Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

blueblood · April 22, 2011

We know Brad Trost was bragging about PP not getting the funding.

We know he was bragging about it in the context of abortion.

We know the filing deadline for PP has come and gone.

We know PP is "controversial" primarily because of their abortion stance (as well as birth control).

These are the things we know and these are the things we can interpret as either being very convenient coincidences or a particular direction that some in the government would like to take if a majority is won.

This is the most proposterous debate in this election. This debate was settled 20 yrs ago or so. There are lots of people who don't like the results and have a valid point, but that's neither here nor there because its been settled.

Here's how I see it. The "pro-lifers" get a free pass on cutting funding because they can wave the economy/taxpayer card and complain about the costs. That's as far as it goes. Any further "meddling" and the pass is revoked because the whole debate from 20 yrs ago rears its ugly head. Another thing I see is that brad trost has buried his political career and will either be stuck in the back benches or be forced to retire soon. All trost did was go to his base and gave a theory of what went on. I don't think trost is high enough up on the food chain to be having much input on monetary policy.

My question is why would harper want to risk losing an election and possibly his majority govt in 2015 over an issue settled 20 yrs ago to a party that would use this to beat the tories over the head with. Nope, harper will cut the purse strings and that's it. Harper prefers to be PM instead of appeasing some religious people who will vote for him anyway.

msj · April 22, 2011

Sure. The guy is happy he's achived his goal. Where is the "abortion issue" here?

No. His own words:

"we used to defund Planned Parenthood, because it has been absolute disgrace that this organization and several others like it have been receiving one penny of Canadian taxpayers' dollars," Trost said.

Where is the "abortion issue" here?

Where is the "abortion issue" here?

We have words of the PP representative from London, Mr. Bell. The PP asked for funding for the business not related the "abortion issue".

Every event has many facets. Interpretation based on assumptions that contardict known facts is conspiracy.

This is trying to have it both ways: with a wink and a nod to the anti-abortion crusaders who hate PP because some of its funding goes to support abortion rights (not to mention birth control and rights for women) Trost can say that "we" are defunding PP.

On the other hand, there is Yegmann and others who want to claim that no, there is no agenda whatsoever to reduce funding related to abortion - there are "other" reasons these group shouldn't get funding.

You can't have it both ways when one of your own is caught up to his eyeballs in it.

No, it's not a conspiracy - it is politics.

msj · April 22, 2011

All the hand-wringers should take their "right to choose" fight to every other Western country - that's right - Sweden, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc - where they all have Abortion laws that impose restrictions. Why aren't these countries up in arms about taking away the right to choose? It's because they've all had civilized, adult conversations - they've dealt with it and moved on. We're not allowed to do that here in Canada. The question is not whether the Conservatives will take away a woman's right to abortion.....it's whether Canada will ever join the rest of the civilized world in putting some legislated guidelines in place. Or are we the only "enlightened" country in the free world?

Non sequitur.

Rick · April 22, 2011

All the hand-wringers should take their "right to choose" fight to every other Western country - that's right - Sweden, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc - where they all have Abortion laws that impose restrictions. Why aren't these countries up in arms about taking away the right to choose? It's because they've all had civilized, adult conversations - they've dealt with it and moved on. We're not allowed to do that here in Canada. The question is not whether the Conservatives will take away a woman's right to abortion.....it's whether Canada will ever join the rest of the civilized world in putting some legislated guidelines in place. Or are we the only "enlightened" country in the free world?

How about the knuckle dragging baffoons get with the times and accept that we don't have to be like "every other Western country" because we've already been "enlightened" by simply watching the pro-lifers wringing their hands at the thought that abortion is still legal (as it damn well should be).

Like I said earlier in this thread, where there's smoke there's fire and the fact is Harper has lied to Canadians many times over and proven without a shadow of a doubt that he will do anything in his lust for power.

Molly · April 22, 2011

Well... here's a fine bit of grovelling:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Video+Trost+addresses+Planned+Parenthood+issue/4657705/story.html?cid=megadrop_story, and give me a moment....

.... and this is about as priceless as grovelling and tush-defending gets:

Saskatoon-Humboldt candidate Brad Trost said Thursday he is "very, very proud of the work" that he did to help "defend" the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

"We've been able to defend it for the last 16 months," he said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decision-canada/Tory+says+helped+defend+choice+group/4660124/story.html#ixzz1KHOAdklL

Edited April 22, 2011 by Molly

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

This is trying to have it both ways: with a wink and a nod to the anti-abortion crusaders who hate PP because some of its funding goes to support abortion rights (not to mention birth control and rights for women) Trost can say that "we" are defunding PP.

