled matter,' and sit down, leaving the floor to a parade of pious, prattling Attack Parrots®. Let Canadians get a load of that.

Ditto for the future debate. Then I want this sucker defeated.

Here's where we have a bit of work to do. Do you know if your MP is anti- or pro-choice? Find out here. Whichever way they roll, let them know you are NOT pleased with time and energy wasted on a settled matter.

Yesterday on Twitter, a few pundits (Kady O'Malley for one) deigned to admonish us pro-choicers as alarmist, over-reacting, yadayada. We were told to consult the numbers. This motion will never pass, they said. Don't worry your purty little heads.

Right. Remember Epp's fetal rights PMB? That passed second fucking reading because we weren't bothering our purdy little heads soon enough and hard enough. Only an election call stopped it. Not us. Nor the MPs.

Not the fucking pundits.

We will NOT get caught with our panties down again.

UPDATE: More Strategery. Like the idea of adopting an anti-choice MP.

Abortion? Seriously?

Here's Lorrie Goldstein, Senior Associate Editor for the Toronto Sun, on February 6, 2010, under the headline Abortion Fight? Give us a break.

Abortion? Seriously? This is the divisive debate Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff wants to plunge Canada back into when Parliament resumes March 3?

This was back when Motherhood Steve was pimping his maternal health initiative that excluded safe abortion and contraception and the Libs had cooked up a little gotcha.

Here's more:

But it won't just be Tories who split on abortion, thus wasting Parliament's time on an issue most Canadians consider, and want, to remain settled.

Got that? Silly Liberals wasting valuable time on a settled issue.

By the way, as it turns out, Goldstein was dead right about the split on abortion. DJ! reported:

Well. If you haven't heard yet, the MOTION WAS DEFEATED.

BY THE FUCKING HARPER LIBERALS, to wit, Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, and John McKay, who voted with the TheoCons against family planning.

Yes, indeedy, in the 21st century, there are people who have the gall to call themselves Liberals and yet vote against their party in order to tell the wimmins -- yet again -- what we can do with our lady parts.

Let's go back to Goldstein:

Is this really what Ignatieff wants pre-occupying Parliament when it resumes? To roll back the clock and reignite the debate over abortion?

Who's rolling back the clock and wasting time over a settled issue now, eh?

DJ! implores sensible MPs to resist this old chestnut of junior-high debating clubs. When the first hour of debate comes up in April, it would be grand if, one after another, MPs rose to say: 'Mr Speaker, to paraphrase Lorrie Goldstein: "This is an attempt to roll back the clock. I refuse to waste this House's time over a settled matter".'

Let the Woodworths, Trosts, Vellacotts, and Del Mastros witter on the 'sanctity of life' demonstrating that the Cons' Hidden Agenda starts -- as usual -- with the wimmin.

Been there. Done that.

Won.

BONUS: Twitter is still having fun with the hashtag #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything.

What if. . . ?

The Contempt Party of Canada is denying and flailing and spinning and finger-pointing and lying and blustering. You know, the usual.

But these election fraud allegations appear to have legs. Pretty strong legs. Helped along perhaps by a pissed-off press corps sick of being regularly and routinely shat upon by Harpercons.

What if Canadians do ^NOT fall asleep again, as Stevie Spiteful and crew are desperately praying for?

What big guns will the Contempt Party Brain Trust pull out?

Could it be the abortion debate that nobody wants?

I put absolutely nothing past them. Stephen Woodworth's Private Member's Motion is coming up for debate sometime in March.

It is March.

Thinking ahead here -- if the motion passes and a stacked committee of parliamentary Fetus Lobby members is convened to listen to all the same old crap again, I have a suggestion.

Suppose they had an abortion debate and nobody came?

Nobody but the fetus fetishists of course.

They've been creaming their Depends since Woodworth raised this notion.

They'd all be lined up around the block to spout their lies, tut-tuts, finger-wagging, et fucking cetera.

Picture it. One after another, the Forced Pregnancy gang makes their depositions.

Charles 'The Homo Annihilator' McVety.

Margaret 'The Pearl Clutcher' Somerville.

Andrea 'The Mean Good Girl' Mrozek.

Throw in a few of the 'Tough Guys in Dresses' chorus.

And the prochoicers?

