Alberta Election 2012

[dpwozney]

Because the courts say when you limit funding you limit access.

Delisting abortion does not have to mean that abortion providers would have less funding.

That is why it is illegal to have two-tiered healthcare it is about access.

Delisting abortion does not have to mean that there would be two-tiered healthcare or less access.

You don't understand how our health care system works.

I understand correctly that taxpayers pay for abortions that happen not to be medically necessary and that could instead be paid by people having the abortions.

[punked]

Delisting abortion does not have to mean that abortion providers would have less funding.

Delisting abortion does not have to mean that there would be two-tiered healthcare or less access.

I understand correctly that taxpayers pay for abortions that happen not to be medically necessary and that could instead be paid by people having the abortions.

How is saying "abortions are mandated to be provided" but if you can afford to pay you do not making it two-tiered. Again you don't understand our healthcare system. If a poor person gets funding for a medical procedure a rich person is entitled to the same services for the same cost.

You keep saying medically necessary. You need to read the Courts decision they said that definition doesn't apply to abortion. They ruled if a women wants an abortion it is then medically necessary. Again don't take that fight up with me you need to take that one to the courts or Harper.

Edited April 19, 2012 by punked

[fellowtraveller]

The fact, that Danielle Smith supports the system of having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions, does matter to certain potential voters.

Wrong. Every abortion performed is a result of the determination of being medically necessary as determined by a patient and her physician. ProChoice groups and priests are not involved in the decision.

I doubt the WR intends to fight this in court. According to CBC News, “Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said she has absolutely no intention of legislating on abortion, and that includes delisting

Pretty funny stuff if were not so serious.

Smith is being cute with her words, since she knows full well that any medical procedure, any at all, can be added or removed by the Alberta government without legislation. It is a regulatory order, not legislation. So Smith is both right and a sneaky liar when she states she won't legislate it, she will simply delist.

She's also right that Wildrose won't fight it in court, why spend Party money when she can use the full resources of the AB govt? She won't defend the rights or wrongs of abortion, she'll fight on the basis of the provinces right to manage health care. It is a clever plan, I must admit.

If the feds withhold a few million normally spent on abortions from transfer payments, what does she care, it is peanuts?

And win or lose, it will take years for the issue to be resolved ion the courts.

Getting abortion law to the courts is a big win for ProLife.

Stopping abortions for poor people is a big win for Pro Life.

And ProLife is a big part of WildRose support.

It will be a debt paid by WildRose to the church groups, though not nearly the whole debt for getting her elected.

[dpwozney]

How is saying "abortions are mandated to be provided" but if you can afford to pay you do not making it two-tiered.

Is the above sentence a question? The above sentence lacks a question mark, but begins with the word “how”. Also, the grammar is problematic.

Again you don't understand our healthcare system. If a poor person gets funding for a medical procedure a rich person is entitled to the same services for the same cost.

I understand the health-care system, but you do not appear to understand what is meant by “delisting abortion”.

Emergency medical services, or ambulance services, are delisted.

Emergency medical services, or ambulance services, are not denied to people because they cannot afford to pay.

Emergency medical services or ambulance services, are the same for a “poor person” who cannot pay and does not pay, as they are for a “rich person” who can pay and does pay.

You keep saying medically necessary. You need to read the Courts decision they said that definition doesn't apply to abortion. They ruled if a women wants an abortion it is then medically necessary.

If true, such a ruling would have been made by people who stated their allegiance to Elizabeth the Second.

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:

“Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.

Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

[punked]

What a dumb argument. Again in Canada EVERY Abortion is medically necessary as ruled by our Supreme Court. If you don't like it then you need to take up with Harper because that part of the law which is found in the Charter is FEDERAL.

[dpwozney]

Every abortion performed is a result of the determination of being medically necessary as determined by a patient and her physician.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Everyone is free to make up their own definition as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Not every abortion, that is performed, is medically necessary.

