Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Yes, Dan, Abortion Is Always an Issue

Yesterday on Twitter, Dan Gardner sniped about the 'non-issue' of abortion in the upcoming provincial election.

Warren Kinsella sniped back that women might not agree on that designation.

As we've said here many many times, women's reproductive rights are ALWAYS negotiable.

And as I keep saying, just look south to the insane War on Women being waged as the USian economy teeters towards the edge.

So. Yeah, Dan. Abortion is always an issue because our rights were so hard won and so susceptible to idle musings by weaselly wannabee pols.

Speaking of which, Tim Hudork has recovered his memory.
In Ottawa to announce a new anti-crime initiative, Hudak clarified comments he made Monday on an abortion pledge he "may have" signed. He told reporters he did sign the pledge, but stressed the issue would not become part of the government agenda if he wins the Oct. 6 election.

"It was a petition that came from my church in my riding back in 1998 that I brought forward as an individual member," Hudak said.

My new best pals, Ken Gray and Warren Kinsella, aren't buying the 'private citizen' spin the Con-Men are trying.

To quote WK: 'Well, he isn’t a private citizen. He’s someone who has a shot at becoming the most powerful lawmaker in the province. So, when he says he’ll stop funding abortion, it now means something.'

Something that should scare the hell out of Ontario women and their friends and allies.

One more WK link. You gotta go here to see the photo a reader sent him.


Derrida (sous rature) said...

Come on DJ, you know this actually has nothing to do with reproductive rights or any other civil rights, all of which were hard won and must be vigilantly defended. This is pure political gamesmanship and a desperate attempt to vilify Hudak and nurture a narrative of fear and foreboding around the Conservatives. The Liberals are free falling and grasping to hold on to any votes they can get.

To the extent that you would like to talk about civil rights, I wouldn't be so quick to ally myself with the McGuinty Liberals. There is hardly unanimity in the Liberal caucus around women's reproductive rights. McGuinty is hardly campaigning on women's issues, child care for instance.

McGuinty's role in the horrific suspension of civil rights seen last summer at the G20 protests has been duly noted by our ombudsman as one of the worst civil rights abuses in Canadian history, right up there with Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act.

If women's rights and issues are your concern in the coming election, perhaps you could take a look at Andrea Horwath and the NDP. There's something creepy about two men with questionable track records on the civil rights file having a public pissing contest about whose more feminist.

fern hill said...

And may not there be something creepy about a male (presumably) commenter telling me what is or is not an issue in this election?

I 'broke' this story, not some Liberal operative.

But thank you for your concern.

Anonymous said...

If the Ontario Liberals are vilifying Hudak for something he didn't do and doesn't want or intend to do, then that's one thing, and it has a simple solution: clearly, thoroughly, and straightforwardly state your position. Maybe repeat it over a couple of days, making sure to avoid any appearance of political weaseling, and then move onto a different discussion.

Now if the Liberals are vilifying Hudak for something he DOES intend to do, or doesn't want to deny because he'd lose the the support of organizations like the CLC, then that's something else entirely.

Derrida (sous rature) said...

DJ/fern hill: I'm not telling you what you should consider important issues in this election. And congratulations on digging up the story, but I'm just offering my opinion and arguing that the Liberal "operatives" running wild with this story (Hudak's views as most other sitting Conservatives on abortion have been well known for a long time) are foremost opportunists desperately looking for any means of halting McGuinty's free fall. If you're really concerned with issues of civil rights and social justice I merely suggest that McGuinty's not in your corner and the NDP is.

@Anonymous: vilification is vilification, there shouldn't be any room in a civilized democracy for it. That Hudak is pro-life is hardly surprising. Elizabeth May holds personal views which are also pro-life, but she does have a nuanced position in which she respects the laws of the land and sees a place for safe and legal access to abortion. Hudak may not hold such a nuanced and principled position as May, but he has said he won't reopen discussions on the issue. Defunding abortion is off the table. I don't see the need for further vilification, name calling, and character assassination.

fern hill said...

Have I been plumping for the Liberal vote? Here's a site search with the term 'fucking Liberals'. Fill your boots.

Here at DJ! we're non-partisan mockers and debunkers.

I loathe neo-cons and that twit Hudak in particular. I clearly remember the downright meanness of the Harris years. Hudak will be worse. I do not want him as premier and if that means more McGuinty, I won't like it but I'll take it.

And while you're right about actual vilification, I think what Anonymous is calling for is holding someone to account. Hudak TOLD the Con base he was in favour of defunding abortion. He got the vote and now he won't say whether he is still in favour of defunding abortion. He's a weasel and/or a liar.

As for defunding being off the table, I suggest you direct your gaze southwards. Many medical services have been defunded here in Ontario over the past few years, and there will be more. Why not abortion? Why not certain types of abortion -- like non-rape, non-incest, non-emergency abortions? What the fetus fetishists call 'abortion as birth control'. The coming Austerity Kabuki will give them the excuse to pull it off. Yeah, women's rights activists would take them to court and probably (maybe -- who knows?) win. But how long will that take? How many women will be affected? How much will they pay? Where will they go?

I've been working this corner of human rights -- women's rights -- for too long to be at all sanguine about any of it.

And, BTW, the Dippers regularly piss me off too. Search 'fucking NDP' for examples.

Anonymous said...

It's not enough for a politician to state that he/she is pro-life but would not raise the issue if elected. Politicians lie and get away with lying or "changing their views" all the time and everyone knows this. So to think that we should accept this line, only shows either he is very stupid or things the voters are really stupid or both. If he thinks he can pick and choose the type of reproductive care women should receive based on his personal beliefs, then he is my enemy and enemy to all women. Good job outing him Fern.

Post a Comment