Abortion demands already from suppressed religious Cons.

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Abortion demands already from suppressed religious Cons.

2 days later, and the people Harper gagged for 10+ years, are demanding abortion legislation. It does not sound like they are going to give in to him.

Now Canada is going to see what its really like, when Harper muzzled backroomers start their demands. Talk about deception, Harper gags the anti-abortionists until he gets a majority, then they break free. If Harper does not give into them, I think the religious right are going to go berserk. If Harper gives in, then Canada is going to realize its not about tax-cuts.


such dishonesty.


This is going to make the tiny NDP errors vanish.

These guys wants to ban gay marriage too, and the rest of it. well, at least now its out in the open. I think Canada is going to flip when this shit hits the fan.

genXer genXer's picture

Relax, every party has a fringe element. For example when the NDP was in power in BC many on the far left side of things wanted to do away with home schooling. It never happened. Sorry, that's the best example I can come up with, but think about it. The Conservatives didn't work so hard to become a one term government - which is what would happen if they took Canada too far to the right.

Remember: There are the same supposed "Western hillbillies" that recognized Quebec as a nation. Forget distinct society……. Nation. Now that is different that what many expected.


These guys are not going to shut up, or back down. Logically, they should wait 10 years. But they are not logical. They can't wait. They will start screaming for a free vote on abortion, etc. If Harper won't give it to them, they are going to turn on Harper, and make his life hell.

Time will tell what happens. but they are not going to wait. They see abortion as mass murder, and are not going to back down from Harper or the party line for long.


genXer genXer's picture

Sure they will make a ruccus. But what will a free vote in the House of Commons do? 


And Harper will make damn sure it never get's to that. If he is such a dictator guy wanting to stay on in power forever he will reign in these forces.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I saw the two religious types on CTV's Politics show tonight, and one of them ranked abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board as one of his biggest concerns. The other guy wondered what the heck the CWB has to do with religious matters. Laughing

Vansterdam Kid

genXer wrote:

Sure they will make a ruccus. But what will a free vote in the House of Commons do? 


And Harper will make damn sure it never get's to that. If he is such a dictator guy wanting to stay on in power forever he will reign in these forces.

I agree, Harper will crush any direct assaults on abortion rights by his base. But I'm quite confident that they'll try small flanking manoeuvres to restrict access and role back rights as a measure of consolation for the base.


I read that 45% of their key members want the abortion laws. They will harass their own members, and try to force it.

I can't imagine they are going to roll over, as well with the gay marriage. Its a core belief for them.


Wat Tyler

observer521 wrote:

I read that 45% of their key members want the abortion laws. They will harass their own members, and try to force it.

I can't imagine they are going to roll over, as well with the gay marriage. Its a core belief for them.


It will be interesting to see if social issues make the alliance of social and fiscal conservatives break apart.

Mulroney's coalition split along regional lines:  the West and Quebec.

I don't think it will happen though.  The social conservatives really have nowhere else to go.  They aren't numerous enough on their own.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

They don't want to see me in the streets. Bring it on!

Vansterdam Kid

So what? Should we cower in fear now that the barbarians are at the gates? Let them fight over it and expose themselves to Canadians as the troglodytes they are. It's in our interests. The only bad thing is that they got anywhere near the halls of power in the first place.


This is what I mean when I say the Cons are going to self-destruct in 2015.

It'll be 1993 all over again.

All we need to do is create tension and stress in thier ranks and let them do the work for us.


They want to reopen the abortion and gay marriage debates? Fine. Bring it on. The NDP won't be able to hire enough people to take other people's money. It'll make the new gains locks, and open up a host of new seats. Give them enough rope and the SoCons will hang themselves with it.


I think that is why Harper will try to keep a lid on the religious right. Harper must know it would take many years for him to take it that far, must be why that he rules with an iron fist.

Maybe he will tell them they have to wait for the 2nd majority for that until after he stacks the supreme court with his religious judges?

I can't imagine they will be patient enough to wait that long.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

There is no way the Conservatives will let them into the limelight.  The Xian fanatics who have been elected also understand that father Harper knows best. Its not like they are uncomfortable in a hierarchy. I expect to see far more of the NB style campaign where it is access that is really restricted while leaving the supposed right in place.

Besides expecting the MSM to highlight the weaknesses of the ruling party seems a little naive to me.

Vansterdam Kid

I agree to a degree. I don't think there will be any successful grand measures to impose their Talibanesque social conservatism on Canadians. They don't have a big enough parliamentary majority and their socially conservative base is too small a slice of the electorate. It would be political suicide and they think that they're now Canada's natural governing party. It'll be a chess game where they try to take out freedoms one step at a time, while moving the overton window of what's considered acceptable public policy in their direction.

Harper has been very clear on where he's going. Since becoming leader of the merged party he presents a 'moderate' face to the public while playing the game, while slowly dragging things in his direction. Only occasionally do his baser instincts become obvious to even the most casual observer. It takes an observer who is paying more attention to notice his history or modus operandi.

