Skip to main content

Canadian vs. American conservatives on abortion

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. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Did "tax-funded abortion pills" cause the Newtown tragedy?

Of course not. But this is the kind of nonsense we get when people shamelessly piggyback on a tragedy to score political or culture war points. We also get this kind of analysis when someone is paid to analyze events on cue but has nothing of substance to say regarding something terrible and complex. Watch Mike Huckabee's statement here: I understand Huckabee is trying to make a larger point about the culture, rather than drawing a direct line from the ACA's contraceptive mandate-- which does not mandate taxpayer funding of abortion pills, by the way-- to the Newtown massacre. Still, this is what happens when a tragedy occurs: We extrapolate from an isolated event and determine that it encapsulates, or is the ultimate representation of, something about our society that must be addressed. It is possible, however, that an event is sui generis and cannot then serve as a platform for useful long-term policy reform.  We reduce the cause of a tragedy-- which may ultimat...