Canada - The Abortion Issue Reopened or Not

A backbench Conservative Member of Parliament has created emotional fury in Canada's House of Commons by introducing a private members bill that asks the question at what point a fetus is considered a human being before the moment of complete birth.  It asks to  examine existing medical evidence to review Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. 

The complete text of Motion 312 is below:

M-312
-- February 6, 2012 -- Mr. Woodworth (Kitchener Centre) -- That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of 12 members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

that the special
committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth, (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth, (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth, (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions
of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1).

The motion, which was discussed last night in Parliament, has created controversy, with the opposition parties accusing the Conservative government that this is a back door way to bring the abortion issue front and centre and to reopen the debate.  

Although Prime Minister Stephen Harper had often reiterated that his government would not legislate on this issue, the alarm signals were fired up by the pro-choice movement, including some MPs that sent tweets on the issue.  

Despite the alarm, Stephen Woodworth's motion received no support.  Most Members of Parliament and Canadians as a whole consider this a settled issue.   When the motion came up for discussion, Woodworth made an opening statement, approximately 15 minutes, to introduce his motion.  

 

Woodworth said that his motion merely proposes to study the current law's 400-year-old definition of when a person is defined as a human being is dishonest and most Canadians don't agree with it. Canadians don't accept the notion in the law that "birth is a moment of magical transformation that changes a child from a non-human to a human being," Woodworth said.

"Motion 312 simply calls for a study of the evidence about when a child becomes a human being. It does not propose any answer to that question," he said.

The bill called for a committee, consisting of a majority number of government MPs to study the motion and submit a report to Parliament within ten months.

Conservative Party Whip, Gordon O'Connor was one of the MPs that rejected the motion by stating that despite Woodworth's claims, the motion is intended to lead to a change in Canada's abortion laws and that it should be rejected.

 

Of course, a change in the definition of the law would have implications under Canada's Criminal Code.   Below is subsection 223 (1)

223.
(1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

 

 New Democratic Party Leader and Leader of the Official Opposition has stated all of his members will vote against the bill, while Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said his members would be permitted a free vote.  Prime Minister Harper has stated in the House that he has no intention of reopening the debate and that he personally would vote against the motion.  

"In my case, I will be voting against the motion," Harper said.

 

Gordon O'Connor  said that the government's position is very clear that it will not re-open the abortion debate.

 

Niki Ashton, New Democrat,  said during the debate that her party is unanimously opposed to the motion.

 "In Canada, in 2012, a woman's right to choose is not up for negotiation," she said. She also rejected the claim that the Prime Minister did not want the debate reopened.

"If the prime minister didn't want a woman's right to choose to be debated, we wouldn't be here tonight," she said.

Liberal MP Hedy Fry said Liberals don't support any legislative action that might criminalize abortion.  . She criticized Prime Minister  Harper for allowing Woodworth's motion to stand for debate.

While the motion remains on the order paper, it will take a while before it resurfaces for the second time.   It is doubtful that it will get any support, even from the conservative government.  Most MPs and Canadians are not interested in criminalizing abortion, let alone have this debate reopened.

 

 

Alberta Election: Wildrose Leader Stance on Abortion-Gay Rights

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith felt compelled to snuff out a controversy, which questioned her position on "Conscience Issues."   While recent polls indicate that the Wildrose Party may have lost some ground because of the controversy, overall the party still holds a healthy lead over the Progressive Conservatives, while Wildrose leader Danielle Smith's approval rating has slipped slightly.

On Wednesday Smith said when her party elected a leader it was clear to them that they elected a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate.

 "When our members elected me they knew they were electing a candidate that was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.  The only way we're going to be able to become a mainstream, big-tent conservative party capable of forming government is to focus on the issues that matter to Albertans. If I am elected premier, a Wildrose government will not be legislating in areas of morality."

While this issue was infused by a Calgary blogger, it was quickly taken up by Progressive Conservative leader Alison Redford.  It reminded this blogger of U.S. politics "deja vous," where Rick Santorum got sucked into social issues, such as abortion and contraception.  It effectively changed the focus of his campaign.

In Canada, the issue of gay rights has already been handled by the Supreme Court, including gay marriage and abortion.   Smith also affirmed that the promised citizen initiatives would have to stand the test of being constitutional and in accordance with Canada's Charter of Rights.

While this should put the matter to rest, Smith is doubtful that it will.  She believes that it was pushed by the Progressive Conservatives to divert the discussion from the real issues.

