Brave Mark Warawa ^NOT

Been away from the fray for a bit, so to catch up.

Warawa's Wank is toast.

Conservative MP Mark Warawa is dropping his bid for a vote on his motion to condemn sex-selective abortion, an issue that caused several MPs to split with the rest of the party's caucus in recent weeks.

Warawa told reporters on his way into the House of Commons that he is tabling a bill tomorrow that deals with sex offenders who serve house arrest in the same neighbourhoods as their victims, revictimizing them when they encounter each other in the community.

Another brave stand. Warawa demands: Do you stand with the sex offenders or with chastised MPs?

Fetus fetishists are not amused.

In a press release Wednesday, Campaign Life Coalition said they were “very disappointed” that the political pressure used against Warawa’s motion left him where it did.

“We thank Mark Warawa for raising the issue of lethal discrimination against women and girls through sex-selective abortion in Canada,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, CLC’s National Organizer. “It is a shame that this motion was killed.”

We Need a Law (Like a Hole in the Head) puts on a virtuoso display of wooing support (emphasis mine).

“The completely unfounded fear that somehow an expression of Parliament condemning this practice might in some way send women to the back alleys of Canadian cities with coat hangers speaks to the low level of intellect of most Canadian politicians. By their actions, they are avoiding, and in fact tacitly accepting, the very serious global problem of gendercide,” continued Schouten."

Meanwhile, at SUZYALLCAPS' Magisterium of Fetal Gore Porn, not one word about M408. All Gosnell-wanking, all the time.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/search?q=gosnell

Meanwhile, some are still desperately trying to spin this petulant foot-stomping revolt as some kinda democratic reawakening, even dubbing it The Backbench Spring.

After Question Period today, Conservative MPs Michael Chong and Pierre Lemieux stood in the House and expressed their support for Mark Warawa’s question of privilege. Their statements are below.

This makes eight Conservative backbenchers who have spoke up in this regard: Warawa, Chong, Lemieux, Leon Benoit, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback, Stephen Woodworth and John Williamson. Rod Bruinooge, as well, seemed at least open to the idea of change.

The involvement of Mr. Chong, who has pushed for QP reform, would seem to undermine the idea that this is merely a pro-life cause masquerading as a push for parliamentary reform—he voted for Motion 312, but said at the time that he was not in favour of banning abortion and Campaign Life Coalition considers him “not supportable.”

While clear-eyed Alison calls any Backbenchers' Spring officially over.

Mosey over to her place for a fun singalong.

The CON game continues. They'd rather be re-elected than stand up for what they supposedly believe in.

We hope so-cons are taking note.

M408 is NOT a Free Speech Hill to Die On

As regular readers here know, we don't give a flying fuck about whether Warawa's Wank is voteable or not. As long as it's got the CONtard knickers in knots, it's all good with us.

But for interested parties, there was this today on Twitter.

WARNING: My next series of tweets will deal w/ Mark Warawa's motion & his so-called qstn of priv. & why journos & pundits are overreacting.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

That would be Thomas Hall who describes himself as 'retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Constitution nerd, and word nut dans les deux langues officielles'.

He made good on his threat with a series of tweets.

Warawa's motion on sex-selective abortion will get 1 hour of debate in HoC. So he does get to speak on it despite what some have said.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Having private mbrs' motions voted on at all is releatively new, so there was no *right* for MPs to move motions & force vote in HoC.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Journos like A. Coyne who said that Warawa's motion was clearly in order to be votable are wrong. W/ respect to Lib of Parl analyst who...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...advised Subcmtee of MPs who decide on votability, the analyst gave wrong advice. Motion violated criterion no. 1. Subcmtee had equal ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...representation from each party & worked by consensus. No way PMO cld have made Subcmtee decide motion non-votable.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

PMO *may* have influenced full cmtee on Procedure to reject Warawa's appeal of Subcmtee decision since majority on cmtee are Conservatives.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

More likely is that majority on cmtee just didn't want to deal w/ abortion in any shape or form--policy for all 3 parties!

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Now regardg Warawa's qstn of privilege, complaint, that he didn't get to make statement in HoC during Mbrs' Statemts. I think parties ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...shldn't try to control what their mbrs say during that period, but ppl overreacted to O'Connor, CPC whip, comparing HoC to hockey game.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Frankly, not being allowed 2 speak during Mbrs' Statemts trivial compared to other control of party mbrs. No MP has right to make statmt.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

@emmmacfarlane No MP has right to make a statemt b/c there's no not enough time allowed for it. Never has been. So selection has to be made.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Then Emmett MacFarlane got into it to disagree with Hall.

@emmmacfarlane W/ respect, you're confusing Private Mbrs Business w/ Govt Business. Under latter, HoC can express opinion on all kinds...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Hall provided a link to the records of the subcommittee meeting. Scroll down.

@emmmacfarlane See parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati…

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

In short, in the opinion of the retired House of Commons procedural clerk, the subcommittee was correct and Warawa and Coyne and MacFarlane are all just wanking.

Others are weighing in too. As deBeauxOs blogged earlier today, some are taking issue with the newly minted free-speech spin.

And here's another.

Warawa's Wank is about abortion. It is sexist and racist.

It is about targetting pregnant women from 'certain' communities and vilifying them for allowing themselves to be 'coerced' into abortion.

it is NOT about free speech.

Democracy at Risk!!!!!

The decision to deem Warawa's Wank non-voteable is becoming even more fun.

The parliamentary expert had no problem with either the jurisdiction or possible repetitiveness of M408, aka the Gotcha Motion That Proves Pro-Choicers to Be Enthusiastic Murderers of Pre-Born Women. Those were the flimsy excuses the committee cited: that abortion/health is a provincial matter and the subject had been voted on recently (Woodworth's Wank).

Natch, Warawa shrieked about democracy, independence of MPs, yadayada.

(When any fool with more than one functioning neuron could see the Iron Fist of PMSHithead clamping down on any whiff of the dreaded abortion debate.)

Today, it seems Warawa is getting some support.

Here is where Mr. Warawa might get the support of those who otherwise oppose his views on abortion. Regardless of how one feels about his motion, regardless of how uncomfortable it might make the leadership of Mr. Warawa’s party, every MP and everyone who is represented by an MP should be concerned if Mr. Warawa is being prevented from putting a motion before the House simply because some people oppose its sentiment or would rather it not be brought forward. Never mind the very fraught matter of abortion, this now threatens to become a question about the nature of parliamentary democracy and the independence of MPs.