[punked]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Everyone is free to make up their own definition as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Not every abortion, that is performed, is medically necessary.

Not when our government has a definition of Medically necessary. The law says every abortion is medically necessary sorry dude.

[dpwozney]

What a dumb argument. Again in Canada EVERY Abortion is medically necessary as ruled by our Supreme Court. If you don't like it then you need to take up with Harper because that part of the law which is found in the Charter is FEDERAL.

Not when our government has a definition of Medically necessary. The law says every abortion is medically necessary sorry dude.

Again, everyone, including your government, is entitled to their own opinion as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Everyone, including your government, is free to make up their own definition as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Not every abortion, that is performed, is medically necessary.

The so-called “Supreme Court judges”, the people who voted for the Charter, and Harper all stated their allegiances to Elizabeth the Second.

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:

“Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.

Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

Edited April 19, 2012 by dpwozney

[madmax]

Abortion funding is not going to sink a campaign. It's the only social issue where the voter base is slowly swinging back to the right.

Erm no its not.. it is always and will always be the 3rd rail... and voters are polarized.. it is not something that comes and goes with popularity.

However.. people can fool themselves that they can win this in court....

I am sure Alberta has money to burn for such a challenge.

[madmax]

Wrong. Every abortion performed is a result of the determination of being medically necessary as determined by a patient and her physician. ProChoice groups and priests are not involved in the decision.

Pretty funny stuff if were not so serious.

Smith is being cute with her words, since she knows full well that any medical procedure, any at all, can be added or removed by the Alberta government without legislation. It is a regulatory order, not legislation. So Smith is both right and a sneaky liar when she states she won't legislate it, she will simply delist.

She's also right that Wildrose won't fight it in court, why spend Party money when she can use the full resources of the AB govt? She won't defend the rights or wrongs of abortion, she'll fight on the basis of the provinces right to manage health care. It is a clever plan, I must admit.

If the feds withhold a few million normally spent on abortions from transfer payments, what does she care, it is peanuts?

And win or lose, it will take years for the issue to be resolved ion the courts.

Getting abortion law to the courts is a big win for ProLife.

Stopping abortions for poor people is a big win for Pro Life.

And ProLife is a big part of WildRose support.

It will be a debt paid by WildRose to the church groups, though not nearly the whole debt for getting her elected.

excellent analysis

[dpwozney]

Every abortion performed is a result of the determination of being medically necessary as determined by a patient and her physician.

Can you prove that “every abortion performed is a result of the determination of being medically necessary as determined by a patient and her physician”?

Again in Canada EVERY Abortion is medically necessary as ruled by our Supreme Court.

What statement, or statements, in what ruling by your “Supreme Court” supposedly claims that “EVERY Abortion is medically necessary”?

The law says every abortion is medically necessary sorry dude.

What law “says every abortion is medically necessary”?

Edited April 19, 2012 by dpwozney

[madmax]

Watching the Leaders Forum on CBC NOW!!!

Tune in...

First Impressions...(I have never heard them speak before)

Vocal Tone: Not content or posture

Redford Suprised me.. sounds better then I expected.

Smith: And this surprised me too.. There is something in her voice that is nauseating

Mason: Surprised again...sounds better then expected.

Sherman: Not suprised.. sounds exactly as expected.

Edited April 19, 2012 by madmax

[punked]

Watching the Leaders Forum on CBC NOW!!!

Tune in...

First Impressions...(I have never heard them speak before)

Vocal Tone: Not content or posture

Redford Suprised me.. sounds better then I expected.

Smith: And this surprised me too.. There is something in her voice that is nauseating

Mason: Surprised again...sounds better then expected.

Sherman: Not suprised.. sounds exactly as expected.

Watching they are tearing Smith up right now.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Alberta Leaders' Debate Thoughts:

Danielle Smith/Wildrose- Honest but definitely the Canadian Sarah Palin (slightly less annoying/crazy though with a handful of decent ideas). Definitely tried to come off more centrist/libertarian than right-wing.

