Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

Good for the Globe for asking Michael Ignatieff if there will be any negative repercussions for members of his caucus who dare to express their opinion regarding restrictions on abortion. They have already been successfully intimidated enough to belong to a ’secretive’ Pro-Life caucus, due to fear being outed for their beliefs.

Perhaps a good lie-detector test or some kind of torture device will flush out the dissenters and force them to renounce their Pro-life principles. Where’s Jack Bauer when you really need him?

Will Iggy end up trumping Harper as a ‘control freak’?

But the big question is, where does Michael Ignatieff stand on the issue? Has anyone ever asked him directly if he supports any kind of restrictions at all on abortion? Is it permissible to even discuss the subject, or should it be relegated to that list of topics that the ever-vigilant Human ‘Rights’ Commissions love to monitor?

Inquiring minds want to know.

*   *   *   *

Update: Perhaps while he’s at it, Iggy could also let us know where he stands on the Israel-Gaza issue. (H/T Fay in comments)

Good discussion going on at ITQ - Dear Liberal Party:  That’s actually not an answer.

And would you call this a racist comment? From today’s Letters page in the National Post:

…Lastly, he claims that his aboriginal background endows him with a unique perspective and respect for the unborn. I hope that his “uniqueness” will also help him deal with the high rates of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome within his community, a service that is needed more acutely than chairing a pro-life caucus.

Lovely. The underlying message seems to be, stick to your own kind and mind your own business. Yes? No?

Friday Update: Good discussion going on here in comments.

If there’s one thing that drives me crazy, it’s when I’m told that such-and-such is ‘what Canadians want’. I immediately begin to question the source because their argument is obviously faulty unless it is backed up with scientific, unbiased facts.

Today we learn via Joyce Arthur who is co-coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, that apparently Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge and several of his Conservative colleagues are the only people in Canada who want to have another look at our lack of laws regarding abortion:

“It’s something that the Conservative Party is out of touch with, because Canadians don’t want to go back to the abortion debate,” Ms. Arthur said. “People are happy with the status quo. It’s working well.”

Is she saying that anyone who wants to discuss this issue is not a Canadian? Or not a ‘person’, much the same way she views the non-persons in every pregnant woman’s womb in Canada?

Or is she saying that only Conservative party members are wanting to discuss this? Or some Conservative MPs? Where is the data to support that statement?

What part of multi-party Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus does she not understand?

We do know for a fact that there are several Pro-Life advocates in the Liberal caucus, so Arthur’s argument contains a glaring flaw.  There have been  dissenters in the NDP and  Bloc caucus too, but they have been severely punished to the point of expulsion. So much for free speech.

I do applaud Rod Bruinooge for his courage in bringing this matter forward. Stephen Harper has said he doesn’t want to reopen the abortion debate, so it is up to a multi-party group of backbenchers to take up the torch.

Bruinooge uses facts to formulate his argument:

In Canada in 2008, our citizens have no legal value while in the wombs of their mothers. We are completely alone in the world in this regard.

Most Canadians would agree that you should not be able to remove your kidney and sell it on eBay to the highest bidder. Although it’s your body and your kidney, this would not only be a poor bioethical choice, but it is in fact illegal under our laws.

Most Canadians would also agree that an unborn child in the ninth month of gestation, moments away from delivery, should not be eligible for an elective abortion. However, regardless of the fact that this would be an extremely poor bioethical choice, it is in fact legal. As such, Canada has far greater protections for human kidneys than we do for human fetuses…

So there is a logical inconsistency in the present state of affairs which I would dearly love someone to discuss here.

If we could just let go of some of our previously-held beliefs and emotions long enough to really study this issue, I think the results could help appease both sides.  The usual canard  about late-term abortions is that it is so rare as to be not worth legislating. And yet there are other forms of life-ending but thankfully rare actions too, such as a parent killing his or her own child. We don’t turn a blind eye to these occurrences simply because they don’t happen very often.

But the big issue here is whether or not Canadians agree with Joyce Arthur statement that they don’t want to go back to the abortion debate. Her implication is that all Canadians feel this way.

Do you?