This is delicious. If M408 is found to be voteable, opponents can squeal 'HIDDEN AGENDA!' If non-voteable, everybody can squeal 'DEMOCRACY SCREWED!'

In short, PMSHithead is between a rock and a hard place.

Good spot for him, isn't it?

For interested watchers -- popcorn!



By the way, this is the committee that will hear Warawa's appeal.


Image source.

M408 Blowed Up Real Good

The Iron Fist of PMSHithead comes crashing down on Warawa's Wank.

Conservative MP Mark Warawa has lost his appeal to bring a motion condemning sex-selective abortion to the House of Commons for debate.

The procedure and House affairs committee upheld a decision by its subcommittee that Warawa's motion, M-408, isn't eligible to be debated by MPs, despite the advice of a non-partisan Library of Parliament analyst that the motion was in order.

Warawa has five days to appeal to the House of Commons. He said Monday that he has the backing he needs to bring the appeal, with the support of five MPs from two recognized parties. That appeal will lead to a secret ballot over whether the motion can be brought for debate.

Warawa said he's "very disappointed" but was going to take a few days before deciding whether to appeal. He can also introduce another private member's bill or motion instead of appealing the decision.

I never doubted that it was voteable. It was just a non-binding motion, after all, a shiny thing for the fetus fetishists in the CONtempt Party to amuse themselves with when they weren't being called upon to smear the Opposition.

A sop to the base, in short.

Who could have foreseen that the rigid control of the PMO would cause such a delightful ruckus?

And it appears that other zygote zealots were gobsmacked too.

Under the heading Parliament complicit with sex-selective abortions, Campaign Lie SHRIEEEKS.

"The decision to crush M-408 is proof that Harper will go to any extreme to distance himself from any reference to abortion, even if that means compromising on democracy," said Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition.

And what do we have here?

Yesterday CPC phoned for donation. Me: "Fuck off." Caller: So you don't want to support the CPC right now? Me: "Fuck off."

— Paul Tuns (@ptuns) March 28, 2013

Ooh. Very bad language from Paul Tuns, editor in chief of The Interim, 'Canada's Life and Family Newspaper'.

I'm calling it: SPECTACULAR FAIL.

What's up with this?

This is odd.

The doctors who treat pregnant women are warning mothers-to-be against using “entertainment” ultrasounds solely to determine the sex of their fetuses.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, along with the Canadian Association of Radiologists, put out a new joint policy statement this week calling for an end to ultrasounds offered by non-medical clinics.

Here's the joint statement.

An excerpt:

Fetal ultrasound is a valuable tool in modern obstetrical care. This imaging technique is useful in assessing a fetus for anomalies, ensuring fetal health, and assessing fetal growth and development if performed by properly trained individuals in a carefully monitored and medically supervised environment. It is also an important technology in education and research. This imaging technology uses high-frequency, low-energy sound waves; it does not use ionizing radiation. The availability of ultrasound machines for purchase and use for non-clinical purposes has led to a proliferation of “entertainment” ultrasound units throughout Canada. With recent media coverage of nonmedical clinics performing gender determination in the first trimester, the SOGC and CAR find it necessary to update their previous policy statements on this issue and to issue a new joint policy statement.

The key phrases here are "for non-clinical purposes" and "entertainment." Health Canada and US FDA have warned against them for years -- in the FDA's case, since 2004. And at least one US state, Connecticut, has banned them.

But the issue has been safety concerns posed by multiple, longer-exposure ultrasounds.

What's odd here is the insertion of the sex-selection canard.

Here is the National Post offering a a piece with a totally misleading headline yet not a scrap of evidence that "sex-based abortions" are occurring in Canada, let alone that there's a "rise" in them. Here's the headline:

Rise in sex-based abortions prompts doctors to call for end to ultrasounds that only determine gender of fetus

It refers to an editorial in the Canadian Medical Journal from 2012. That editorial was occasioned by a study of gender ratios downloadable here free without subscription.

Researchers looked at Ontario birth records for the period 2002 to 2007, correlated to the woman's country of birth.

It includes a table with the actual numbers of male/female births to women of various origins and for each birth (first, second and third) in turn. An abortion provider I know took a good look at these numbers and found that there were only two statistically significant differences in gender ratios.

One involved third births to women of Indian origin, and the other second births to women of Korean origin; in both groups there was a small disproportion of males.

Then, calculations were done to determine how many "extra" males were born.

There were 48,362 third births of females. If the usual ratio of 1.05 had applied, one would have expected 50,780 male births, when in fact there were 51,520.  It was as though 360 births that “should” have been female were male instead.  But this amounts to only 60 extra male births per year in Ontario, 360 out of the 6-year total of 766,688 births – at .05% not much of a demographic threat!

(These quotes come from private correspondence, but you can download the study and do the math yourself.)

As we have argued here many times, sex selection is a serious problem in societies where it is widely practiced. That one study shows only that it might have happened in Ontario with very little effect on the larger population.

In fact, there's good evidence that when the overall population is questioned on gender preference, girls win.

That's why we call sex-selective abortion a canard. Or in Mark Warawa's recent anti-abortion gambit, sheer, cynical posturing, aka Warawa's Wank.

And speaking of Warawa, NatPo's resident sob-sister Kelly McParland produces his usual disingenuous froth to claim that the joint statement vindicates Warawa's thwarted motion.

Which of course it doesn't. Warawa's Wank was simply yet another back-door attempt to reopen the abortion debate. And all sensible people recognized it as such immediately.

But the question remains. Why would the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and Canadian Association of Radiologist link multiple, non-medical ultrasounds -- long frowned on by reputable experts -- to very sketchy evidence that sex-selective abortion is actually occurring in Canada?

Why now? What's going on?

We ever-vigilant proponents and protectors of women's rights in Canada should keep our eyes peeled for future moves and spin by fetus fetishists.

UPDATE: Dominionist-run website, We Need a Law, is revved in anticipation of a new bill.

Today in Harpocrit Land

It's Pink Shirt Day today.

I booted up the Twitter machine, checked the hashtag for Warawa's Wank and nearly blew camomile tea out my nose.