On the other hand, there is Yegmann and others who want to claim that no, there is no agenda whatsoever to reduce funding related to abortion - there are "other" reasons these group shouldn't get funding.

You can't have it both ways when one of your own is caught up to his eyeballs in it.

No, it's not a conspiracy - it is politics.

I'm not so sure. If it's a conspiracy, it's a mild one. Trost is a backbencher with little enough influence. This isn't a similar situation to the Bev Oda affair where Kenney went around declaring defunding as a victory for pro-Israel policy. In that case you do have a powerful well-connected Minister who could have conceivably been directly or indirectly applying pressure to have a group defunded. In this case we have a backbencher that 95% of the country probably never heard of before making grandiose claims that he could not even in his wildest dreams actually be true.

bloodyminded · April 22, 2011

This whole story is pretty silly. As has already been stated, pro-life MPs also exist in other Canadian political parties. And in terms of Canadians attitudes towards abortion, we're becoming less and less comfortable with abortion on demand, without any regulations. In fact, Canada is the only industrialized country without any regulations regarding abortion. But that's a seperate issue.

Yep, some people prefer that we don't have a Big-Government nanny state dictating what women can do with their bodies.

Others are statists, who believe in intensifying government regulation on intensely personal issues.

But describing this as spreading like a wildfire is complete hyperbole. So is the so-called woman's right to choose.

"So-called"?

So now you've entered seriously into denial land.

There is (objectively) no "so-called" about it. It exists, even though you disagree with it.

Edited April 22, 2011 by bloodyminded

bloodyminded · April 22, 2011

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

Yeah, it must be the breast exams, or the referrals to doctors, or other such controversial PP activities.

blueblood · April 22, 2011

I'm not so sure. If it's a conspiracy, it's a mild one. Trost is a backbencher with little enough influence. This isn't a similar situation to the Bev Oda affair where Kenney went around declaring defunding as a victory for pro-Israel policy. In that case you do have a powerful well-connected Minister who could have conceivably been directly or indirectly applying pressure to have a group defunded. In this case we have a backbencher that 95% of the country probably never heard of before making grandiose claims that he could not even in his wildest dreams actually be true.

Exactly, guys like trost are a dime a dozen. If harper wins a majority, why would he risk it by opening a can of worms closed over 20 yrs ago. Being PM is worth more than being mr. Pro life.

There are plenty of people who would be happy to replace trost.

Molly · April 22, 2011

There are plenty of people who would be happy to replace trost.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! Trost is the one they found to replace Pankiw!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pankiw

This reaches beyond irony into out-and-out slapstick!

It looks good on 'em.

Smallc · April 22, 2011

Yeah, it must be the breast exams, or the referrals to doctors, or other such controversial PP activities.

Exactly. I voted NDP because of this reason alone. Not because I'm scared of Harper of the CPC, but their social conservative supporters.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Smallc

Rick · April 22, 2011

Exactly. I voted NDP because of this reason alone. Not because I'm scared of Harper of the CPC, but their social conservative supporters.

And those same social conserative supporters is the same wing from which Harper gained control of the party.

It's his very base and those with whom he identifies most with.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Rick

Smallc · April 22, 2011

And thos same social conserative supporters is the same wing from which Harper gained control of the party.

It's his very base and those with whom he identifies most with.

Maybe, but I think he's smarter than to left that part of him out. It doesn't matter now, since I've already voted.

capricorn · April 22, 2011

we've already been "enlightened" by simply watching the pro-lifers wringing their hands at the thought that abortion is still legal (as it damn well should be).

To declare something as "legal", that something has to be attached to legislation. Canada does not have legislation on abortion. Therefore, it is false to state that abortion is legal in Canada. The more accurate statement would be that it is not illegal.

Like I said earlier in this thread, where there's smoke there's fire and the fact is Harper has lied to Canadians many times over and proven without a shadow of a doubt that he will do anything in his lust for power.

I don't know if it's so much a lust for power as it is a dogged determination to wipe the Liberal party off the map of Canadian politics. How's that looking so far?

blueblood · April 22, 2011

Maybe, but I think he's smarter than to left that part of him out. It doesn't matter now, since I've already voted.