It will be more difficult for him now that he has a majority though, as his loyal base will expect at least a few bones to be thrown there way and this is where they will need to strike a balance between pleasing them and holding onto their gains amongst moderates and 'blue' liberals. And assuming they don't protect Incumbent MPs, liberal Conservatives can expect to be challenged in nomination meetings, but I take Harper at his word (one of the few times I'll ever say this) that his government won't be introducing any legislation to ban abortion or ban same sex marriage, or things like that.


I agree that the strategists will want to wait, and do things slowly, and try to change Canadian culture first.

But why can't progessive media interview some of the suppressed wingnuts, now that he has a majority? Get it out in the open.

CTV closed all comments and shit down that story pretty fast. And of course they will ban those guys from their media.

But the emotional irrational nature of their quest to stop abortions, can't be contained forever.

I think progressive media should interview those religious right-wingers, and get the agenda out in the open.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Progressive media? You are posting in it.  All of the MSM is neo-conservative and pro-globalism.  The Xian fanatics try not to speak to progressive reporters.  The only place to mine for quotes is in the small publications from the Xian right.  But no MSM outlet will do anything except give it a passing mention.  They will mention it in passing so they can point it when confronted for the lack of coverage.   

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

1. I don't actually buy the meme that Harper himself is a social conservative.  He treats social conservatives much as Chretien, Martin et al treated economic progressives.  Lip service, but not much else.

2. Even if he leans social conservative, he is first and foremost an economic neolibeal.  He will not permit any social conservative agenda get in the way of his desire to dismantle  much of the political settlement of the latter part of the last century.

3. He will, however, throw the social conservatives some crumbs.  Watch for some sort of meaningless legislation protecting the rights of religious bodies to refuse same sex marriages - already protected under the Charter.


Observer51 - Just to thow it out there...I really beleive there is little to no chance of Harper being dumb enough to implement a So-Con agenda.  As much talk as there is about Harper's So-Con nature, Alberta conservatives won't even approach it because they know it's political suicide in Alberta, let alone canada.

So-Cons aren't voting for anything other than conservative (maybe some far right Xian heritage party?), so they aren't that concerned of losing that vote.  We'll see fiscal conservatism heavily, but a general lid on social conservatism.  Anything else would be opening a flood gate of anger (once again, including calgary...I can introduce you to many a gay conservative vote here that vote conservative with little worry as to a so-con agenda).

It's something thats always confused me...So-Con is a pretty tiny section of conservatism in canada, and the cons in power are not willing to sacrifice their majority (or minority) with a heavy so-con agenda.



ETA - Ever write a post only to realize the person who posted right before you said the same thing? ;)   I agree with Malcom's post entirely.


funny typo:


CTV closed all comments and shit down that story pretty fast. And of course they will ban those guys from their media.

CTV is generally shit long before they shit down a story :)

Mike Stirner

There are certain things the cons might do in power that I would not mind at all seeing as the hard left abandoned some of these things, certain things around free speech like hate speech laws and tribunals, the the cons were to actually wither these things away and bring in more americanesque free speech laws I don't think that would be a bad thing at all.


And seat belt and no-smoking laws, right Mike? Freedom is indivisible.



Malcolm wrote:

 Watch for some sort of meaningless legislation protecting the rights of religious bodies to refuse same sex marriages - already protected under the Charter.

Whether or not it's protected under the Charter is debatable, because it pits one fundamental right against another - but it is already protected under the Civil Marriage Act as enacted in 2005:

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.


Mike Stirner

I wish unionist;) you'd need some ostensibly libertarian politicians doing something like that, and last I checked the libertarian party in canada=fail.


Mike Stirner wrote:

There are certain things the cons might do in power that I would not mind at all seeing as the hard left abandoned some of these things, certain things around free speech like hate speech laws and tribunals, the the cons were to actually wither these things away and bring in more americanesque free speech laws I don't think that would be a bad thing at all.


Office of Religious Freedom?? The ConTEMPT party has blocked access to more freedom of information requests that any past PM.

It's ridicules to assume that Harper cares one iota for free speech. He only cares if that "speech' is from the right.


Why are people so easily fooled? Just because the Grope and Flail are trying top project their dear leader as more moderate (all the sudden!) does not make it so.


Why is there so little published evidence of the connections between US and Canadian social conservative groups? Would exposing more of  the personell and financial exchanges between them work to raise concerns among Canadian voters? We have a long slide down if this interaction is not exposed and halted.



That's the ticket, the fringe. Find out what Harper wants to avoid, discussion on abortion, gay rights, etc.. and bring it front and center. Why wait, show Canada what they have elected.

Greed, apathy, selfishness, what ever the reason people are not engaged. Lets pull the emotional strings and make them pay attention.

We have no positive light in the MSM, why let the conservatives have one?