Today is Anti-bullying day. Bullying in all forms is wrong. Standing up for victims helps! #M408

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) February 27, 2013

I wasn't the only one struck by this hypocritical drivel.

@mpmarkwarawa Right. Remind me again which party voted against the NDP anti-bullying motion? #hypocrisy #CPC #M408 #cdnpoIi

— Claudine Jacques (@ClaudineJacques) February 27, 2013

Well, we all know the answer to Claudine's question, don't we?

Votes from a handful of Conservative backbenchers weren’t enough to push through an NDP proposal to strike an all-party committee to study and craft a national anti-bullying strategy.

The motion from NDP backbencher Dany Morin was defeated Wednesday night in the Commons by a vote of 149 to 134. About half a dozen Conservative backbenchers voted in favour of the motion, but the support was not enough to have it passed.

I looked and found the five Cons who voted for it: Smith, Allen, Brown, Tilson, and Bezan.

Mark Warawa, champion of bullied fetuses, not among them.

I know. You're shocked.

UPDATE: Courtesy of Radical Centrist, here is the division. Note Warawa among the NAYS, not conveeeniently absent.

Rathgeber and Warawa Sitting in a Tree

Interesting development in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has suffered another blow as a Tory MP quit the Conservative caucus Wednesday night, decrying the Conservatives’ lack of progress on open government.

Alberta MP Brent Rathgeber made public his decision on Twitter, saying he had informed the board of directors for his riding association and the Speaker of the Commons that he had resigned from the Conservative caucus.

“My decision to resign from the Caucus is because of the Government’s lack of commitment to transparency and open government,” he announced on Twitter.

Rathgeber was first elected MP for the Edmonton-St. Albert riding in 2008 and then re-elected in 2011.

Immediately-- and rather hilariously -- there was a call for Rathgeber to step down from the PMO.

Harper’s office reacted quickly, saying that Rathgeber should face the voters again.

“The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a byelection,” Harper aide Andrew MacDougall said in his own Twitter posting.

This was not the position the Conservatives took, however, when former Liberal MPs David Emerson, Wajid Khan and Joe Comuzzi defected to the government party over the past few years.

Frankly, DJ! doesn't give a rat's ass over one Contempt Party member's finding his 'nads, but there was this intriguing -- and quick -- reaction.

@brentrathgeber Brent, you are a man of integrity and will be missed.

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) June 6, 2013

Yep, that's our Mark Warawa, he of Warawa's Wank and he who got miffed enough at his own party to at least float the notion of a Backbench Spring.

Now that he has seen how it's done, might he follow Rathgeber's trailblazing lead and quit the party?

And might some of the one hundred anti-choice CON MPs join him?

We live in hope of an implosion.

ADDED: Rathgeber in his own words.

UPDATE: List of eight CONs who have 'bucked' the party. How many do they need to lose to get back into minority status? Six? Come on, boys, just how much do you care about those fetuses?

Dark Deeds! Pulled Strings! Conspiracy!

Aaaand the temper tantrums and dark allegations on the demise of Warawa's Wank begin.

The question was brought up unexpectedly at the Sub-Committee on Private Members’ Business on the day the government is set to release its budget for 2013, meaning newsrooms across the country are locked up.

The sub-committee vote, believed to be at the instigation of the Prime Minister’s Office, was unanimous.

Oo. 'Unexpectedly'! And during the budget lock-up!

Fun, isn't it, when fetus fetishists -- themselves masters of sneaky, back-door tactics -- get a little payback.

Also. They're lying. I asked Kady O'Malley whether it was unexpected.

@fernhilldammit Well, I can't speak to the 'ominous'-ness of it all, bu the meeting was skedded two weeks ago.

— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2013

Indeed, she posted an alert this morning in her Orders of the Day and, in fact, covered it with the ensuring report here.

And here's Warawa himself alleging that democracy itself is in serious peril and vowing -- vowing I tell you! -- to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

Well, no. But it may get very interesting.

From Kady's report:

In any case, Warawa has the right to appeal the decision of the subcommittee -- which, I'm told, he will all but certainly do -- by making the case for reconsideration before the full procedure and house affairs committee within five days of the subcommittee report being tabled thither.

If he fails to persuade the committee to overturn the ruling, Warawa can put the question to the House of Commons as a whole -- provided, that is, that he has the support of at least five MPs -- by filing a motion with the speaker, who will then proceed to call for a vote, which is conducted via secret ballot over the next two days.

Secret ballot! Wot fun!

Protest against Gendercide: The Perfect Opportunity to Inculcate Misogyny in Children

The annual March for Lies is scheduled for this Thursday, May 9. It is always held on a weekday so that hundreds of Catholic schoolchildren can be bussed in for an educational day of indoctrination in misogyny.

Read what Amanda Watson, former Catholic student and participant, has to say about the event.

A year ago, when a young girl, no more than 16 years old, extended a sign to block my path that read, “Maybe if you kept your legs shut you wouldn’t need an abortion,” I decided to take myself home.

Awww, isn't that sweet? Encouraging witless young women to attack other women on a subject about which they know nothing.

But hey, when your agenda is race-baiting or gender-baiting, it is Standard Operating Procedure to get a member of the targetted group to lead the hate-filled chants.

Thus, female children are the perfect messengers, especially since the theme of this year's bunfest is 'gendercide'. Yep, aka Motion 408, or the aborted Warawa's Wank.

Watson notes that this year the counter-demonstrators plan to keep silent. There is no arguing with these poor brainwashed kids, so they will quietly stand in protest.

Even more, the rage and pain of pro-choicers should be respected as we watch a generation of children learn to slut-shame fellow women, particularly via the dozens of women at the front of the march, wearing oversized yellow sandwich boards with the shaming words, “I regret my abortion.”

The kids learn their lessons well. This is how last year's event ended for our reporter.

As I scuffed through the grass from Parliament Hill, eyes swelling with tears, I stared at my feet so I would miss the poster displays of mangled fetuses and hordes of chanting students, some waving malicious signs my way. A girl yelled “Slut!” in my direction and tears spilled down my cheeks, not for her, but for the machine that pits women against each other over our freedom to control our bodies.

The irony of using slut-shaming in the service of 'protecting girls' is totally lost on them of course.

All the usual suspects are are on board. Mark Warawa himself, who declined to use his first hard-won opportunity to speak about abortion in the House, will avail himself, funnily enough on March for Lies Day.