Do. Not. Appear.

They reply politely to invitations, if any, with 'Been There. Done That. Won. Thx.'

Just say no.

And leave the Fetus Lobby howling like this.

Today's Weasel Award

Back here, we found a conveeenient connection between the Knights of Columbus who were looking for an anti-choice MP to push their fetal rights agenda and -- SURPRISE! -- a member of the KoC and current stalking horse for the Hidden Agenda® Stephen Woodworth. I said I'd ask him on Twitter and I did.

@WoodworthMP Care to comment? …hinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-co… Are you KoC's point man on fetal rights? #prochoice #cdnpoli #HiddenAgenda

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) February 16, 2012

First, the acronym defeats him.

@fernhilldammit I'm not sure what you mean by KoC,but I'm no one's point man #prochoice #cdnpoli Nor is mine a #HiddenAgenda

— Stephen Woodworth (@WoodworthMP) February 18, 2012

And he clearly hasn't had the grace (or wit) to read the link. I try to help out.

@WoodworthMP You belong to Knights of Columbus or KoC. Share fetal rights as goal. Working with? Prohint: info to be found in links often.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) February 18, 2012

Next, he goes all McCarthy-esque (with some Freudian lingerie showing in 'Knoghts'?) on my ass. Still clearly NOT having read the link.

@fernhilldammit "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Knoghts of Columbus?Good grief!! #abortiondebate #prochoice

— Stephen Woodworth (@WoodworthMP) February 18, 2012

His aw-shuxing doesn't go over well.

.@WoodworthMP @thereginamom @fernhilldammit @ToewsVic Just a humble backbencher, opening a discussion the PM promised not to. #cdnpoli

— Diddy Boo (@DiddyBoo1) February 18, 2012

Nor his McCarthy refs.

Isn't that cute?! @WoodworthMP makes McCarthy references, while his #CPC cohorts make warrantless searches legal. Bravo! @fernhilldammit

— Tweeting Ninja (@parliament_nil) February 18, 2012

And now Woodworth again. Not answering questions, aw-shuxing it up -- while respectfully flinging red-scare poo -- WINS today's Weasel Award with:

@fernhilldammit#prochoice #cdnpoli I am simply focussed on the policy not the politics

— Stephen Woodworth (@WoodworthMP) February 18, 2012

I think I'm done with direct contact with the guy.

Now imagine him on a Standing Committee on Abortion. With Trost, Vellacott, McVety. . .

Aieeee!

How Conveeeenient

On May 27, shortly after the federal election last year, we blogged on the Knights of Columbus.

At their 108th Ontario State Convention in Toronto on May 22nd, the Ontario Knights unanimously passed a resolution “to work with a Member of Parliament to introduce a Parliamentary Bill seeking the restoration of full legal protection for the lives of the unborn.”

Hm, Stephen Woodworth is an Ontario Catholic.

Does he have any connection to the KoC? From his about page, yes, indeed he does.

Over the years Stephen has also had the privilege of assisting many local organizations as a Board member or advisor.  He was elected a School Trustee in Kitchener in 1994, 1997 and 2000, served on the board of Big Brothers, volunteered regularly with the Knights of Columbus and has been a lector at his church since 1967.

'Volunteering regularly' sounds kinda distant and benign, like volunteering regularly at a food bank or something. But you know, not actually involved or a member or . . .

Oh. Wait. He is a member. (Quite the list there, including Samuel Alito, John Boehner, and Canadian MPs Denis Coderre and Rob Nicholson.)

Seems the Knights found their MP and he's one of them.

Would some enterprising journo please ask Mr Woodworth about this?

ADDED: I asked him on Twitter this morning, now 7 hours ago. No answer. No surprise.

@WoodworthMP Care to comment? …hinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-co… Are you KoC's point man on fetal rights? #prochoice #cdnpoli #HiddenAgenda

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) February 16, 2012

Again -- Respectfully -- WHY?

On CBC Radio's The Current this morning, stand-in host Jim Brown interviewed MPs Stephen Woodworth and Brad Trost and Star Parliamentary reporter Tonda MacCharles.

While Woodworth weaselled around about his Private Member's Motion to have a 'respectful' dialogue on when life begins, aka Opening the Abortion Debate That No One Wants Opened, he failed again to answer the basic question of 'Why?'