 "I think what you see normally when a conservative challenger comes up, you see this very commonly that these kinds of issues are brought up to fearmonger.  We saw it with Preston Manning, with Stockwell Day, we saw it with Stephen Harper so it actually doesn't surprise me that it has come up this election but it does disappoint me."

The Progressive Conservatives have recently framed the Wildrose Party as the party of old, white guys determined to resurrect regressive social policies.  The Progressive Conservative campaign manager, Susan Elliot, has suggested that the target of the citizen-initiatives would be women.

"Ethnic minorities are targets. Gays and lesbians are targets. We're the targets of those kinds of things."

Despite those suggestions, the Wildrose Party continues to lead in the polls.  A CTVHQ poll, published yesterday, finds that 43% of decided voters favour the Wildrose Party, followed by Progressive Conservatives at 29%, the NDP at 12% and Liberals at 11%.  

In the meantime, Progressive Conservative Leader, Alison Redford's approval rating has dropped from 59% to 46% last week.   Danielle Smith, who had an approval rating of 56% has slipped slightly to 54%, which could be within the margin of error. 

50% of Albetans believe that the Progressive Conservatives do not deserve re-election, while 23% say they should be re-elected.  27% are unsure.

Tonight at 6:30 pm the Alberta Leader's Debate will be broadcast throughout the province by a media consortium.  While debates in Alberta normally haven't received a lot of attention, this debate will be pivotal.   It may be the turning point for those still undecided.  The focus will undoubtedly be on the two women that lead the Wildrose and Progressive Conservative Party.    Smith will most certainly go after the PCs wreckless spending.  If the debate remains stays on the issues that matter, it could be an interesting exchange.

Party Platforms

Alberta Election: Are Conscience Issues Bogus?

With the Alberta election less than two weeks away, the initial momentum enjoyed by the Wildrose party seems to be shifting, with latest polls indicating a neck on neck race.  While the Wildrose Party campaigned primarily on fiscal issues, the question of conscience entered the race after a question raised by  a Calgary blogger, Jane Cawthorne, on each parties position on abortion.  The Wildrose response:

“The legalities of abortion fall under federal jurisdiction. We respect that Albertans view social issues differently, which is why Wildrose would immediately introduce legislation allowing citizens to put issues like abortion to a citizen-initiated referendum.”

Although there was an immediate clarification by Danielle Smith on the issue, the question and responses appear to have raised doubt in the minds of the electorate. 

 “Citizen initiative is and has always been an important part of the Wildrose platform.  However, any initiative must first be vetted by a federally-appointed judge to determine whether or not it is constitutional.”

Alison Reford is using the Wildrose conscience policy as a wedge issue and it appears to be working.


“I was absolutely amazed we were having this conversation in Alberta because I believe that all Albertans want to live in a place where we respect each other, where we feel safe,”

Is the issue of conscience right bogus?  You bet it is.  First of all the rights of marriage commissioners and doctors is already enshrined.  Abortions, which are mostly performed in larger centres like Edmonton and Calgary, have doctors that don't object to these procedures.  Marriage Commissioners are not in the employ of the Alberta government and get paid by the clients who hire them to perform their marriages.

" For practical purposes, the issue doesn’t actually mean much. Health care providers already have conscience clauses codified in their own standards of practice. Both the Alberta College of Pharmacists, and the College of Physicians and Services allow practitioners to opt-out of procedures or services that they find personally problematic. However, health care workers must then refer patients to other facilities."  National Post

Despite the fact that marriage commissioners can already opt out of performing marriage for same sex couples, there have been no complaints in the Province from couples about commissioners who are unwilling to marry them. 

The issue, IMHO, has been fabricated, strays from the real issues of property rights, civil liberties, fiscal irresponsibility and general arrogance of Tories, who seem to think they have an entitlement to govern.  Instead of discussing the overspending culture of Progressive Conservatives, it appears that fear mongering is right out the playbook of Liberals in Central Canada and Obama Administration in the U.S. 

Perhaps Albertans should be afraid of Alison Redford, who is a big "Progressive" and very little "conservative."  Let's just remember that both the Liberal Party and New Democratic Parties of Alberta are not a home for someone with political ambition in Alberta.  The Progressive Conservative Party has become the home of ambitious Liberals.  

The past two weeks have been full of promises and more spending, despite the rush to passing a budget prior to the election.  Voters should take a look at the various party platforms and make up their minds.  Don't let bogus issues determine how you vote.  

Check out the Party Platforms

Thursday, April 12th, will be the Leader's Debate, broadcast from 6:30 pm to 8 pm.  Get engaged and watch it.  After the debate there are eleven more days to pose direct questions to the leaders.  First and foremost get out and vote.