The day after the Speaker’s ruling, Warawa deflated expectations when he stood up to give a statement about a talent contest in his Langley, B.C. riding.

The timing wasn’t right, he said Monday.

“Timing is everything, and the time had moved on as far as me speaking on the issue of gendercide,” he said.

“I thought it was more appropriate to deal with something that was important at that day at that time…but I will continue to speak out on the issue of gendercide at appropriate times.“

Warawa will also speak on Parliament Hill Thursday at the pro-life event organized by the nonprofit Campaign Life Coalition.

Of course he will.

Timing is indeed everything. And it's never too early or too late to teach children to attack and judge others.

Catholic parents, I hope you're proud.

Watson's piece seems to have hit at nerve at Gender-Baiting Central, aka ProWomanProLife, wholly-owned and funded subsidiary of Focus on the Family.

Warawa Wankless!

It was unanimous.

As predicted in countless private members' business-related posts passim and, most recently, in today's OotD, Conservative MP Mark Warawa's non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion has been deemed non-votable by unanimous vote of the subcommittee charged with overseeing private members`business.

Why?

Ostensibly, because it's provincial jurisdiction and the House already voted on abortion. @just_a_josh @kady what was the rationale given?

— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2013

Warawa can appeal.

Oh look.

Members of PMB Sub-Committee broke rules today deeming #M408 unvoteable. Were they forced and by who? An appeal process has begun.

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) March 21, 2013

Stay tuned. We all love a good conspiracy theory, don't we?

UPDATE: Tantrums have begun.

Anti-Choice Tag Team

Thar's gold in them thar uteri.

Keeping the abortion debate alive is very lucrative for a number of anti-choice entrepreneurs. Churches and 'right to life' groups are only the most obvious.

There are the born-again anti-choicers like Abby Johnson, who once were blind but now they see.

There are the 'Conceived in Rape' mongers, like Rebecca Kiessling.

And now, a new-to-me brand of huckster -- the faux women's rights defenders.

Via Kady O'Malley, we learn that sex-selective abortion promoter opponent Mark Warawa had a bunfest planned for Thursday, aka The Day Senator Brawler Brazeau Blew up the Internet.

Meanwhile, outside the Chamber, Conservative MP Mark Warawa will kick off his campaign to build support for his bid to condemn sex-selective terminations -- which, it's worth noting, is due to be added to the private members' priority list in early March -- by arranging a press conference for Reggie Littlejohn, who is, according to the advisory, a "leading expert" on China's One Child Policy.

According to the notice, Littlejohn will 'call on Canadian leaders to condemn ... gendercide," which is, of course, precisely what the Warawa motion would do.

Tonda MacCharles tweeted a bit about it, so it did occur, but it got no other coverage.

Reggie Littlejohn hath an organization called Women's Rights Without Frontiers, which claims to be a coalition dedicated to SHRIEEKING about forced abortion in China.

Under 'Team', Littlejohn herself is listed along with a board of directors, including couple of organizations like this one, concerned with 'Serving persecuted Christians worldwide'.

OK then, forced abortion and persecuted Christians go together well, I guess.

But is Littlejohn anti-choice? You betcha. She was recently awarded the 'National Pro-Life Recognition Award at the National Prayer Service preceding the Annual March for Life'.

From her acceptance speech:

My question is, where is the pro-choice movement on this?  Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, no one supports forced abortion because it is not a choice.  Why isn’t the pro-choice movement condemning forced abortion in China? Why aren’t they standing against forced sterilization? Why aren’t they crying out against the selective abortion of baby girls? Right now, as I am speaking to you, women are being dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables, and forcibly aborted and sterilized. I challenge these organizations to take a stand.

Woo. That glurge oughta open some wallets, eh?

Wait. There's more.

Also on Thursday, I ran across a press release announcing that someone named Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute would address some Kansas (where else?) legislators on sex-selective abortion.

PRI describes itself as: 'an international non-profit which works to end coercive population control, and fight the myth of overpopulation which fuels it.'

Mosher seems to do quite nicely out of the venture.

The President of PRI, Steven W. Mosher, received in 2005 the equivalent of ~13% of the entire expenses budget for the organization and roughly equivalent to the entire administrative expenses budget for 2005.

And he's 'controversial'.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied the George W. Bush administration to withhold $34 to $40 million per year for seven years from the U.N. Population Fund, the largest international donor to family planning programs.

So, Mosher works to withhold contraception while Littlejohn squeals about the results. Works good.

I'm betting the next time Warawa organizes a bunfest on M408, Mosher will be the guest.

Pro smack-down of M408

One of the MASSIVE irritants that swims in the eddy churned up by CON MP Mark Warawa's misogynistic M408 is the twitter spamming campaign in which the antiChoice lobby engages.

The shrieeeking, the lack of finesse, the crude lies, the pitiful attempts at logical thinking.

My co-blogger fern hill has done a brilliant job of addressing, challenging and smacking down the most odious of those tweets.  And she has blogged frequently at DJ! in response to the obfuscation and sheer stoopidity of M408.

And yet, some in the media appear content to parrot Warawa's and Woodworth's twisty prevarications about women's right to choose —with the support of Canadian healthcare professionals— whether to continue carrying a pregnancy to term or not.

It is a simple, clear-cut proposition. The voluntary termination of a pregnancy is a medical procedure.  It is regulated in Canada through public health care.  Canada is not a christian theocracy.  It has - or used to have - a secular government.  Religious freedom implies that individuals can observe their own private religious beliefs, practices and rituals at will - but NOT enforce those upon people who have different ones.

This Op-Ed piece in the Ottawa Citizen addresses the abusive obfuscation that M408 has generated, most lucidly and potently.

That the fetus you are carrying is female is certainly a terrible reason to have an abortion — but, good or bad, your reason is none of the government’s business. It’s simply not the place of our federal Parliament to voice an opinion on the merit of this or that reason behind a woman’s choice to have an abortion.[...]

It’s not for Parliament to voice an opinion on women’s reasons for having abortions, for human fetuses are neither in fact persons nor recognized as such in Canadian law. They are not persons for they have no interests; they lack the self-consciousness necessary for having interests.

Since they lack interests, human fetuses cannot be wronged. They cannot, therefore, be wronged by being discriminated against, not on grounds of sex, not on any grounds.