Brown didn't press very hard, but to be fair, his interest wasn't in the debate as such but in a political analysis of what trying to open it may mean.

The segment started with about five reiterations of Stevie Peevie using his patronizing-a-four-year-old voice on 'I've been very clear. . . yadayada . . . will not reopen' schtick. Then Woodward came on to say basically nothing.

Then a little introduction to Trost and his desire for martyrdom in the form of airing his own notions as opposed to the rigorously enforced Contempt Party talking-points.

Trost came on live to witter on about his own interest in reopening the debate. Brown prodded him about what his fellow caucus members think of his going off-message. More bafflegab about respecting everybody . . . (I had sorta stopped listening by then, to tell the truth.)

Then MacCharles came on to reassure us that Stevie Peevie really really really means it about not reopening the debate and everybody should just relax.

OK, then. I wasted half an hour of my life on that.

Regular readers know that we here at DJ! trust the Contempt Party about as far as we could throw Rob Ford. In fact, we're devoted to keeping vigilant guard on the Hidden Agenda Watch.

So are we reassured?

Nope.

We think a debate, however respectful, is a total waste of time, money, and patience. Remember, if this motion passes, what amounts to a Standing Committee on Abortion will be formed to listen to windbags like Charles McVety opine. Plus a whole host of the usual suspects like R.E.A.L. Women, Campaign Lie, etc.

And politicians don't become politicians unless they looove the sound of their own voices, so the pols will dive in enthusiastically and we'll have a Parliamentary circus like this, with the elected equivalents of Twatsy running their mouths.

We've asked before and we'll ask -- respectfully -- again: Why do we need this debate?

If Stephen Woodworth can provide one reason for it, one injustice that would be righted, one social problem that would be clarified, then fine, bring it on.

But this appears to be the best he's got.

Members of Parliament have a duty not to accept any law that says some human beings are not human.

Seriously, that's all he's got.

Here we go again. Find your MP here and shoot her or him a quick note expressing displeasure/disgust/outrage at this effort to reopen The Debate We Have Had and Settled.

If a majority of MPs vote 'yes' on Woodworth's motion, the debate will be on and it will be those MPs' fault. Tell them you'll hold them responsible.




ADDED: The link now goes to podcast and transcript.

NatPo: We declare this debate OPEN!

Today, we have entries 12 and 13 in NatPo's ongoing campaign to 'Open the Abortion Debate' since Chief Fetus Lobbyist Stephen Woodworth's opening salvo on Dec. 21 last year.

First up, a straight report on yesterday's poll on sex-selective abortion.

Next, Chris Selley on Canada's abortion hypocrisy. He compares 'sex selection' (very very bad) with 'family balancing' (good) and points out that they are the same fucking thing. Except that we get to wag fingers at Deepak and Sanjana as culturally backward, as opposed to applaud Dick and Jane as technologically advanced.

Read the comments. The racists, sexists, prudes, and misogynists are STOKED.

And this is why we say again: Fuck the Debate. Nothing good can come of it.

That Damned Stubborn Debate Won't Open!

Agenda? What agenda? Nah, the NatPo has no abortion agenda.

Well, somebody really wants to reopen the so-called debate.

Two pieces today, one on Saturday, gasbag de Souza last Thursday, two last Wednesday, one Tuesday, all spurred by the sex-selection story. (That link is to André Picard, sensible on this as he is on so many issues.)

Going further back, but still in January, NatPo ran more stories about abortion in Canada:
Jan. 13, news about the human rights complaint in New Brunswick, but dig the heading: 'New Brunswick abortion debate could reopen as province seeks to block doctor’s human rights complaint'.
Jan 11, Gunter's Grunts
Jan 7, 'Attempts to fire up abortion debate in Canada fizzle'.

And December 12, 'Tory MP boldly calls for abortion debate with statement that avoids using the word "abortion"'. That would be Chief Fetus Lobbyist (at the moment) Con backbencher-in-search-of-an-issue-any-issue Stephen Woodworth.

Plus all the letters to the editor that fit in print.

In just over a month, eleven stories humping that really really uninterested leg.

Today, Margaret Sommerville witters as usual, but Kelly McParland really belts one outta the park.

