Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[YEGmann]

I never said he wasn't allowed his own opinion, but he was puffing himself up and making claims that Soudas pretty much had to turn around and try to discredit. He can speak his mind, but he went some distance beyond that, and I have a feeling that Harper is none too happy about it.

If reading not only CBC it is absolutely clear that Brad Trost is speaking about his personal position. It is him who thinks why the PP should be defunded, he admits that Harper and the party do not share his view of importance of this pro-life stuff. He never exceeded the personal level. But the media presents the situation in just opposite interpretation, i.e., this is a position of the Conservative Party.

Edited April 22, 2011 by YEGmann

[capricorn]

But the media presents the situation in just opposite interpretation, i.e., this is a position of the Conservative Party.

This is out and out war man, and time is running out to outpace the frontrunner. Forget the truth. Allegations and lies rule the day!

[YEGmann]

So we'll put you down as totally biased and unreliable, given to making false statements - ok?

Neither Brad Trost nor any Conservative ever said the PP was defunded "because it supports abortion".

[August1991]

I wonder how many thousands of women voters Brian Trost cost Harper today? What a loose cannon he is. How in the world is Harper going to discipline him - kick him out of the caucus?

Anybody who would shift their opinion based on such a report now just before an election has long since left the "potential Conservative voter" category. Harry, people like you and Molly are appalled but you would never have voted Conservative anyway.

On this issue, the MSM is preaching to the choir. If anything, such reports just encourage the pro-Harper voters because it reminds them of all the baseless "scary, scary hidden agenda" talk.

[wyly]

If reading not only CBC it is absolutely clear that Brad Trost is speaking about his personal position. It is him who thinks why the PP should be defunded, he admits that Harper and the party do not share his view of importance of this pro-life stuff. He never exceeded the personal level. But the media presents the situation in just opposite interpretation, i.e., this is a position of the Conservative Party.

right, just like the attempt to get rid of the long gun registry by way of a private members bill...the conservatives avoid the abortion issue by claiming it's not part of their agenda but that doesn't prevent them from changing it with a private members bill which each conservative can vote independently...

[TimG]

right, just like the attempt to get rid of the long gun registry by way of a private members bill

I was not aware that the conservatives had promised to keep the registry. They are certainly upfront about getting rid of it now.

In any case, Harper has explicitly said he would not support any private members bills on abortion.

Edited April 22, 2011 by TimG

[YEGmann]

the conservatives avoid the abortion issue by claiming it's not part of their agenda but that doesn't prevent them from changing it with a private members bill which each conservative can vote independently...

Didn't Harper and most conservaties voted against that bill?

Edited April 22, 2011 by YEGmann

[Harry]

This abortion issue story has spread like wildfire across the country. By the end of this weekend there will be very few women left in Canada that have not heard about the issue, and the threat to their reproductive freedom with the Cons. This will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, and will drive I don't know how many thousand female voters away from the Cons to other parties. As if anyone is going to believe Harper on this abortion issue with people like Con MP Brad Trost in his Caucus.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Harry

[Harry]

This can of worms is now open at the worst possible time for Harper. Women run for your lives away from these dinosaurs.

Tories scramble after MP brags of denying funding to family-planning group

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-scramble-after-mp-brags-of-denying-funding-to-family-planning-group/article1995334/

Edited April 22, 2011 by Harry

[August1991]

This can of worms is now open at the worst possible time for Harper. Women run for your lives away from these dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs? Harper is now a T-Rex?

Harry, you certainly have heard of the boy who cried wolf. You're the boy who cried T-Rex.

Edited April 22, 2011 by August1991

[Molly]

Can you prove this, Molly? Do you have Brad Trost's own words?

I have the funny feeling that you would be impervious to proof, no matter how ironclad.

Let's pretend that funding has not been withdrawn.... but the question then becomes why that funding approval is over a year late. Are we really to believe that 'the cheque is in the mail'?

[YEGmann]

Let's pretend that funding has not been withdrawn.... but the question then becomes why that funding approval is over a year late. Are we really to believe that 'the cheque is in the mail'?

No, we do not need to believe that the funding will be granted.

But not providing funding can be caused by a thousand of reasons not related to abortion issue. The PP is not the only organization asking for Canadian taxpayers' money. There are literally thousands of them. Some do receive funding some do not. Our budget is tight right now. I cannot comment whether a year for review and approval is normal. Judging from that we haven't heard any outcry before, it seems OK.

[Molly]

No, we do not need to believe that the funding will be granted.

But not providing funding can be caused by a thousand of reasons not related to abortion issue.

I was never on that turnip truck, and my birthdate is wa-ay before yesterday.

A co-incidental year for review after 40 straight years of being the expert on the block is not at all normal... and if you didn't hear any outcry, you weren't following the issue.

[Shady]

This abortion issue story has spread like wildfire across the country.

Complete nonsense.

[Bryan]

There are pro-life members across party lines. This is nothing other than the fact that one MP didn't keep his own personal views to himself during a campaign.