Warawa’s motion, then, makes no sense. No fetus is wrongfully discriminated against when it is aborted on account of its being female, so sex-selective pregnancy termination involves no wrongful discrimination for Parliament to condemn.

Now this is not to say that the fact that some women in Canada choose to abort fetuses because of their sex is no proper concern of civil society or even of the Canadian government.

It may very well be a proper matter of concern for you and me, and perhaps our government eventually has some role to play. But no one, no doctor, no ultrasound technician, no politician should seek to place any barrier between any pregnant woman and an abortion.

"It’s simply not the place of our federal Parliament to voice an opinion on the merit of this or that reason behind a woman’s choice to have an abortion."  Expect the zygote zealots to shriEEEk in reply to this view. It is a bracing, thoughtful antidote to the religious fundamentalist, authoritarian, crotch-sniffing ideologues who are lobbying to criminalize abortion.

Update: fern hill caught tweets from @ThomasHall17 - a retired House of Commons procedural clerk, who sets the record straight with regard to M408.  That alleged sacrosanct parliamentary "right" that some mansplainers tried to foist upon proChoice supporters, bellowing that Warawa was entitled to something that was bigger and more important than our silly little hill of beans? 

All self-indulgent BS.  Thomas Hall has the real 411.

It starts here.  A very good, illuminating read.

A Coup for Parliament or a Recruiting Tool for CHP

As we know, Warwara's Wank ended with a further wank, this one about Free Speech.

The long-awaited Speaker's decision on his point of privilege over having his member's statement (S.O.30) snuffed by the CON Whip was announced yesterday at around 3 p.m.

Here's Kady O'Malley's story filed at 4:57 p.m.

If backbench MPs want to the right to speak freely in the House, they're going to have to start standing up to be counted -- even if it means ignoring the speaking lists prepared by the party whip to compete against their caucus colleagues for the attention of the speaker. 

That, it seems, is the gist of House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer's much-anticipated ruling on the point of privilege raised by Conservative MP Mark Warawa after his pre-Question Period speaking slot was abruptly yanked by his party's whip due to his choice of subject -- specifically, his similarly scuttled attempt to bring a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion before the House.

Although he ultimately found that no prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, Scheer made it clear that, as far as he and his predecessors are concerned, the speaker has never ceded the right to choose which member should be recognized -- not just during the fifteen minute block designated for members' statements, but, in theory, during QP as well. He just hasn't yet been put in a position where he would have to do so, as -- again, at least as yet --  no members have ever attempted to circumvent the whip-created list.

So, fans of the Westminster parliamentary system parsed that all to hell, gleefully anticipating little bobble-heads bobbing up and down trying to catch the eye of the venerable 33-year-old Speaker.

The more cynical of course wondered just how much eye-catching Opposition members might have to mount. Clown-costumes wouldn't be out of place, after all.

Other cynics wondered if this really meant anything at all.

Funny, though, not much attention at all was paid to this story filed by John Ivison at 11:13 yesterday morning, about 4 hours before the decision.

John Ivison: Ruling on alleged breach of Warawa’s privilege to speak freely could head off Tory rebellion

But there are rumblings in caucus that Mr. Scheer may make a significant additional ruling by pointing to the Westminster example, where it is a long established convention that the Speaker has the right to recognize members from either side of the House when they stand during Question Time. In the British House of Commons, a number of MPs bob up and down at any given time, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, and it is up to the chair to recognize them. The inference would be that if more than one MP stands up during members’ statements and Question Period, they could be recognized by the Speaker, whether they are on the whips’ list or not.

If Mr. Scheer leans towards the Westminster model, it could have profound implications in both the short and long term governance of the House. It would also suggest he will not find Mr. Warawa’s privilege was breached, since he could have been recognized by the speaker if he’d only stood up to speak at members’ statements.

In the short-term, it could head off a rebellion in the Conservative caucus that threatens to culminate in some Tories voting alongside the Liberals. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has introduced a motion to allocate members’ statements in alphabetical order which will reach the House on Wednesday and, absent some kind of significant reform, a number of Tory MPs may be tempted to signal their displeasure.

So, at least four hours in advance, senator-in-waiting Ivison was tipped to the outcome.

And indeed, the Speaker's ruling does have the salubrious effect of quelling the now pretty-well defunct Backbenchers Spring.

As the Church Lady would say: How conveeeenient.

Political shenangigans in the Speaker's Office!?!1???

Say it ain't so.

Now of course the question is which of the intrepid backbenchers will get up on their hind legs and attempt to speak to an unapproved topic -- like abortion, for example?

@fernhilldammit It's actually pretty close in structure to the UK model. We'll see if he actually sticks to it.

— E (@freezingkiwi) April 23, 2013

(I've bet @freezingkiwi that his kiwis will really freeze before that happens.)

Will only the nutbars avail themselves of this privilege ignominious display? Will more sensible, team-playing BBers keep shtum and/or clap their flippers as they read the usual 'job-killing carbon tax' talking points ad nauseum?

I wondered if Speaker Scheer had offered any protection -- kinda like whistle-blower protection -- for retribution from vengeful whips and leaders.

According to Mark Jarvis, author of Democratizing the Constitution:

@fernhilldammit @thomashall17 nothing.

— mark d. jarvis (@markdjarvis) April 24, 2013

Retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Thomas Hall, went further.

@fernhilldammit @markdjarvis Yep!The pwr to sign nomination papers needs to be removed from party leaders and returned to riding assocs.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 24, 2013

It's down to party constitutions. And ipso fatso, only future Christian Heritage Party candidates will partake.

ADDED: For all of you breathless with anticipation as to what Free Speech Warrior and Defender of Girls, Mark Warawa, would say in his totally unfettered S.O. 31 today -- behold! (I swear you can't make this shit up.)

UPDATE (April 26/13): How successful was Speaker Scheer in quelling the Backbench Revolt? Perfectly. Not one BBer voted for the Liberal motion to choose MPs to make member's statements by alphabetical order.

Woodworth's Wank: The ARPA Connection

As we reported yesterday, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) is behind the new player in the Undebate, We Need a Law (that link is to its Myths page; go read).

Also yesterday -- the day of WNAL's launch -- the legal counsel for ARPA, André Schutten opined at LifeShite on the usual blacks, women, and Jews weren't considered human either BS.

