Conservative Rod Bruinooge Abortion Bill

Molly · April 15, 2010

If you have any information suggesting it contains anything other than has been stated in the news.. by all means let us know...

Doh! I expect that it says exactly what Mr. Bruinage says it does, and that the press is accurately reporting it.

You say "Its about women having their right to choose being taking away by a bullying partner or any other person.", but that's not what Bruinooge is saying.

He's not offering to defend choice. He's offering special protection for one option and not for the other. (Coercion and intimidation are already frowned upon by law.)

The implication -the legal implication- is that while it's undesireable to force a woman to abort, to force her not to abort is not so bad.

DrGreenthumb · April 15, 2010

The problem is coercion is pretty hard to define, and when dealing with details of what comes out of a likely private conversation between a couple, is left wide open for abuse. How is someone supposed to disprove allegations? How many angry women seeking revenge on a lover who has left them pregnant might be tempted to file false charges in a bid to get back at him? If there is any actual assault, there are already criminal laws to deal with that. This is just going to be he said/she said crap, and is an attempt to intimidate men into not even expressing an opinion unless that opinion is that the woman should NOT have the abortion.

For example if a guy says "look honey, we can't afford a child right now, we can hardly feed ourselves, you were going to go to university this fall, and if you are pregnant or have a baby you will have to put off your education. We had planned to backpack across Europe next year, I really think we should not be starting a family at this point in our lives", wouldn't that be "coercing" her to have an abortion? Would he be subject to criminal charges just for expressing his opinion?

Men already don't have any choice in whether they will become a parent once an unplanned pregnancy becomes apparent. They have no choice whether to accept that huge financial responsibility. Maybe men should be able to "financially" abort their tie to the pregnancy. Failing that they should at the very least be able to claim their children as dependants at tax time. My buddy pays 800 bucks a month in child support for his two kids from a past marriage. She got custody even though she cheated on him and then left him for her lover. She cheated on and left that guy now too and lives in an addittion to her mother's house, paying no rent, and supported by her mother. She gets to claim the kids as dependants, and he gets to claim nothing. Really fair system eh?

wyly · April 15, 2010

As Born Free said, intimating, coercing and such, is the antithesis of "the right to chose"

Now if you believe that someone should be able to say, threaten...

I wonder if say a person offers a women financial considerations to have an abortion she doesn't want....would that be coercion?

do you really think coercion is a problem?...a simple "no" ends any coercion...this is a waste of time, is the next step eliminating abortion information?..

dizzy · April 15, 2010

If his interview rhetoric is to be trusted, then it's about 'intimidation and coercion to have an abortion', definitely NOT about 'intimidation and coercion to forgo an abortion'--- and not just about intimidation and coercion wrt abortion in general.

One would have to be hopelessly naive to suppose for a second that a 'butt the Hell out of the decision' bill would fly with Mr. Bruinooge, or that this bill would resemble such a thing.

It will become available for review soon. I look forward to saying "I told you so."

I'll also be waiting to see whether this bill is truly with the intention to protect a woman's right to choose or only to protect her right NOT to get an abortion.

If it's the latter, then I suspect it's an attempt to create a gateway for future limitations on abortion. But, either way, I'm not really worried. Abortion rights are too entrenched in our national psyche to be trampled upon.

M.Dancer · April 15, 2010

do you really think coercion is a problem?...a simple "no" ends any coercion...this is a waste of time, is the next step eliminating abortion information?..

If the woman who was murdered because she would not abort could answer...but she cannot. No doubt she would agree with you...just because.

Shady · April 15, 2010

Now yer being silly about it.

The bill is essentially to prevent a bullying husband from beating the crap outta his wife to get an abortion that is against her will. In effect..her choice is being removed.

It aint likely gonna pass and it aint about recriminalizing abortion.

You don't understand. In Molly's world all abortions are necessary, and all women love to have them. Sometimes several times! And if they're reluctant about the procedure, and/or have some moral issues about it. They need to be talked out of those immediately! Because any day you get to kill an unborn baby, it's a good day for society!

Born Free · April 15, 2010

I wonder if say a person offers a women financial considerations to have an abortion she doesn't want....would that be coercion?

IMO I'd say yes if the so-called financial considerations were intended to worsen her situation....

Born Free · April 15, 2010

It seems that for some, the right to chose means the right to chose to have an abortion, not the right to chose not to...

Seems so...

Dave_ON · April 15, 2010

You don't understand. In Molly's world all abortions are necessary, and all women love to have them. Sometimes several times! And if they're reluctant about the procedure, and/or have some moral issues about it. They need to be talked out of those immediately! Because any day you get to kill an unborn baby, it's a good day for society!

Mmmm wax self righteous much? Abortion is a far bigger issue than what you're attempting to distil it down to. Suffice it to say, this gentlemen is a back bancher for a reason and it's a private member's bill because the CPC would never ever support it. It's folks like Bruinooge and apparently you that get all conservatives painted with the same religious zealot wing nut brush.

Born Free · April 15, 2010

do you really think coercion is a problem?...

It certainly can be. Especially if it includes (for example) the use of a fist, a gun, a baseball bat or a belt...

But what the Hell. It ant gonna pass muster anyway...

Edited April 15, 2010 by Born Free

Molly · April 15, 2010

Deleted for taste.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Molly

DrGreenthumb · April 15, 2010

It certainly can be. Especially if it includes (for example) the use of a fist, a gun, a baseball bat or a belt...

But what the Hell. It ant gonna pass muster anyway...