Let her know - jharthur@shaw.ca (H/T Alberta Girl)

*   *   *   *

Update: Somebody else doesn’t appreciate being told what to think:

What’s hysterical is that this article does not challenge Joyce Arthur’s statement that “people are happy with the status quo.” I, for one, am not happy with the status quo. I strongly resent it when I and my like-minded peers are denounced as right-wing extremists simply because we hold that life can logically only be defined as beginning at conception, and that it must be safeguarded from that point on. I want Canada to have this dialogue, and am glad that there are members of our national Parliament who represent my point of view.

December 29, 2008 at 7:52 AM

More food for thought regarding other social issues such as surrogacy at ProWomanProLife - Those pesky ethical issues.

“Harper stiff-arms talk of reopening abortion debate” - Ottawa Citizen.

And the only way this debate will be allowed to continue is if THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT!!!

*   *   *   *

From the Star comments:

Canada Has No Abortion Law

Why are we content to live with no law regarding abortion? Abortion supporters like to say Canada doesn’t want to consider its bio-ethical position, that Canadians are content to have no law and no debate on this issue. That is patently untrue. I am a left-leaning, NDP supporting, social advocate, and I am very concerned that Canada has not worked through this issue legally. The debate must be reopened so that Canada can work through this issue that HAS NOT been dealt with. Canadians on all sides of the political spectrum have a great deal to lose if we opt for no discussion and no law. I say “bring the debate on!”

Submitted by theosaurus at 11:22 AM Monday, December 29 2008

*   *   *   *

Tuesday Update: Certain people are telling us to Keep it Quiet.

Well I now agree with Raphael that “It’s not the Time…”

Great discussions in any case. So take that, Joyce Arthur!!

I’ve always said that any changes to Canada’s current lack of abortion law will have to come from ordinary citizens pressuring the left. Otherwise, we will never have any restrictions on publicly-funded abortion in Canada - Harper says no to abortion debate (Globe).

So email NDP and Liberal MPs if you are upset about this.

Can Ken Epp’s private member’s bill co-exist with Rob Nicholson’s proposed toughened legislation concerning violence against pregnant women?

It’s probably a moot question, because there will likely be an election in the near future anyway, and Epp’s bill will be lost in the scuffle.

However, in a political sense they both serve a purpose. As I mentioned at Raphael’s , Nicholson’s announcement was probably made to clearly differentiate the Conservative government’s position from any private member’s bill. (Read my lips - No discussion on abortion!)

The government’s position focuses on the safety of the pregnant woman, whereas Ken Epp’s bill tends to focus on both the woman and her unborn child to whom she has chosen to give birth. Epp’s bill would make the penalty more severe and less open to judicial interpretation.

The Government has therefore made a preemptive strike to counter the tedious ‘hidden agenda’ ploy that gets dragged out every election.

If the government doesn’t fall, then Ken Epp can continue with his bill which has the support of many Liberal MP’s including Tom Wappel. Thus, it can be seen as a fairly non-partisan issue.

Yesterday’s discussion was fascinating but somewhat draining, so I’m going to let this one go for a while now. I just want to add that I’m pleased with the Government’s proposal, as well as the fact that Ken Epp isn’t backing down.

Any extra protection for vulnerable pregnant women is a good thing. Too often they and their unborn children are the targets of attack by their partners. If this legislation prevents one death, it is worthwhile.

* * * *

Update: SPECIAL REQUEST!

Before reading the comments would you please answer the survey/quiz on abortion laws in Canada which can be found at the top of the poll page? Thanks so much!

Results update: The correct answer to the question, "what are the current legal restrictions on abortion in Canada?",   is "No restrictions at all". Only 65% got it right. 13% thought (incorrectly) that abortion is only legal until the end of the 2nd trimester. 22% said they had no idea. So 35% of the respondents are not aware that we have no law at all concerning abortion. I wonder what the percentage would be in the general Canadian population? Thanks for your participation.

* * * *

Wednesday Update: Abortion: Staying clear on steering clear - National Post editorial.

Standing up for my bill - Ken Epp (Special to the National Post.) I really admire Ken Epp for not backing down here.

Mindelle Jacobs - Dion’s focus on abortion is just absurd. (Yes, well. You can add that to a long list of absurdities, Mindelle.)