Now, since ARPA has been of great assistance to DJ! in ferreting shit out in the past, we decided to look some more.

And we found stuff!

There is a cool page at the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada where one can find out who is lobbying whom.

A search for ARPA revealed this.

On February 3, March 3, and March 27, 2012, ARPA's Executive Director, Mark Penninga, lobbied CON MPs Rod Bruinooge, Mark Warawa (three times), Rob Clarke, and Brad Trost, plus Senator Gerry St. Germain and Liberal MP John McKay.

Bruinooge, Trost, and McKay are well-known fetus fetishists. Campaign Lie rates Clarke as unknown. It doesn't rate Senators, so St. Germain's views are unknown.

So who is this Mark Warawa who merited three visits -- once seemingly just for him? Campaign Lie is still evaluating his status on fetus fetishism.

I think they can upgrade him now.

MP Woodworth Bill 312 was debated today. Motion is to look at scientific evidence re when does unborn child become Human. I will vote yes

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) April 26, 2012

So, over three occasions, ARPA lobbied three known FFs, three unknown and seems to have influenced at least one on this project -- if, indeed, that was the purpose of Penninga's trip.

An odd use of time, wouldn't you think?

Lobbying back-benchers, a senator, and a Liberal.

The search result returned only those 7 reports from this year.
I wondered how to search further back and found nothing useful. For comparison purposes, I searched for 'Canadian Medical Association'. Woo. Found 337 reports going back to July 2008.

Makes ARPA look like pikers in the lobbying department with only 7 reports.

What are they up to? Stay tuned.

M408: Sheer Cynical Posturing

At Rabble today, Joyce Arthur has a terrific article on the newest fetus fetishist gambit, Motion 408, to condemn sex selective abortion.

She makes a bunch of excellent points, including this unintentional revelation of what they really think of those murderous sluts poor coerced women.

Warawa wants Parliament to "condemn this worst form of discrimination against females," which he calls "gender violence -- gendercide."

But women are the ones having sex-selection abortions, which means Warawa is accusing women of violence and gendercide -- and courtesy of MP Stella Ambler -- "atrocities." Ending discrimination against women does not start with making nasty accusations against them. Yes, sex selection can be a sexist act, but it's nonsensical to protect women from discrimination by restricting their rights. In India, laws against sex-selection abortion cause women to resort to unsafe and illegal abortion to avoid having a girl, and some may even face abuse and violence from their families if they bear a girl.

Arthur included this dandy link to facts on gender preference in the US.

Highlights:
• In adoption, parents request girls far more often than boys.

• There is no evidence that females are aborted at a higher rate. In fact, the birth ratio of girls has increased since the legalization of abortion.

• Parents using currently available sex selection techniques prefer girls by quite a margin.

I doubt Canadians and Americans are much different in this regard, but I went looking for Canadian studies or polls.

A study published in January this year asked a slightly different question in skewed way. Researchers wanted to find out if men preferred boys and women girls. The dodgy part is that answers had to be 'male' or 'female'. No option for 'doesn't matter' was offered.

Surprise! Men wanted boys, women wanted girls.

The question is why do men and women have these preferences? The researchers hypothesize that men favour boys for much the same reason that women favour girls—because human beings often project their own dreams on their children and those dreams often come with stereotypical ideas of what it means to be male or female.

 
The piece ends with:


Moreover, the study suggests that affluent democratic societies encourage women to favour daughters more than those societies where opportunities for women are circumscribed by discrimination and inequality.  Seen in that light, women preferring daughters over sons is a sign of progress.

Makes total sense, eh? When girls have the same opportunities as boys, there's little downside to letting nature take its course.

Another recent study on sex-selection in Canada in 'certain' communities indicates that *if* it is happening, it is on a very small scale.

The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women.

Dr. [Prabhat Jha, chair in disease control at the University of Toronto and director of the Centre for Global Health Research at St. Michael’s Hospital] said in an e-mail if sex-selective abortion is at play, it is a very small problem and other “important but subtle biases,” such as migration of Indian women about to give birth to a son, could help explain the trend.

Note that the study was conducted with data only from Indian-born women living in Canada.

A reasonable conclusion would be that as newcomers to Canada come to believe that their daughters have (most of) the benefits that sons do, the preference will die out.

In the meantime, other Canadians' desire for girls will balance things out.

Sex selection is not a societal issue in Canada. It is a problem in 'certain' communities that are well aware of it and are working to eliminate it.

Kindly put, Warawa's motion is a solution in search of a problem. More realistically, it's another attack on women's rights masquerading cynically as a concern for gender discrimination.

BONUS: If you can tolerate nearly 8 minutes of StunNews, have a look at the spin we're up against.

#No2Trudeau Campaign: Not Just Anti-Abortion?

Talk about an unholy alliance. Campaign Life and the Centre for Bioethical Refoooorm (aka FetusMobile Gang) have teamed up to target Justin Trudeau -- and only Justin Trudeau -- over his moderate and, some might say, fairly mealy-mouthed, pro-choice stand.

They're billing it as the most MASSIVEST EVER ANTI-ABORTION CAMPAIGN (or some such).

I will have more to say about it later, but now I want to share a longish Facebook account by Adam Stirling*. It's self-explanatory.

I spent most of Friday evening at the University of Victoria watching the cross-country launch of what has been claimed to be the largest pro-life campaign in Canadian history.

I've long been a vocal supporter of pro-choice policies, and because of this I have supported Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau's unequivocal stance in favour of reproductive freedom as I have considered seeking the nomination for the party. It is Mr Trudeau's stance in favour of women's reproductive rights that has supposedly sparked the ‪#‎no2trudeau‬ campaign being undertaken by this pro-life group.

After viewing the presentation, however, I have become convinced that this organization is little more than a willing or unwilling surrogate for the Conservative Party.

In what would become the disturbingly consistent theme of the evening, the presentation begins by identifying what it believes to be the source of Canada's abortion issue: the name Trudeau. After placing the anchor of blame on the policies of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the presentation glazes over decades of complex social change and legal battles and begins a relentless political attack upon on his son. This presentation attacks Justin Trudeau in regards to nearly every conceivable issue.

