Conservatives are not the same everywhere. In Canada, a Conservative Party backbencher offered a motion "to have a committee examine whether a fetus should be considered a human being before it is born, and at what point exactly that designation should be given" (Globe and Mail). He attempted to paint his motion as not about undermining or changing current abortion rights, but everyone saw through that immediately.
This is the kind of thing that American conservative legislators would propose as a matter of course-- in fact, this is a rather tame version of what pro-life legislators might do, for example offering amendments to the Constitution to give the unborn constitutional rights.
In Canada, however, the political consensus is different. The Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, came out against the motion, essentially asserting that the question of abortion rights is closed.
The motion went forward and was defeated. Opponents of the motion seemed particularly peeved that the Minister on the Status of Women voted for it. Their anger over her vote is an example of the pro-choice axiom that one cannot be a feminist and pro-life (or, as one NDP MP suggested, pro-life and for women's equality) -- a supposition that irritates pro-lifers to no end.
Ultimately, this motion had as much success as its more extreme and direct American variations: None. In recent years, the pro-life movement has found much more success with chipping-away type regulations than the big gesture. Success in the obvious sense may not be the point here, however. As someone noted in the article, this may be about throwing some red meat to base voters, although I think these kinds of motions always have some effect as barrages in the hearts and minds war.
This is the kind of thing that American conservative legislators would propose as a matter of course-- in fact, this is a rather tame version of what pro-life legislators might do, for example offering amendments to the Constitution to give the unborn constitutional rights.
In Canada, however, the political consensus is different. The Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, came out against the motion, essentially asserting that the question of abortion rights is closed.
The motion went forward and was defeated. Opponents of the motion seemed particularly peeved that the Minister on the Status of Women voted for it. Their anger over her vote is an example of the pro-choice axiom that one cannot be a feminist and pro-life (or, as one NDP MP suggested, pro-life and for women's equality) -- a supposition that irritates pro-lifers to no end.
Ultimately, this motion had as much success as its more extreme and direct American variations: None. In recent years, the pro-life movement has found much more success with chipping-away type regulations than the big gesture. Success in the obvious sense may not be the point here, however. As someone noted in the article, this may be about throwing some red meat to base voters, although I think these kinds of motions always have some effect as barrages in the hearts and minds war.
Comments