Taken to its logical extreme, abortion would ultimately prove its own undoing. If enough women abort female festuses [sic and snerk], eventually the world would be depopulated of women, ending the need to worry about whether abortion is moral or not.

Such spectacular stupidity can not be out-done, yes?

Wrong. The best-rated comment is by known dunderhead 'Sassylassie'.

Or the new progressive gay utopia sans females? Sick thing is the solution to the shortage of females in China is to force women to marry more than one man. The sickos are always one step ahead of the rest of us, abort us enmasse and then victimize the survivors sans enforced polygamy.

The evul plan hatched by homos and feminazis is working nicely, isn't it?

And they wonder why we sane people don't want to debate them.

The So-Conned Catch a Clue

It's a long weekend so it's not surprising that the fetus fetishists have yet to respond to the news that Stevie Peevie insists there will be no new abortion law. (Not that we trust him on that atallatall.)

They're discussing it at the Freaks, though, and my Facebook friend Connie had this to say:

There is no reason for Harper to take the position that he will "oppose any attempt" to create legislation around the issue of abortion.

If he thinks he is fooling the socons because the "threw us a bone" in refusing to fund overseas abortions, then refused to even allow a discussion of the issue in Canada, he's in for a surprise.

Canada is probably the only country in the world with absolutely no restrictions on abortion, yet Harper has no problem putting all kinds of restrictions on our real rights, like freedom of speech.

The cultural change has happened already. The polls prove it. The turn-out at the March for Life proves it. That cop-out doesn't work for Harper anymore. At this point, it is Harper's gutlessness that it holding back progress in this area, and the socons aren't being fooled.

We have a Prime Minister who thinks it is appropriate to legislate that ISPs install software to spy on us and turn over that data without a warrant, and that the police be allowed to conduct random breathalyzer tests. But, NO WAY will he allow legislation that would infringe on the "right" of an abusive man to force his woman to have an abortion!

It's time for Harper to go.

Of course, she's wrong about the culture changing in her desired direction, but I can really get behind that last sentence.

So, ya think the so-conneds will sit on their chequebooks, stay home, or vote for one of the fringier nutbar parties?

BONUS: From Norman Spector an account of Stevie Spiteful's hissy fit. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall. . .

According to a report by Hélène Buzzetti in Le Devoir this morning, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met for nearly an hour with his closest advisers last Monday in order to find a way out of the G8/G20 maternal-health abortion mess on the government’s hands.

“ ‘Stephen Harper was furious,’ according to a well-informed Conservative source and is reported to have said: ‘I’m in a bind on this issue and don’t look forward to taking it into an election campaign.’ According to the same source, the minister responsible, Bev Oda, is part of the problem: ‘She’s not a good communicator, she’s pro-choice and is not persuasive when she speaks on the issue’.”

“At last Monday’s meeting, one faction suggested that Mr. Harper deliver a major speech ‘to set the record straight.’ The other group [led by chief of staff Guy Giorno] ruled this out: ”We must protect our base’.”

Yah. Connie feels real protected. Not to mention Bev Odious.

Harpo: 'Read my (glossed) lips'

So now we're supposed to trust him on this?

A new abortion law for Canada just isn't in the cards, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday as the issue continues to bubble and backbench Conservatives press for new legislation.

Harper's statement came in response to a question about a private member's bill by Conservative backbencher Rod Bruinooge, who wants to penalize anyone who "coerces" a woman into ending her pregnancy.

"I generally don't comment on private member's legislation," the prime minister said.

"But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law."

When I posted that question at the Left-Wing Fringe Group Facebook page, Antonia Zerbisias replied:

No. Has he honoured anything he has said? Senate appointments? Accountability? Deficit? ANYTHING?

And, of course, that list could go on and on and on.

The man never met a promise he didn't want to stomp his widdle feet on.

If this isn't the clearest signal yet that the CPC is stringing the fetus fetishists along, I don't know what would qualify. Why the hell don't they wakey-wakey?

JJ counsels vigilance. I agree.

But if you'd like to mosey over to Bruinooge's glurgey yet eerily quiet Facebook group to snerk at them, I would entirely understand *ahem*.

In related news, another! poll! on abortion! Demonstrating yet again that despite the fetus fetishists' wishful thinking, Canada is definitely pro-choice!

