Anti-choice Motion 312 wouldn't see light of day without PM's thumbprints: Mulcair.
by Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
Ottawa, Sept. 25, 2012 — Straight Goods News: Despite repeated pledges from Prime Minister Stephen Harper not to re-open the abortion debate, the controversy is back in Parliament. Wednesday, the House will vote on Conservative backbencher and longtime anti-abortion crusader Stephen Woodworth’s private member's bill, Motion 312. [Update: On September 26, the House voted 203-91 to reject Motion 312, although eight Cabinet ministers, including women's minister Rona Ambrose voted in favour of it.]
Now and historically, the Constitution and Criminal Code have defined a “person” as someone born alive. Motion 312 would define fetuses as “human beings”, which would open the back door to laws restricting abortions.
"The motion is about the anti-choice goal to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible," Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) told Straight Goods News. "From the moment of conception if they can."
NDP leader Tom Mulcair, like many observers, feels the move has been orchestrated. Harper gains an advantage when Woodworth fires up hard-core supporters — at a time when Harper's approval rating has never been lower.
Media reports indicate that prominent Cabinet ministers including Jason Kenney will be backing the motion, although Harper says he does not support it.
Today, Woodworth played coy with reporters about the Prime Minister's position on the bill. "It is an immature view of politics to think just because you like and admire someone, that one cannot ever disagree with someone you like adn admire. I don't consider anyone who votes for my motion is voting against Mr. Harper, they are voting differently than Mr. Harper," said Woodworth.
NDP leader Tom Mulcair told <I><B>Straight Goods News</B></I> the Conservatives are playing an obvious game. "We hear that there are some ministers who are going to be voting with the Woodworth motion. So they're even allowing not just backbenchers to vote with it, but even ministers.
“I've never seen Stephen Harper have any difficulty controlling his backbenchers or his ministers. So it's a way of signalling to the Reform Party base through the back door that this is actually what they kind of would like to do. Enough of them will [vote to] make sure that the thing is defeated. In the meantime, they've sent the signal that they wanted to send," said Mulcair.
"Stephen Harper continues to claim that he doesn't want to re-open the abortion debate. How is it then possible for him to be allowing his ministers to stand up and do just that? To vote for a motion that would reopen the abortion debate?"
"If they can achieve legal personhood for fetuses, then they've laid the groundwork for that goal, or at least to restrict later abortions after 20 weeks," said Joyce Arthur. "It's been clear from the get-go that Woodworth was interested in the latter. And Harper knew too because the PMO's office was sending out form letters in the spring to people who had written in about Motion 312, stating that he opposed the motion but also mentioning that the intent of the motion was to enact gestational limits on abortion.
"But no-one knew about that at the time! Then over the summer, a fight broke out in anti-choice ranks between factions who wanted a gestational limit law, and those who wanted a 'from conception' law or other types of restrictions."
Arthur predicts that next on the anti-choice agenda will be attempts to defund abortion in Ontario and perhaps other provinces. In terms of legislation, she expects a "conscience" bill "to allow healthcare professionals to refuse to do their job if it conflicts with their religious beliefs, and perhaps an informed consent law that would require women to listen to anti-choice propaganda."
The House of Commons will vote on Woodworth's motion Wednesday evening.
About Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
Ish Theilheimer is founder and publisher of SG News and lives in Golden Lake, ON. Samantha Bayard is an Ottawa reporter and an editorial and administrative assistant at SGNews.
4 Responses to “Re-defining “person” would re-open abortion debate”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A-aaa-hh, it's so noble and idealistic to legislate rights for the unborn…. but so much harder to sacrifice the money used for political entitlement and perks or fighter jets and war, which could AND SHOULD ensure that existing children and their families be supported by adequate jobs, nutritious food, decent housing, unpolluted water and respect for the quality of their lives!!!
Yes. Thank you Shrob for pointing this out. Why indeed is there so much argument about abortion and so little about how to nurture children after they are born. Legislation is the work of power systems and all the aspects of nurture and care are for the servant classes.
Even though women have rights discussions around health, education, social services are parked under a political term – "socialism", and instantly dismissed.
What happens to a society that focuses on power over yet expresses contempt for the responsibility of that society to care?
I'm not in the least bit rightwing, but I agree that the definition of 'person' as currently put forth by the Canadian government is incorrect. This government can agree with God on this or that position, but I'm under no illusion about it's true character. Regardless, With 'conception', you have a person. That's what God's word says and that's good enough for me. Those who are hostile to the idea of God, and religion, can't give me any reason to believe differently. Indeed, They hardly pretend to feel that I am free to hold my own view of this.
“That’s what God’s word says and that’s good enough for me.”
Well, it very well may be good enough for you but a significant number of people have some discomfort with the idea of make believe entities, omniscient as they are, calling the shots on this mortal coil. It’s quite a reach, your basing an argument on the “firm footing” of a fairy tale. There may be many good reasons for your conclusion, but that one is too shaky.