The presentation is supposedly about abortion, but it criticises Justin Trudeau's position on the development of Canada's oil sands and comments he's made about Canada's CF-18 fighter jets. It ridicules him over a press scrum in which he once spoke in the third person about his love for Canada. It questions his ability to manage Canada's finances, and it makes fun of his hair.

Furthermore, at no point does the seemingly partisan bombardment die down long enough to even acknowledge that the NDP exists.

Indeed, the speakers make mention of Canada's "two main parties."

I enjoyed the conversations with the legitimate attendees in the audience, but I don't think I've ever seen a more nakedly partisan anti-Liberal video presentation in my entire life.

The video made no mention of the PMO killing Conservative MP Mark Warawa's motions regarding the study of abortion. I was the one who had to ask the presenters about that. Stephen Harper has been stopping votes on abortion from taking place for 8-years. I asked: why isn't his face on the bus outside?

They were able to provide no logical answer.

I was honest with them. I said that the Liberal Party will not move on this issue. No candidate who would vote to reopen the abortion debate is permitted in the party. The difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is the Liberals are honest about this issue.

The Conservatives will happily take votes from people like those in attendance at this event, but if pro-life views ever gain a foothold in the party, Harper will bring down the hammer again, just like he did with Warawa.

I understand why pro-life advocates might not support the Liberal Party, but it bothers me that the presenters seemed to suggest the Conservative party actually might act on their views. The audience was encouraged to support "pro-life" candidates, who would presumably only be in Conservative party. Audience members were even offered scripts with which they could perform public outreach work for these candidates. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

After repeated questioning, I was able to make the presenters admit to the audience that it is immensely unlikely Harper will re-open the issue of abortion. They can vote for Harper all they want, but the Conservative party will only pay lip service to the pro-life movement. It will not under any circumstances re-open the abortion debate any more than the Liberal Party will.

But it wasn't just the one-sided partisan nature of the attacks at this event that bothered me, it was the apparent lack of critical information. The speakers were unable to provide details sought by the audience regarding the legality of the Supreme Court ruling 27 years ago. Instead, they answered with vague details on how the state-by-state regulations vary in the United States. I had to speak up and clarify that Canada's Supreme Court found in 1988 that Section 251 of the Criminal Code violated Section Seven (Personal Security) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this section of the Criminal Code could not be saved under Section One of the Charter. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that, but I'm not sure either of the speakers at the front of the room had any idea what I was talking about...

As for content, the video was horrible. At one point, it was little more than graphic images of fetuses, accompanied with high tempo music, mixed with repeated sound clips of both Justin Trudeau and Peter Mansbridge. The video jumped from topics such as slavery, to the Vietnam War, to Rosa Parks, to (as I mentioned) Justin Trudeau's hair...

There were inspirational quotes from Thomas Jefferson (what country is this?) and gushing, unironic praise of the bold leadership displayed on restricting abortion by George W. Bush, the "Leader of the Free World."

George W. Bush was praised...

And nobody laughed...

It was like I was trapped in a skit on Saturday Night Live... I really couldn't have created a more ridiculous parody of these videos if I had tried.

All that aside, it is not the content of this presentation that I found the most troubling. No, what was most troubling about this tangled mess of a presentation is what was *not* there.

I mentioned it to the organizers afterward, and they say they'll change it, but there is one word that I did not hear mentioned during the entire first half of the evening.

Do you know what that word is?

"Woman"

Adam's bio at his blog.

* Adam gave permission with this proviso: "reproduction consent does not imply endorsement on my part for any other content found on any site."

Why They March: Because We're Winning

Fetus fetishists are marching again today on Parliament Hill.

This year's theme is #RU4Life, a play on the abortion drug RU486's name, which is now up for approval by Health Canada.

I find this choice perplexing.

Last year's theme was gendercide. It was in the news at the time, largely thanks to Warawa's Wank, a private member's motion condemning gender-selective abortion (as if anything could be done about it). And the issue was garnering some media attention as many "conditional pro-choicers" needed to express their ambivalence -- "I'm pro-choice but. . . "

Warawa's motion blew up real good, providing the necessary victim-fuel for last year's efforts.

But why RU486 this year?

It is but one method of abortion and not well known. It is used very early -- up to 9 weeks' gestation only -- avoiding the fetishists' beloved gore of late abortion.

While the zygote zealots try to characterize it as particularly nasty, calling it "human pesticide", and dangerous, it is safe, effective, and has been widely used around the world for nearly 30 years.

Of course antis really really hate all medical abortion. It's quick and relatively cheap. Any physician can prescribe it, making it especially useful for rural and remote access.

But what they really hate is that it's private. Women don't need to run the gauntlet of clinic harassers to get and use it.

No invigorating slut-shaming opportunities for them.

Perhaps they expected RU486 to be in the news as gendercide was last year. Last fall there were reports that Health Canada was, then wasn't, then was too considering its approval. (Now we hear that there will be no decision until 2015.)

So a miscalculation on their part?

Even so, it's hardly the barn-burner that gendercide can be in a skilful spinmeister's hands.

This is what I think. Consciously or unconsciously, the fetus fetishists recognize that they've lost the war.

Canada is a staunchly pro-choice country with 90% of us supporting abortion in all or some cases.

There is no way that abortion will be recriminalized and they know it.

So they've fallen back on fighting rear-guard skirmishes like this one on RU486 -- "this far, no further."

As more and more Canadians support abortion rights and a new generation rises up to take on the battle for equal access, the choice of this year's theme is an outright admission of defeat.

We'll continue to oppose their every effort of course, but we may be closer to total victory than we realize.



Public Service Announcement Section
First, links to counter claims that RU486 is dangerous. Some fact sheets on its safety: here, here (pdf), and my favourite, pointing out that it's safer than Tylenol.

Here's Campaign Lie's fact sheet. Note that there are five sub-heads, one given over to its "macabre lineage" to Nazi Germany -- yep, they went there -- and that one is placed higher than safety concerns. That's how little they've got in the way of actual "facts."

I like this comparison on safety. In its first year of use, Viagra was linked to 522 deaths, while fetus fetishists themselves can link RU486 to 15 deaths over nearly 30 years of use. There are risks associated with anything of course, but it's telling, isn't it, that antis show such cavalier disregard for owners of wayward willies compared to their solicitous protection for owners of vagrant vaginas.