In today’s National Post, Michael Coren exposes some interesting tidbits about Stephane Dion’s character - Stephane Dion finds God.

First of all, ‘his people’ apparently (and erroneously) told him that the majority of viewers were faith-based, so Dion dutifully mentioned God several times in the opening segment of the interview. Later Dion admitted to Coren that he had done so based on his handlers’ assumption about the audience makeup.

…He was, for example, anxious to "reconcile people with God’s environment" and was committed to the planet "given to us by God." Which is somewhat surprising. The deity is not a popular debating point for Liberal leaders. Actually, the Supreme Being is mentioned by ambitious Liberal politicians about as often as Brian Mulroney’s good points. So I was rude enough to ask Mr. Dion if he was doing this — sounding religious — because he had been told that the station on which my show appears each night, CTS, was faith-based. Frankly, I expected him to deny, obfuscate or simply lie. It says a great deal about the man’s integrity as well as his innocence that he replied on air with a simple, "This is true." A pause, then, "I have been told that this is important to the people who watch this show…"

So Dion doesn’t mind using God when it is politically expedient to do so. Unlike Coren, I don’t see how this could possibly show that he has integrity, but whatever.

Dion seems to parrot Obama with his ‘Hope’ references:

…I pushed a little further. Is this God of whom you speak an important factor in your life? "It is part of the hope I have" was the reply. "A creator who is full of love. I hope this is true. I am a man of hope. I will play hope but Stephen Harper plays fear."

Well, I have news for you, Stephane. A true Christian doesn’t ‘hope’ that God exists. A true believer knows.

Dion sees the Catholic vote as a slam-dunk:

…After the show, Dion asked about the denominational breakdown of those of our viewers who are Christian. "You see, the Catholics can be relied on to vote Liberal, always, but the Protestants much less so ," he explained. "It’s very difficult to get them to vote for us. I am a Catholic." As were Trudeau, Chretien and Martin. Men who championed abortion, same-sex marriage and many other policies that ran counter to basic Catholic teachings. In other words, they were Catholic by birth but Liberal by belief and works…

So the Catholics can be relied on to vote Liberal - Is that not something like Jennifer Wright being expected to be grateful for the mix-up with her website?

But Coren rightly makes the point that many ‘Catholic’ Liberal politicians seem to have a problem following the rules of their faith (including Dalton McGuinty) . That could be seen as a positive attribute since church & state are supposed to be separate in our society, but then why bring it up at all?

And why bring up the subject of abortion out of the blue?

Is Dion trying to say that he listens to God on the subject of the environment, but not when it comes to abortion?

And what about his hero Obama who voted for infanticide or a derivative thereof? Where does the true Christian draw the line? How long should babies be allowed to languish outside of their mother’s womb before medical help must intervene? And when do we call it infanticide? Or murder? What is the defining difference?

Is the whole point to flog yourself as a Christian and then take the glory for how far you can allow yourself to stray from the fundamentals of your faith?

Sorry, but I don’t see that as an example of integrity.

My point here is that if you really believe that church & state should be separate, please stop pretending to be so holier than the rest of us.

And please drop the ‘God’ routine, Stephane. It’s offensive.

* * * *

Update: Tories abandon ‘unborn victims’ bill’ - Globe.

Yet, Canada.com states that Ken Epp has "no intention of abandoning his bill…"

Freedom is my Nationality - The Great Big Liberal in the Sky.

Halls of Macadamia - The God Card.

Stephen Taylor - What of the Liberals and abortion?

A Step to the Right - "I don’t need you, God…"

* * * *

Tuesday Update : MP won’t retract unborn crime bill - Edmonton Sun.

Hot on the heels of my recent poll, "Does Canada need some kind of abortion law? ", I see that Henry Morgentaler is in the news again.

First the poll results (and I know it isn’t scientific) : 70% of the respondents felt that Canada should have some kind of law regarding abortion. I was watching this poll closely the last few days and the percentages didn’t move much. Frankly, I thought the ‘yes’ side would have a higher margin. 33 respondents is a pitifully small sample though, so I’m not sure how much use that poll really is.