A third of Canadians want the abortion debate reopened - but a far greater number want politicians to leave the explosive issue alone and are satisfied with the status quo, according to a poll released Friday.

In fact, Canadians are so blasé about the status quo that

. . . 17 per cent said they didn't care one way or the other.

I find that number kind of reassuring. I'd like to see that 17% not as ignorant slackers but as people who think: 'Yeah, whatever. No matter who's shrieeeeeeking what, we're not going back to the Dark Ages. It's a done deal. Now, go away, I've got a hockey game to watch/patio to hang out on/cottage to open.'

ADDED: Da woims toin. Fetus fetishists getting it, ya think?

Culture War? Dog Whistle? Ginormous Boo-Boo? Hissy Fit?

So, what the hell is Motherhood Steve up to? We plow through the plethora of punditry so you don't have to. (All emphasis is mine.)

DonMartin:

That’s why it’s takes a selective sense of morality for this government to justify covering the 100,000 Canadian women per year it insures for abortions in sterile medical settings while African women are denied our foreign aid to access the same procedure.
. . .
There’s no obvious easy escape from the mess now. What started as a dream initiative is becoming a policy nightmare for Harper, who should’ve seen this coming months ago when he announced the plan.

Even when pushing a proposal to save lives among those living in wretched faraway conditions as his signature accomplishment, Harper has found a way to set his government apart from the opposition parties.

Given that he’s never seen parliamentary harmony he couldn’t inflame into political divisions, perhaps poisoning this motherhood initiative will end up a fitting Stephen Harper legacy after all.

Edmonton Journal:

Either we as a nation are officially casting ourselves as hypocrites in our dealings with others, since abortion is a right for all women in this country. Surely what is a fundamental liberty for Canadians must be extended to those in the most need who want it, if it is legal in their jurisdiction as it is in ours.

Or, by signalling such a position, Stephen Harper is sending a not very subtle message to his political base that a majority Conservative government in Canada would reopen the debate on a woman's right to choose in this country.

By the way, there's a nifty interactive map of the world at the CBC showing the legal status of abortion in various countries.

Back to the pundits. Barbara Yaffe:

It is unclear why they'd allow themselves to get sidetracked on an international policy that is likely to reinforce fears about Harper's brand of conservatism and potentially deliver a ballot box boot to the backside.

Now Rosie DiManno in what may be the once-in-a-lifetime piece of hers that I actually agree with. She's talking specfically about Africa and the epidemic of rape in some places there. It's a tough read with horrifying stats and stories.

Why should any of these distant horrors matter to Canadians? Because rape as a sexual weapon is driving hundreds of thousands of women in desperate search of abortion on the African continent — where 700 women die for every 100,000 abortions due to backroom butchery — and Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week insisted Canada will not fund abortions in the developing world.

Why Harper would draw this line in the blood-drenched sand, as leader of a country that has no abortion laws and where the medical procedure is covered for Canadian women under the public health insurance plan, is unfathomable. It is particularly contrarian within the context of Canada’s ballyhooed initiative to champion maternal health funding for Africa at the upcoming G8 summit.
. . .
As a result of war and sexual violence, abortion in Africa is indeed a matter of post-violation contraception. For countless women, girls, abortion could provide the slim hope of returning to a life grossly interrupted.

Harper can blather about healthy babies and improved maternal care all he wants. The truth is unwanted babies will die; they’re being murdered right now, because their mothers cannot stand the sight of them — the progeny of their assailants — and cannot cope with exclusion from their communities.

If Harper doesn’t care about these women and girls, would deny them funding for abortions so safely provided to Canadian women, he should at least give a damn about the babies forsaken and killed because they had the misfortune to be born.

Judith Timson in a piece titled 'Ottawa to refuse abortion funding? Not in my name':

Here is a political question that for me, just won’t go away: In exactly whose name has the Harper government decided to withhold funds for access to safe abortion in their international maternal and child health initiative?

Not in my name. And not in the names of countless Canadians who have relied for years on safe access to the procedure at government expense.

The government’s decision has made what should have been international apple pie – a widely applauded global health initiative for women and children – into a political hot potato, not only reviving the endlessly divisive abortion debate, but threatening to have it play out, as one concerned director of an international aid foundation told me, “on the backs of African women and children.”