Alison Redford/Progressive Conservative- Big. Fat. Liar. Absolutely terrible and hope she gets the boot this election. Annoying as well.

Raj Sherman/Liberals- Lol. Please come back from the planet Uranus. The Liberal Party has the worst ideas ever.

Brian Mason/NDP- Great ideas, not the greatest communicator. One idea I didn't like, but the rest outweighs it.

[waldo]

Alison Redford/Progressive Conservative- Big. Fat. Liar. Absolutely terrible and hope she gets the boot this election.

lies?... the big&fat ones?

[madmax]

Following this election has been one of the more interesting Provincial Elections.

From an outsiders perspective.. it looks like the Conservatives need to get tossed. Redford appeared more competent then Smith, but I got very tired of listening to a bunch of excuses. I also can't see alot of air between the PCs and the WR with regards to policy or potential candidates. If the PCs have allowed a guy like Morton to be front and centre....whats the difference.

You have far right wing party pretending its further to the right of the other and another far right wing party pretending its to the left of the other.

But really one is tired and its time has come and the other is new, going to have alot of rookies and should be able to provide ample entertainment to keep the media buzzing. It could be better then electing Rob Ford, but I don't think it will be as looney as Sarah Palin.

I find the PC campaign very sad. I hope they take a beating, I don't believe a word I have read from them. Their campaign, platform and policies go against what they have been doing and intend to do. I think the only thing that PCs are upset about.. is that the WR is going to be enacting the same policies and take the credit.

Regardless it would appear both Parties are going to struggle as a government, and one is no longer focused and the other would rather divert focus on social conservative issues.

My other observation is watching the Liberals. I wouldn't be surprised if they are wiped off the map.

Sherman has been a poor leader and I have to wonder what the Liberals were thinking. I see a party that means nothing and is pretending to be more to the left of the NDP, but the question is "Why" when there is little to gain from such a position and lots to lose.. including all their seats.

The NDP has been solid to a certain degree. Mason taking a small party with a negative image and is often referred to with disdain and as a joke, yet they do not look like the 3 Ring Circus that Smith provides with the WR.

This election is going to be about change.

I believe the next election will be about challenging the government to be better.

I believe that Albertans will get the government they deserve.

For better or for worse

Edited April 19, 2012 by madmax

[TheNewTeddy]

With this late PC bounce the results might just be interesting. Then again with so many undecideds it could be a landslide. I'm predicting anywhere between 83 and 0 seats for all 4 parties. (trollface)

[Newfoundlander]

The Globe and Mail endorsed Redford and the PC Party, they're the party of change.

[Boges]

Did I mentioned how hot Danielle Smith is?

[nittanylionstorm07]

Did I mentioned how hot Danielle Smith is?

Gross. I take it you like man voices?

[Boges]

Gross. I take it you like man voices?

Her voice is really no concern of mine.

Ever heard Zoey Dechanelle's voice?

She's no Supermodel, but for someone in her 40's she's pretty cute.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Her voice is really no concern of mine.

Ever heard Zoey Dechanelle's voice?

She's no Supermodel, but for someone in her 40's she's pretty cute.

Zooey Deschanel doesn't have a man voice... just a squeaky voice.

[madmax]

The Globe and Mail endorsed Redford and the PC Party, they're the party of change.

Orwell would be proud.

[Boges]

I'm not following this election much but Sun News is talking a lot about it.

Redford sounds like a female Dalton McGuinty. She's totally going to get pwned in Alberta.

[madmax]

Her voice is really no concern of mine.

Ever heard Zoey Dechanelle's voice?

She's no Supermodel, but for someone in her 40's she's pretty cute.

I guess thats true if you only look at pictures of a fire to get warm....

... her facial expressions and squinty/blinking eyes stood out more then her natural looks.....