Anyway, now we find out that getting the Order of Canada and having unlimited access to abortion isn’t enough for Morgentaler. He wants the Province of New Brunswick to pay for abortions performed at his Fredericton clinic. This seems to be the last holdout and he is going after it.

Oh, the taxpayers already cover abortions in hospitals right across the country, but Morgentaler wants it all and has now been granted the right to challenge the Liberal government in NB:

New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench Judge Paulette Garnett granted Morgentaler "public interest standing" to represent the interests of women in relation to abortion funding.

The article by CP finishes with the following statement:

This is more good news for 84-year-old Morgentaler who was recently awarded the Order of Canada for his years of service in caring for the needs of women.

- The needs of women who manage to get born, that is.

I’d love to hear from New Brunswick residents on this one.

And does anyone know what Morgentaler gets back from his clinics?

* * * *

Update: NB Tory Lady : Oh my gawd - Morgentaler strikes my province!

Interesting tidbit here by Paul Schratz from the B.C. Catholic Newspaper:

…As everyone knows, Morgentaler is portrayed with a heroism, nobility and selflessness unseen since Macbeth.

Too bad reality is quite different. According to the Quebec physicians disciplinary committee, which suspended him from practising medicine in the 1970s, Morgentaler was more concerned with "protecting his fees" than with any humanitarian concern.

The committee even faulted him for failing to interview patients before abortions, a behaviour they said "confers a mercenary character on the doctor-patient relationship."

* * * *

Links to legal background of abortion in Canada :

- Duhaime: Abortion law in Canada "…A legislative vacuum of sorts was created…"

Jonathan Kay: A cheat sheet with Ben-Ami’s arguments on why Canada needs an abortion policy:

4. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court of Canada never declared that the government had no right to regulate abortion — nor did it claim that a fetus had no rights (though it has claimed that a fetus is not a "person"). All the Supreme Court did, in its 1988 Morgentaler decision, was strike down a regulation system that was unpredictable, badly administered, fragmented and out of date. Nothing in Canadian constitutional law or supreme court jurisprudence would prevent Parliament from creating a new law that outlawed abortions after, say, 14, or 16, or 18 weeks of gestation.

Dr. Roy stole my thunder this morning when he highlighted Jonathan Kay’s summary of Joseph Ben Ami’s case for coming up with an abortion law or some kind of legal restrictions here in Canada. As anyone who has been following the debate knows, there is no law at all concerning abortion at the present time - nor is there any legal reason not to have one.

Some people make the argument that Canada’s abortion rates are going down, so why bother?

I guess my answer to that would be if crime rates in general are going down, should we therefore remove existing laws? Maybe we don’t need them anymore.

But the item that really caught my attention was #6:

6. Given the manner in which social revolutionaries are changing the face of bioethics, it is only a matter of time before an enterprising lawyer or activist judge is able to get an infanticide suspect off the hook on the grounds that (as described in point #1, above) what he did was little different from late-term abortion, a perfectly legal practice.

In Guelph a precedent-setting case is unfolding, and the judge is clearly perplexed . A woman has been accused of killing her seven-week-old son in Kitchener in 1998 and nine-week-old son in Guelph in 2002:

...Defence counsel Craig Parry is arguing his client is instead guilty of the rare charge of infanticide because her mind was "disturbed" by the effects of childbirth at the time of each killing…

The Crown is pushing for a murder charge, but Justice Cas Herold is unsure and is now wrestling with the "legal definition of infanticide."

Parry is urging a wider interpretation of the law, saying that for example breastfeeding can lead to sleep deprivation and this could alter a woman’s state of mind.

All this makes me wonder what would have happened if the woman had killed someone else in her ‘disturbed’ state, rather than just her infant sons. Should the charge then be lessened too?

Or do infants that have less value than older human beings?

And if we have a sliding scale of human value, then who’s next?

* * * *

More background on the Guelph case - Disturbing letter shown at trial for mom accused of killing sons (Record.)

Luca weighs in here.

And Morton from Liblogs muses on the usefulness of the summary, which causes the fake Cherniak to utter some amusing comments.

New Poll up! - Does Canada need some kind of abortion law?

One last post about the Morgentaler OC award, and then I promise you I’ll move on.