Conservative official policy is specifically not pro-life. At the 2005 Policy Convention, the Conservative membership clearly decided:

58. Abortion Legislation

A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

Will is result in a dip in the polls? Probably for a couple of days.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Bryan

[Molly]

There are pro-life members across party lines. This is nothing other than the fact that one MP didn't keep his own personal views to himself during a campaign.

Conservative official policy is specifically not pro-life. At the 2005 Policy Convention, the Conservative membership clearly decided:

58. Abortion Legislation

A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

Will is result in a dip in the polls? Probably for a couple of days.

Yep. And I remember when the Sask provincial PC policy was 'Abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor." and Graham Taylor was appointed Health Minister.

He didn't need legislation when he had regulations and purse strings to work with. Abortion services access went from okay to gawdawful overnight, and the last I heard, still hadn't recovered.

[Evening Star]

I don't agree that being opposed to abortion is on par with supporting eugenics.

Politics is a nasty game. To say you respect members of parliament who believe that women should not have control over their reproductive life is just plain wrong. The SCC has already ruled on it and most people I know consider it a fundamental right that women have full control over their bodies, rather than the choice being legislated against. He might as well say he respects the opinion of those that supported the eugenics program in Alberta. It's a disgusting ideological position and doesn't deserve any amount of respect. The government has no business making decisions for women about their bodies.

[betsy]

Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

Although I wish they would....but I don't think so. The Conservatives know that it'll be disastrous for them if they try.

Anyway, Pro-Lifers should concentrate more in bringing their fight to the UN....the right of the unborn child.

Edited April 22, 2011 by betsy

[Rick]

Because as he has stated over and over, there is no plan or agenda to open the debate and change the rules.

You mean like his broken income trust promise or his promise to never run a defecit or his promise of a transparent and accountable government?

Where there's smoke, there's fire and in Harper's tea party..fire and brimstone..

Women should look no further than to the way Steve's idol, George Bush behaved down south when it came to abortion and stem cell issues.

Or heck, the way Bush intervened in the case of Terry Schaivo...

[Rick]

Complete nonsense.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it's not happening won't make it go away Shady.

[msj]

Yep. And I remember when the Sask provincial PC policy was 'Abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor." and Graham Taylor was appointed Health Minister.

He didn't need legislation when he had regulations and purse strings to work with. Abortion services access went from okay to gawdawful overnight, and the last I heard, still hadn't recovered.

Molly hits the nail on the head: it starts with a funding cut here, then there, and snowballs from there.

All I can think of, though, is that Harper wants to ask Brad Trost to "please please please please please please please stop talking?"

With apologies to Hemingway: Hills Like White Elephants.

[Mr.Canada]

This can of worms is now open at the worst possible time for Harper. Women run for your lives away from these dinosaurs.

Tories scramble after MP brags of denying funding to family-planning group

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-scramble-after-mp-brags-of-denying-funding-to-family-planning-group/article1995334/

I thought Harper was running the campaign of fear. The Tories aren't going to touch abortion at all. Stop fear mongering.

[msj]

I thought Harper was running the campaign of fear. The Tories aren't going to touch abortion at all. Stop fear mongering.

They can not "touch" abortion by not providing funding to various groups that do "touch" abortion.

So, no, this is not fear mongering.

It is real politics.

[Keepitsimple]

OTTAWA - Planned Parenthood denies it has been defunded by the Conservative government.

A report in the Toronto Star claimed the group lost $18 million in core funding because of ideological opposition to abortion and pro-life activists inside the Conservative Party. But Paul Bell, a spokesman for the group based in London, England, said that's not the case.

"That's certainly the rhetoric. It's certainly what Brad Trost seems to think. It's certainly what some people from other political parties seem to think, but that's not what we've been told," Bell said.

Conservative MP Brad Trost was secretly recorded at a recent pro-life rally boasting that he and other MPs opposed to abortion helped defund Planned Parenthood.

Bell notes the group came to a three-year funding agreement with the Stephen Harper government in 2007 and abortion has not been an issue.

"[Planned Parenthood] delivers 70 million health services worldwide each year and only 2.1% are abortion related and less than half (of that) are actual abortions," Bell told QMI Agency.

The international umbrella group for local Planned Parenthood groups said it has applied for further Canadian funding for the G8 maternal health program known as the 'Muskoka initiative' and Bell says that proposal does not include abortion.

"We would be the first to congratulate Canada on their Muskoka initiative because it puts women's health and sexual and reproductive health back on the G8 agenda," Bell said.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/21/planned-parenthood-group-says-funding-stable

[msj]

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/21/planned-parenthood-group-says-funding-stable

So, they came to a 3 year agreement in 2007.

Let's say it's for 2008, 2009, and 2010.

It is now 2011. If they came to another 3 year agreement, for 2011, 2012, and 2013 then would they not have agreed to this in ... 2010?

Which is 1 year late ... as already discussed.

---------------

I give full marks for Planned Parenthood trying to kiss ass though.