There’s something fundamentally high-handed about a minority government deciding it won’t offer women overseas the same rights they have here. It’s like a new version of NIMBY (not in my backyard) only it’s the colonial version: NITBY (not in their backyard)
. . .
No, it’s solely up to Canadians to deal with the glaring hypocrisy and paternalism of their government’s stance. While we’re at it, we should also notice how the issue of abortion is being stealthily revived in this country, despite the Prime Minister’s declaration that Canadians have “no appetite” for the debate.
. . .
At the end of that G-8 meeting, Ms. Oda seemed to go out of her way to re-emphasize the government’s position: “So I just want to clarify: Family planning does not include abortion.” Why would she do that, if the Prime Minister wants this debate to go away?

Well, if Bev Oda can “clarify” her position then I will clarify mine: For me and many others, family planning does include abortion. However torturous an ensuing debate, this is clearly a moment that matters in the history of abortion rights in this country. The Conservative government, in a moment of political pandering, has made it matter.

Susan Riley:

Of course there is a culture war raging in federal politics. It's been going on since Preston Manning blew into Ottawa many years ago.

The battle lines are clear. Elitist, cosmopolitan (code for gay, or gay-friendly), urban CBC-lovers -- including "left-wing fringe groups", anti-Israel aid agencies and pro-gay judges -- on one side. Frugal small town and suburban Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules on the other.

And now, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's ill-considered G8 maternal health initiative, the deepest wedge of all: abortion rights.
. . .
Leaving aside the paternalism of allowing abortion access in Canada but discouraging it in Africa, and those annoying experts who argue that access to safe abortion is key component of maternal health, this is a true wedge issue -- one that could blow up in Harper's face.

On Monday, women involved in international advocacy will be asking "Where is Canada's leadership in promoting gender equality?" at an event on Parliament Hill. The maternal health initiative -- which was intended to display the Harper's caring side, but has backfired badly -- will be under unfriendly scrutiny. So will what some see as a Tory stealth agenda, aimed at removing funding from agencies that don't promote social conservative values.

If we're having a culture war, this could be a new front line. No wonder those peace-loving Conservatives are having a sudden attack of the vapours.

Chris Selley whose piece is titled 'A contrived little abortion war'. And he does blame the Liberals.

I’m intrigued by the idea, as championed by Stephen Harper this week, that abortion “divides” Canadians. It does, certainly, on an emotional level. But considering how vicious and clamorous the pro-life vs. pro-choice battle is, there’s actually a remarkable consensus among Canadians that abortion should not be illegal. The last major poll I’m aware of, conducted by Angus Reid in June 2008, found that just 4% of us felt abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances.

There are divisions within the other 96%, of course. Angus Reid found 48% of Canadians felt abortion should always be legal. But nearly as many, 43%, felt there should be some restrictions. And when that 43% was presented with an array of possibilities, such as a cutoff date in a woman’s pregnancy or defunding the procedure under certain circumstances, they couldn’t agree on anything.

But the abortion war isn’t supposed to be about conflicting policy choices; that’s not what ostensibly “divides” us. I’ve never seen a T-shirt braying “We’re OK with the vast majority of abortions!” or a placard reading “Save fetuses older than 13 weeks!” It’s supposed to be black and white: All abortions are OK, or all abortions are evil. (These are the only two coherent positions on the matter, in my view, and for the record, I uneasily subscribe to the former.) If only 4% of Canadians actually think all fetuses are human beings — to say nothing of perdurable pro-choicers who blanch at sex-selective termination — then I’m forced to conclude that this whole war is a bit of a sham.

Mr. Harper was explaining his government’s pledge — which came after weeks of hemming and hawing, and is no doubt subject to further review, tweaking or outright abandonment — not to fund abortions in the dusty, faraway lands where it wants to improve maternal health. The government is free to focus its efforts where and how it wishes. But an absolute ban on abortion-related spending on the grounds Mr. Harper cited is dizzyingly nonsensical. No one seems to disagree that, in certain circumstances, and morality aside, abortion can improve women’s health outcomes. Canada has no abortion law. Canadians do not support outlawing it. Canadian governments fund it. And Mr. Harper has sworn blind since being elected that he has no intention whatsoever of changing any of that. Ever. Hidden agenda? Pshaw. Long live our unique legal vacuum, envy of nations!