This really is separate-post worthy though - From Crime to Virtue by George Jonas, which is featured in today’s National Post as his entry in the discussion series for this week. I love reading Jonas’ columns. They’re not just opinion pieces - they’re works of literary art.

And so I will quote some of my favourite parts:

…Perhaps it’s salutary for an abortion doctor’s name to crop up among the recipients, just to put the Order of Canada into perspective. His inclusion doesn’t debase the honour, only illuminates it for the self-congratulatory establishment celebration that it is. Most awards and decorations are a ritual of pack members sniffing each other for the elite scent of recognition, routinely confusing a whiff of posterity with a whiff of posterior. ..

Oh, that is brilliant!

…Amazonian feminists felt they deserved a licence to kill. The high court issued one to James "Henry 007" Morgentaler, who sallied forth to fight the fetal menace. The Order of Canada celebrates the 20th anniversary of this joyful event…

Fetal menace. Exactly.

Or fetal tumour, because of course the fetus is only an appendage. A ‘menace’ would imply a separate being - unless it is a parasite. But then the DNA would be different anyway, right? Oh well, I digress.

Here is his most intriguing observation:

"It’s difficult not to write satire," remarked the Roman author, Juvenal, nearly 2,000 years ago. It still is. Take Canada honouring someone for exactly the same thing it jailed him for 32 years earlier. What turned a 1975 crime into a 2008 virtue? Public opinion? Hardly. Abortion is as divisive as ever. Has God said something new? If so, I missed it.

What changed indeed?

In our previous discussion, Mary T. mentioned a segment last night with Ben Stein on the Situation Room, where he was asked, what do you blame the decline of America on, and the answer was taking God out of the schools, public life, etc.

That’s right. The left-wing agenda has promoted a creeping new religion of cultural relativism which we have been seduced into accepting over the years, and made to feel guilty if we rebelled against it.

Years of Liberal governments placing Liberal judges and Senators into positions of authority and influence.

Liberal Fascism. Read the book and you’ll start to see the big picture.

And now the Liberals are doing anything and everything they can to try to claw their way back into power.

Be warned.

* * * *

Related: Jonathan Kay addresses Jonas’ piece here - The order of Canada is ridiculous. It seems that Kay is a big Jonas fan too:

…In my early days as a National Post editorial board member, my colleagues and I would marvel — "snicker" was often a more appropriate description — about how Jonas could take any subject and bring it back to Joseph Stalin in four paragraphs. His archenemy, then as now, has always been the creeping tendrils of the busybody, bureaucratic state — and the Soviet-style oppression that can result if free individuals do not beat those tendrils back. Over time, I’ve learned to stop snickering, because so many of his warnings have come true…

Here’s what I found most interesting in Kay’s article though:

…One of my relatives has the Order of Canada (richly deserved, according to the prevailing standards, I should add), and I have always found it slightly ridiculous to see her wear the lapel pin at parties and such. Her extraordinary accomplishments speak for themselves. Yet the pin sends the message that the respect she is owed is a matter of government-mandated duty — to be given or taken away by the state, like a teacher’s happy-face sticker on a schoolboy’s test paper. The fact that she is quite literally forced to wear that pin, according to the rules of the Order, only amplifies this infantilizing effect …

What??? They are forced to wear the pin?

How pretentious! What snobbery!

Let’s axe the OC . It has no place in my Canada.

Update: Jack’s Newswatch has more discussion on this topic at Daily Blogger.

The National Post is providing a whole week’s presentation of various views on the topic of Morgentaler being named to the Order of Canada on July 1.

The debate also continues on other MSM venues and blogs. Letters to the editor poured in at the time, and are still trickling in two weeks later. Many editorials have been published on both sides.

OC Medals started being returned since some of the recipients or present medal holders felt that the significance had been diminished if not entirely tarnished.

NB Tory Lady has compiled a list on the right sidebar of her blog. Returnees include:

Former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick Gilbert Finn
Monsignor A.J. Goski
Madonna House foundress Catherine Doherty
Father Lucien Larre
Frank Chauvin
Three anonymous recipients

Was there an underlying reason for initiating this firestorm beyond the alleged recognition of an aging Canadian who made so many ’sacrifices’ to make sure women had access to um, so-called necessary health care?

