I know I haven’t written about ol’ Wankworth and his wankiness in some time. Then again, I haven’t blogged about much of anything as of late. I must offer my 2 cents here, boys ‘n’ girls. I’m happy that this M-312 never came to light. Relieved, actually. However, why do I get this sinking feeling that this whole issue of reopening that whole abortion can of worms is far from over?
On with the festivities!
For openers, I wouldn’t call the vote breakdown of M-312 a crushing win by any stretch of the imagination. 91 MPS — including 4 Liberals, along with East-Edmonton MP Petey Goldring, who was once a Harpercon, now sits as an independent due to his little battle with the breathalizer last year all voted in favour of M-312. Yes, that would include our disgrace of a Status of Women’s minister, ol’ Farm hair herself, Rona Ambrose. Many, I find have found this schocking. I don’t. Not surprised by it in the slightest. Take a look at this chart of MPs who are anti-choice and how they voted on previous anti-choice bills (it is updated as of this month). As you can see, ol’ Farm Hair is not exactly pro-choice. I will get to her a little later in this post.
First, the fact that there are 91 MPs who voted in favour of this wanky motion is in and of itself quite alarming. What is alarming is not the fact that there are so many anti-choice MPs, but rather, how many of them allow this to influence their politics and the way they conduct political business. The very fact that they would impose their will on the masses is stunning. I mean, it’s simple. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.
Furthermore, the fact that this M-312 even saw the light of day proves that while this battle was won, the war is just beginning. Dr. Dawg explains this best.
What pro-choicer, three decades ago, wouldn’t have been delighted to cop a third of the House in a vote: surely a base to build on.
Fast forward to today, a third of the House of Commons voted in favour of this ridiculous motion. Also, do look at how many voted for those other bills attempting to turn back the clock on women’s reproductive freedoms that passed since the days the Harpercons rode into town.
There will be another bill. In fact, I would count on a lot more of these anti-choice bills and motions being tabled in the foreseeable future. Tabled and will see the light of day.
Kelly McParland, of course, is dismayed. He called Stevie Spiteful a ‘wus’ and droned on about how Stevie Spiteful really ain’t all that controlling after all. Well, Mr. McParland, I beg to differ. The truth of the matter is that if Stevie Spiteful really wanted to, that motion, along with Bills C-484 and C-510 (Aka Roxanne’s Law), would never even have seen the light of day. C’mon, boys ‘n’ girls, we all know that Stevie’s Harpercons don’t even have a bowel movement without his approval first. Stevie allowed M-312 to be tabled because he wanted it to. That simple. It’s all part of his modus operandi — boiling the frog. Open the debate which shoulda been closed, then perhaps (I wouldn’t put it past him) and then follow the US’s suit and implement laws to chip away at our reproductive rights. I’ll agree with Mr. McParland on one thing, Stevie is indeed a wus, but only because he has his minions write up and put forth private members’ bills and then test how everyone reacts. Had there not been an outcry against M-312, or not much of one, and if the masses were saying ‘yeah, let’s do reopen the debate!’ I’m sure that Stevie would’ve endorsed it. That did not happen and as such, Stevie detached himself from it — at least, until the next time. For those who think Stevie will keep his election promise to not reopen the abortion debate is sadly deluding themselves. I will go further in saying that those who believe he will never recriminalize abortion are sadly mistaken.
Just because Stevie Spiteful has never officially come out and said that he was squarely “anti-choice”, don’t mean that he ain’t. He also never ever came out said that he was pro-choice. Why would that be? I have already mentioned this in previous posts. Pro-choice politicians are not afraid to admit this to the masses. It is, however, a lot more difficult to announce they’re anti-choice, given the well deserved scorn and scrutiny that would receive. Columnists, pundits and the rest of chattering classes from both sides of the “debate” should really ask ol’ Stevie this direct question. No one dares to, for some reason.
Another thing to think about is look at Stevie Spiteful’s choice for Status of Women, ol’ Farm hair Ambrose herself. Stevie does have a few pro-choice women in his caucus to appoint to this portfolio, but instead, Rona has it. The minister responsible for the status of women voting for a motion that would be a backdoor entrance to strip women of their most fundamental rights is, well, as Tabatha Southey tweeted last night.
Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose voted Yea on #m312. Now waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to vote against corn
On a side note, Ms Southey, don’t put it past Ritz to not vote against corn. But that’s another subject for another time.
Another side note, let’s remember that our esteemed minister of science and technology, Gary Goodyear is a devout creationist.
While it is reprehensible that the others voted in support of M-312, it is especially disgusting when the minister who is supposed to be responsible for ensuring that women’s rights are not being stamped on voted to do just that.
Again, I’m not getting the shock from the masses. She did vote in favour of Bill C-484, didn’t support Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s receiving the Order of Canda and she appeared to have abstained or was absent from voting on C-510, Roxanne’s Law.
We also heard her screeching about so-called gender selective abortions not long ago in her feeble attempt to re open that back door. For me, that signalled a red flag regarding her abilities to defend womeen. In fact, she cites ‘her concern’ for gender selective abortions as her reason to vote in favour of M-312. Yeah, right. If she were really having a problem with gender selective abortions, then she is going about it the wrong way and anyone who has an IQ above sea level and is not clinically insane should know this. Gender selection abortions are a result of the archaic belief by many that sons are more valuable than daughters. As a minister for the status of women, Rona, of all people, should be concentrating on education and promoting gender equality. Clearly, she isn’t doing that. But then, we have a PM who clearly treats his women MPs like crap. Recriminalizing abortion won’t solve this problem. In fact, far from it. Go to any Chinese orphanage to find out this for yourselves.
As for Jason Kenney, well, we always knew where he stood on the socon spectrum, didn’t we, boys ‘n’ girls? He has been touted as a potential successor to Stevie Spiteful. When or if Stevie ever leaves, and a Con leadership race comes in play, ol’ Padre Jason will be (or at least, should be) known as the fetus fetish leadership candidate.
As for this battle, well, unfortunately, we can’t sit on our laurels. Like I said, another hideous anti-choice bill or motion is likely to be tabled sometime in the foreseeable future. Stevie Spiteful could fake outrage or dismay over these bills all he wants. Me thinks he doth protest too much. Once a bill gets tabled that won’t spark too much criticism or public outcry, he’ll announce support for it. Wouldn’t be the first time Stevie or any politician would back out on a promise.
Attempts to recriminalize abortion, essentially, places more value on the fetus than it does for actual live breathing women. Rona Ambrose, minister for status of women, can colour her reasoning for voting the way she did any which way she likes, but at the end of the day, we have a minister of status of women who is actually against everything the ministry is supposed to stand for. She just showed us that she believes that the fetus should have more rights than the people she’s supposed to stand up for. At this rate, we might as well not even have a ministry for the status of women.