They're planning a Tweet-fest today using the hashtag #WhyWeMarch. I'm planning on doing a little geurrilla co-option with offerings like: "Because it's mandatory at my Catholic school" and "Because my Ontario tax-payer funded Catholic school pays for a day-trip to the Hill. Day off! Yay!"

I will also be reporting, as usual, on their inflated attendance claims.

So, whether you're going to the Hill, participating in a local event (there's a rally in PEI today), snarking from your keyboard, or just watching the fun, take heart.

The good gals and guys are winning.

deBeauxOs chirping in: I'm investigating if the obnoxious gotcha that the StunTV moppet tried to spring upon the Radical Handmaids at the March4Lies made it onto their network. Will blog that tomorrow.

Misogynists United

What would unite Russia, the Vatican, Iran and other conservative Muslim states in common cause?

Those uppity women.

An "unholy alliance" of Iran, Russia, the Vatican and others is threatening to derail a U.N. declaration urging an end to violence against women and girls by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights, some U.N. diplomats said Wednesday.

Delegates to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women are racing to reach a consensus deal on a final document by Friday and some diplomats say the future of the commission - a global policy-making body created in 1946 for the advancement of women - is at risk if they fail to broker a compromise.

"There's this sort of unholy alliance ... coming together to oppose language on sexual health, reproductive rights and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights," one senior U.N. diplomat said. "It's tough going, but progress is being made."

So, of course, Canada's own staunch defender of preborn women, Mark Warawa, would be totally down with the draft declaration, yes?

A draft declaration urges member states to take a number of measures, including the elimination of any impunity in violence against women, by prosecuting and punishing perpetrators; allowing women and girls to have control over their sexuality and access to health care; doing away with harmful practices such as female genital mutilation; providing services to victims of violence such as emergency contraception and safe abortion where permitted by law.

From now on, we should ask all backers of Warawa's Wank if they also support the UN's efforts to actually protect women.

Shameless Douchebaggery

I have no words for the crassness of this.

M408: Thankfully shot Pakistan school girl in stable condition. Discrimination against girls must stop. nation.co.ke/News/world/Sho…

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) October 14, 2012

This would be fetus fetishist Mark Warawa making a smarmy reference to his motion (M408) to condemn sex-selective abortion.

The only regard CONs hold for women and girls -- especially those furren women -- is their worth as political pawns when there's an invasion or a mean-spirited foreign policy to try to justify.

Or a bunch of uteruses to police.

*PTUI*

"New" New Democrats: Ambition over Principles

You gotta wonder: WTF is up with the NDP?

There's this recent genius move from Niki Ashton, a motion for the House to "formally affirm" a woman's right to choose abortion.

Unlike the Woodworth gambit — which was ultimately defeated despite garnering the support of just over half the government caucus, including a half-dozen senior cabinet ministers — Ashton's motion could easily be interpreted as a criticism of current government policy, which would make even the most stridently pro-choice Conservative MP pause before giving a thumbs-up.

Such an outcome would almost certainly provide a major boost to the morale of the anti-abortion movement, which, despite taking centre stage briefly during the Woodworth and Warawa debates, has had little to no success in forcing the issue back onto the floor of the House of Commons.

That flagging political relevancy was apparent during last week's March for Life. According to police estimates, the annual Hill rally attracted just over 8,000 activists in 2014, which would put it at as little as half the RCMP estimate for the previous year, when Warawa's gender selection motion was still in play. Even the 23,000 claimed by march organizers was lower than their 2013 estimate of 25,000.

After formally affirming for years that abortion is a settled matter not open for debate, the NDP decides to take a swipe at the Liberals, kinda overlooking what ammo such a move serves up to fetus fetishists.

Well, we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time the NDP has seen an opportunity to poke the Liberals by turning women's rights into a political football.

A couple of days later, the NDP brain-trust got a grip and decided to nix opening the abortion debate in favour of whinging about CBC funding cuts.

OK, then.

But here's Chantal Hébert's take (bold mine).

On the heels of Trudeau’s announcement that future Liberal candidates will have to toe the party’s pro-choice line on abortion, the NDP is seizing the House with a motion to force MPs to pronounce on abortion rights.

Since Trudeau is actually shoring up the pro-choice line in Parliament and not threatening to drive a tank through it, the only rationale for the NDP move is to sow embarrassment and division in the Liberal caucus.

A handful of its existing members are anything but pro-choice.

Not since Gilles Duceppe ended up having to take yes for an answer to his challenge to the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation has an opposition party come up with as bad of a good idea.

The NDP has argued for years that the debate over abortion rights was closed, maintaining with admirable consistency that Parliament should not interfere in the reproductive choices of Canadian women.

On that basis, the party has mercilessly attacked the prime minister for not preventing his backbenchers from putting forward motions dealing directly or indirectly with abortion.

Its critics have repeatedly accused Stephen Harper of having the hidden agenda to restrict the reproductive choice of women.

But it is hard to square the notion that Conservative MPs should not be allowed to put their long-held convictions on abortion to the test in the House while New Democrats would be free to do so to score points on the issue.

The fate of the NDP motion — the text of which includes language pertaining to the government’s existing policy on maternal health in developing countries that could make it hard for pro-choice government MPs to support — is uncertain.

The vote might yet deliver anti-abortion advocates a rare victory on Harper’s watch in the House of Commons.

But whatever the result, it speaks volume about the current mindset of the NDP.

Dealing first with substance, the party’s eagerness to score easy points in an empty goal stands in sharp contrast with its gingerly-approach to more current social policy debates such as the one involving assisted suicide and euthanasia.

And here's her conclusion.

At this juncture, all is apparently fair in the NDP/Liberal war — including turning the issue of women’s reproductive choices into ammunition in the House of Commons.

This might be as good a time as any to remind both parties — but in particular the NDP — that if supremacy in the Caviar Left strongholds of downtown Toronto won elections, Harper would not be prime minister.

And here's where I bitch again about the fucking uselessness of the Fucking Useless Opposition®. They're arguing over the keys to Stornaway while the country goes up in flames.

Sowing embarrassment, scoring points, potting empty-netters. This is NOT why I -- and, I submit, millions of others -- voted NDP.

We voted for your principles, NOT your ambition.

And for this former NDP-voter, both federally and provincially, the party's rank and rancid ambition now outweighs any sentimental attachment I might have to principled social-justice warriors (ahem) like Dan Heap.

I'm done with the NDP.