To have the announcement made on Canada Day, which is usually a time for building bridges and promoting national unity seems a bit puzzling unless it was deliberately intended to provoke a reaction. Which it certainly did.

Or perhaps it was intended to shove a politically-correct edict from the Left down our throats at the taxpayer’s expense.

I think the latter. I believe this was a not so subtle move to try to say that just like gay marriage, the debate is over folks! Get over it.

Well, some people like myself have learned to live with gay marriage. In fact, I certainly see the encouragement of monogamy as being beneficial to society.

As for Morgentaler debacle and the future of the OC itself, do what you want with it. Keep it or get rid of it. I really don’t care.

It’s meaningless to me.

In fact, I’m fine with letting an old man have his moment in the limelight before he meets his maker.

But I will never, ever accept the status quo regarding abortion in Canada, which is a pathetic state of limbo with no law at all; enabled by gutless politicians too weak to even say the word.

* * * *

Recommended reading : This is an absolute must read by David Warren - Nation of Noodles.

H/T to The Great Pumpkin.

Margaret Somerville’s Letter to the National Post is also worth checking out - Do Canadians really support abortion?

Jonathan Kay - The Order of Canada is ridiculous.

Great letters in today’s National Post about Morgentaler’s appointment to the Order of Canada, including one from our own Dr. Roy.

Please check them out.

This one by Michael Bliss is especially worth the read:

As a Member of the Order of Canada, I am deeply saddened by the way that our honours system is apparently being debased and cheapened by appointments such as the Henry Morgentaler one. Those of us who occasionally nominate worthy people for consideration for the Order have been told repeatedly that if they have been considered and rejected on an earlier occasion, the files are not normally reopened. I cannot understand why the Morgentaler file was apparently reopened on several occasions.

If the Order of Canada’s advisory committee, meeting behind closed doors, continues to make divisive, apparently political recommendations, it will undermine the integrity of the Order and further discourage those of us who tried to help make the system work. I am particularly distressed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is involved in a process the trustworthiness of which many of us now question.

And this is where the title of this post came from.

* * * *

Update: Check this out!!! Ethicist expresses empathy - Ottawa citizen:

…Dr. Morgentaler’s appointment to the order "is being trumpeted by those who agree with him" as proof that abortion is something that Canadians want to honour, Ms. Somerville said. "Obviously, people would feel the same thing about me in relation to my opposition to same-sex marriage, so it’s sort of a weird situation."

Ms. Somerville is not a member of the Order of Canada. A nomination submitted a few years ago by Anglican minister and preaching professor Carol Finlay was unsuccessful. Ms. Finlay was told it was because Ms. Somerville was too controversial.

Ms. Finlay, who disagrees with Ms. Somerville on the same-sex marriage issue, said Ms. Somerville deserved the honour because of her commitment to open debate…

…Last July, she was copied on a letter that someone had sent to the Governor General’s office expressing concerns that, if she were ever named a member, "the integrity and greatness of the Order of Canada would be undermined."

So, what do you say now, Raphael?

Kelly McParland: Opposition to Morgentaler’s Order is Wide and Deep and Intense.

From comments at McParland’s post:

by ladylawyer
Jul 03 2008
4:43 PM

I am not a church-goer, a Catholic, a fundamentalist, or a woman who opposes women’s rights. In fact, I practice family law in a small town where it is part of my job to enable women, especially immigrants and refugees, to realize the equal rights that Canada’s legal system allows them.

I used to think that having an abortion was a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, but now I know better. My daughter was born before the end of her second trimester–an age of gestation when abortions are still routine. She is alive today because of wonderful technology and the round the clock care of the ICU doctors and nurses. She is now 29 years old, married, and has an MA in archeology.

Giving the Order of Canada to Morgentaler is an affront. If I had been awarded an Order of Canada, I wouldn’t be able renounce and return it quickly enough.

CTV - Abortion restrictions continue 20 years after ruling. (i.e. nobody wants to do it. I wonder why?)

ProWomanProLife - A callous sort of Canada.

Also please check out Joan Tintor - Bliss: Morgentaler’s OC file was reopened several times.

Saturday Update: Don Cherry for Order of Canada! - Rex Murphy.