Ah but it matters, because we get to be like the talking heads on tv. Don't worry, I cancelled your vote :lol:

As for harper, being pm is far more important than being mr. Social conservative. The centrist vote in ontario is worth more to harper than the bc bible thumper vote.

capricorn · April 22, 2011

Trost is a backbencher with little enough influence.

Maybe not but having won by over 18,000 votes last time around he'll probably keep his seat.

cybercoma · April 22, 2011

Maybe, but I think he's smarter than to left that part of him out. It doesn't matter now, since I've already voted.

Smarter than what? With a majority it doesn't matter. He can do what he wants. He whips his caucus, makes his political appointments and gets to call all the shots for 4 years, unhindered by public opinion, parliament, or anything else.

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

And those same social conserative supporters is the same wing from which Harper gained control of the party.

It's his very base and those with whom he identifies most with.

And it's those social conservatives that Harper has largely left in the dust. He throws them the odd bone here and there, but he has moved the party right into the centre. If he didn't, well, we wouldn't be talking about a Tory government.

capricorn · April 22, 2011

With a majority it doesn't matter. He can do what he wants. He whips his caucus, makes his political appointments and gets to call all the shots for 4 years, unhindered by public opinion, parliament, or anything else.

Just wait til he appoints his own Supreme Court judges. As a matter of fact a few are up for retirement.

Rick · April 22, 2011

Smarter than what? With a majority it doesn't matter. He can do what he wants. He whips his caucus, makes his political appointments and gets to call all the shots for 4 years, unhindered by public opinion, parliament, or anything else.

Anything else like our constitution for which Harper has shown nothing but contempt for.

blueblood · April 22, 2011

Maybe not but having won by over 18,000 votes last time around he'll probably keep his seat.

Ah, but mine and smallc's mp had over 50% of the votes, but got on harper's bad list and eventually had to "retire"

Rick · April 22, 2011

To declare something as "legal", that something has to be attached to legislation. Canada does not have legislation on abortion. Therefore, it is false to state that abortion is legal in Canada. The more accurate statement would be that it is not illegal.

I don't know if it's so much a lust for power as it is a dogged determination to wipe the Liberal party off the map of Canadian politics. How's that looking so far?

It's looking much like any other country in history where a zealot rose to power and wiped out dissenters through one means or the other...

Gulags and concentration camps come to mind...

capricorn · April 22, 2011

Ah, but mine and smallc's mp had over 50% of the votes, but got on harper's bad list and eventually had to "retire"

Point taken.

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

Smarter than what? With a majority it doesn't matter. He can do what he wants. He whips his caucus, makes his political appointments and gets to call all the shots for 4 years, unhindered by public opinion, parliament, or anything else.

I'm assuming Harper, or at least the Tories in general, in the event they get a majority (which I think is pretty much out of the question, an impossible hill to climb now), would like to be re-elected in 2015. If they reopen the abortion can of worms, or any of those other cans of worms the social conservatives in his party so wish he would, the odds of another government are very low. Social issues aren't like taxation or spending issues, where you can do harsh things for three or four years, and then just change course at the pre-election budget. If you make abortions harder to get or try to ban gay marriage or any of those things, you can't very well then turn around in the spring of 2015 and go "Whoops, well, we're legalizing all that again."

Beyond that, most of those issues near and dear to the religious wing of the Tories would likely enter the government into ugly, bruising and potentially embarrassing court battles which I think most legal experts would agree they would be on the losing side of.

Harper plays politics tough, no doubt about it, and he's a miserable bastard to Parliament, that's true too. But policy wise, whether he likes it or not, he's not the leader of the Reform Party, he's the leader of the Conservative Party, and that party pretty much has to steer clear of abortion, gay rights and so forth.

I'm not trying to defend Harper here... or maybe I am, at least on this particular point. I distrust the man on other points, but he's no moron, and striking a match to abortion, even in a majority situation, would light this country on fire. Being in a majority doesn't somehow make one magically impervious to public opinion, and democracy is littered with the burnt-out remains of majority governments who took on the public mood and lost.

Edited April 22, 2011 by ToadBrother

blueblood · April 22, 2011

Smarter than what? With a majority it doesn't matter. He can do what he wants. He whips his caucus, makes his political appointments and gets to call all the shots for 4 years, unhindered by public opinion, parliament, or anything else.

And in 4 years that party would get destroyed in an election. Do you think the party would stand for that? Harper would be like chretien - gone!