By the standards Mr. Harper espoused this week, that sounds awfully divisive. And nonsensical. Does he think we value foreign fetuses ahead of Canadian ones? Are women not raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Is there no incest in Haiti? It doesn’t survive a moment’s scrutiny.

Another by the way -- here is a much more recent poll from April 1 this year.

A majority of Canadians describe themselves as leaning pro-choice with regard to abortion. A little more than a quarter prefer “pro-life”, with the remainder undecided.

This finding of a 2-1 margin in favour of the pro-choice position is almost unchanged from the answers Canadians gave to the identical question a decade ago.

More punditry: Susan Delacourt:

For the first time since taking power more than four years ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week openly embraced a solid, social-conservative policy of the right — refusing to have Canada support abortion in foreign-aid projects.

Political observers were stunned.

After all this time practising the politics of pragmatism, steering his party away from any of the polarizing, social conservatism that scares off many women, urban and centrist voters, Harper branded his government as anti-abortion.

It’s a decision that could well haunt the Conservatives into the next election campaign, depending on how Harper’s opponents handle it.

Mindelle Jacobs:

If the Harper Conservatives are trying to woo mainstream Canada and gain enough trust to win another election, they have a funny way of doing it.

First, they insist they don’t want to get into an abortion debate in the lead-up to June’s G8 summit in Ontario. Then they deliberately wade into the issue. It’s as if they get a kick out of committing political suicide.

After weeks of obfuscation, the Conservatives have finally declared that Canada won’t fund abortion under our G8 maternal and child health initiative. To top it off, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda made the bizarre statement that “Canada has never funded a procedure that included abortion.”

Jacobs then points out that Canada through CIDA has been funding International Planned Parenthood Federation's work around the world for decades.

Changes may be in the works to that longstanding policy though.

Nearly a year after asking the Canadian government to renew its funding, the International Planned Parenthood Federation is still waiting for an answer and if the money doesn't come through, the agency says the impact on its work in developing countries will be devastating.

The sexual and reproductive health organization depends on funding from governments around the world for a majority of its budget. It has a long-standing partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency but its most recent funding agreement ended on December 31. Months before that, in June 2009, IPPF submitted its proposal to renew the previous funding, worth $18 million over three years.

Is the stalling on IPPF's funding an indication that this has been in the works for a while? Is it a dog whistle to the base base? Or is Stevie ('I'm never wrong and I never back down') Peevie just digging his widdle heels in because the meanies in the Liberal Party tried to force his hand on the issue? No matter that the fucking Liberals failed spectacularly, Stevie was peeved.

Delacourt is right, I think. This issue will kill the ReformaTories at the polls -- but only if the Useless Opposition plays it right. We at DJ! have been shrieeeeking saying this for ages. Canada is a pro-choice country. And nothing will mobilize the women of Canada to get out and vote like trying to turn back the clock on our cherished and hard-won rights.

In a final by the way, the base base as represented by The Freaks aren't buying it. Even they think Stevie is getting his ass kicked over this.

That Abortion Debate? Bring It On!

Seriously. I'm having too much fun with Iggy's Abortion Gambit/Gauntlet/Grenade.

First, cast your minds back to the brouhaha over Ken Epp's private member's bill, C-484, or as we followed one of its proponents in calling it, The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

Back then, people with more than one functioning neuron saw it -- as its supporters did, despite the mewling of Ken Epp et al. -- as a sneaky, backdoor attempt to open the abortion so-called debate with the aim of restricting and ultimately outlawing abortion.

We, the sane people, said: 'NO. We are not debating women's rights.'

Well, many pundits -- I'm too lazy to go back and find all the links but you know who and where they are -- opined: 'We need to reopen the debate.'

To which, we, the sane people, said: 'FUCK the debate.'

Welly-well-well.

Look who's saying FUCK the debate now.Lorrie Fucking Goldstein in the Toronto Fucking Sun:

Is this really what Ignatieff wants pre-occupying Parliament when it resumes? To roll back the clock and reignite the debate over abortion?

Hee. What's that acronym floating around these days? Something like: IOKIYAADSHA -- it's OK if you are a desperately spinning Harpocon apologist.