Assault with a weapon, murder, and even uttering threats to do any of the above are all already a criminal offence so why the need to bring abortion into it? Do we need a special law to make it illegal to coerce or intimidate people to eat faty food? Or is it good enough that we make it illegal to intimidate and coerce in general LIKE WE HAVE NOW.

Edited April 15, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

M.Dancer · April 15, 2010

Assault with a weapon, murder, and even uttering threats to do any of the above are all already a criminal offence so why the need to bring abortion into it? Do we need a special law to make it illegal to coerce or intimidate people to eat faty food? Or is it good enough that we make it illegal to intimidate and coerce in general LIKE WE HAVE NOW.

How do you feel about hate crimes?

DrGreenthumb · April 15, 2010

How do you feel about hate crimes?

I think the motivations for committing a crime should be irrelevant to sentencing, except in certain cases of justified revenge.

If one has committed a harm to someone else they should be made to pay for it.

Edited April 15, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

wyly · April 15, 2010

It certainly can be. Especially if it includes (for example) the use of a fist, a gun, a baseball bat or a belt...

But what the Hell. It ant gonna pass muster anyway...

we already have laws for that so adding another addressed specifically towards abortion would seem to be a step toward limiting information on abortion access...

Born Free · April 15, 2010

we already have laws for that so adding another addressed specifically towards abortion would seem to be a step toward limiting information on abortion access...

I saw the same arguments on the Freedom of Speech stuff...

Bonam · April 16, 2010

Ridiculous bill. It's only effects would be to trample all over the rights of men when it comes to relationships and open avenues for vengeful women to ruin people's lives, even more so than they can already.

msdogfood · April 16, 2010

It seems the Conservatives just can't help trying to legislate laws over our bodies. Rod Bruinooge has introduced a private member's bill that would make it a criminal offence to try to convince someone to have an abortion. So now discussing abortion as an option will be a crime? Better practice abstinance all you teenage boys, or at least be ready for a lifetime of child support payments, and don't even suggest the morning after pill or other "options", or the Conservative party will make sure you are paying your child support from a jail cell. Don't worry you can earn slave wages in the new Conservative private prisons. Apparently they are using prison slave labour in BC to build some new jails.

The PMO did NOT want the at all!! but now the PMO has a new problem!!

hes poll numbers will pelmet now!!.

dizzy · April 16, 2010

Here's the text of the bill.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4427296&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24

Sure enough, according to this bill there's no crime if someone coerces a woman to not have an abortion that she wants or needs.

And, in the definition of coercion there is this nugget:

"(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity; "

Could parents or a partner/spouse be charged if they raise their voices too loud or nag too intently while attempting to convince their target that an abortion is in her best interests?

This is a gateway bill, plain and simple.

Edited April 16, 2010 by dizzy

myata · April 16, 2010

As it appears, the Conservatives are not at all against the "big government". They only have their own ideas where it should be big. Like in your morals, personal choices, beliefs and so on.

Muddy · April 16, 2010

This is but one MP`s idea. It certainly is not the CP policy in any way. The CP will not even entertain partial birth abortion legislation such is their fear of the abortion question. In other words defining for doctors how far along one can give an abortion. As it stands now an abortion could legally be performed up to minutes before birth. Now I am not saying any Doc in his right mind would do that. But there are guys Like Mengale out there. I personally would like some safe guards in legislation to guide Doctors on time schedules. Is it six weeks ,eight weeks,six months or until just before delivery that an abortion can be performed? I am sure sensible pro choice advocates would embrace that kind of legislation.

As a former fetus I am pro life . BUT! If I had a loved one pregnant and under great stress,I would hold their hand and discuss all their options and no matter their decision ,I would support and love them when they needed me the most.Would this private members bill deprive me of that option ?

Of course I am but a man ,and if there is one thing I have learned in my lifetime ,men do not understand women .But we sure do love them.

Molly · April 16, 2010

Here's the text of the bill.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4427296&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24

Sure enough, according to this bill there's no crime if someone coerces a woman to not have an abortion that she wants or needs.

And, in the definition of coercion there is this nugget:

"(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity; "

Could parents or a partner/spouse be charged if they raise their voices too loud or nag too intently while attempting to convince their target that an abortion is in her best interests?

This is a gateway bill, plain and simple.

Thanks, Dizzy.

Muddy · April 16, 2010

Thanks, Dizzy.

The bill will not see the light of day. It is but one MP who has an agenda. Trying to link the CP Party to this is nonsense and political dishonesty.

Molly · April 16, 2010

"A person coerces an abortion if he or she knows of or suspects the pregnancy of a female person and engages, or conspires with another to engage in, conduct that is intentionally and purposely aimed at directing the female person who has not chosen to have an abortion to have an abortion, including but not limited to the following conduct:

(a) committing, attempting to commit, or threatening to commit physical harm to the female person, the child or another person;

( committing, attempting to commit or threatening to commit any act prohibited by any provincial or federal law;

© denying or removing, or making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct; and

(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity;"

A is and B are redundant (A is double-redundant, since it's also fully coverd by .... C is a refusal to be a party to a pregnancy (pay expenses or provide housing), and D is arguing about it- really nothing more than openly expressing disapproval.

Functionally, this one would criminalize many, many more parents than signifigant others. That's pretty darned amusing.

Molly · April 16, 2010

It is but one MP who has an agenda. Trying to link the CP Party to this is nonsense and political dishonesty.

Political dishonesty is trying to say a party is something other than the sum of its parts, (or that its platform rhetoric means more than its actions). If he's just one MP with an agenda, and the CPC disapproves of that agenda, then why isn't he sitting as an independent instead of as a Conservative in good standing?

Conservatives (and all other parties) toss the people whose agendas they disapprove. They haven't tossed this doofus.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Molly