So they are already falling out and fighting among themselves. Nothing like a conservative circular firing squad. The thing is, they HAVE to push on abortion now that they have the chance, their religious beliefs REQUIRE they end this evil. This sort of thing is their achilles heel, its great to see they're wasting no time getting to it.

The American Republican Party held the line on ending abortion when they had the chance, they had a Republican House and Senate, President and 5/4 Republican Supreme Court. So how did they keep their rabid supporters at bay while the did nothing on abortion? They can't end abortion, because Republicans love nothing more than abortion as a wedge issue, dead babies = votes for Republicans, so why would they ever take advantage of a majority to end it? The did a little chipping away, tossed the dogs a bone or two, but America still has legal abortion!

remind remind's picture

In Canada, it is not about "legal abortions", and having no laws surrounding abortion.

There simply cannot be laws in Canada governing it, as our women's rights of choice are upheld by the Charter. They would have to make a Charter challenge.

If they were going to do that they would go for it in a big way, and not piss around chipping away, because they know cannot suceed on a item by item basis.

Of course their admitting that reality to their fanatical  believers, who follow them because of false promises, has not happened because they use it as a wedge issue. IMV, this is why they keep these little private members bills floating around to make it appear, if given the majority, they could push  abolishing it through. Or at the very least restrict it through private members bills, in order for Harper not to have lied to Canadians.

If they try to put a private members bill through, yes, they could get it to pass now. However, they know that there would be an immediate Charter challenge. So...I see them telling their supporters they have to wait until they can stack the Supreme Court for anything to be successful, just to buy themselves a bit more wedge time.

Of course, they won't admit, to their anti-humanrights followers, their stacking of the SCC would probably make no difference, given the reality that the SCC rarely, if ever, overturns its own final stage decisions. If there is a comparable example out there, where they have overturned themselves, I would like to see it.

It is every human's right to  have dominion over themselves, and I, as a woman, will not let my equality rights go, only to feed the whims of those who actually do not give a crap about anyone else.


@ remind

I agree. I'm not too concerned that there will be laws criminalizing abortion  - and that if they do try and pas such a thing it will be struck down. 

What I am worried about is access. Where the right-wingers seem to be putting their energy is allowing medical professionals the option to opt out, and for provinces to refuse public funding.  And when you consider that abortion providers are already threatened - several  have been shot and killed - without a government willing to stand behind the right of access to abortion there will probably be more parts of the country than there are now where there is actually no access to abortion, simply because no one is there to provide  the service. 

And of course, the government has already refused support for abortion and family planning services outside our borders, where the charter does not apply.


remind remind's picture

Yes, I concur 6079, they may try to restrict it, but now there is actually a opposition to make huge waves about it. And people will have to elect NDP provincial governments.


As others here have opined, I agree that they are unlikely mount a full scale assault and attempt to outlaw abortion (or move on other hot-button social issues such as marriage). Whatever Harper and the majority of his caucus may believe personally about it, enough of the political strategists in the Conservatives know that the issue would be kryptonite in terms of future electoral prospects, so they will avoid bringing up anything as extreme as an outright repeal. Their focus will be on their primary interest of imposing a regressive neo-liberal economic order.

But don't for a second think that they won't try to eat around the edges of the abortion issue -- both to push their personal beliefs on the issue, but also to throw some bones to the cultural right wing base that is so important to their party. And those "bones" will be extremely hostile to women's health and human rights.

We've already seen it on the global level, where groups like Planned Parenthood International are losing funding because they help provide reproductive options to women in the developing world. (Has the press followed up on this since Brad Trost's outburst before the election?) Increasingly Canadian foreign aid is being hamstrung by right wing ideology - and while there has been some attention and push back, because it affects poor women of colour overseas, it hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. 

I expect the Conservatives to start to borrow pages from the playbook of the anti-abortion right in the US. Unable to get abortion rights entirely repealed, they have been systematically using state laws to chip away at access to abortion services.

The list of those tactics is long:

  • Requiring parental approval for minors seeking an abortion
  • Imposing a mandatory waiting period
  • Creating bogus technical requirements for the facilities that perform abortions, restricting the abilities of community clinics to provide the service and instead required complete hospital surgical facilities (basically outlawing Morgentaler type clinics)
  • Imposing specific pre-abortion counseling requirements, forcing health care providers to deliver anti-abortion propaganda to women
  • Requiring woman to undergo and view an ultrasound of the fetus prior to birth
  • Prohibiting government funds from being used to pay for an abortion (or, in the US, for any private health insurance policy that covers abortion)
  • Using local zoning laws to restrict the ability of a clinic to provide abortion
  • Providing government funds to "crisis pregnancy" centres that attempts to trick women who want an abortion, and providing government funds to anti-abortion "education" efforts
  • Restricting abortion to the first trimester
  • Outlawing specific methods of performing abortion (IDX, aka "partial birth")
  • Restricting access to or outlawing various forms of pharmaceutical abortion agents and "morning after pills."
  • Passing laws that impose define the fetus as a human being (often these involve criminal sanctions for killing a fetus as part of another crime such as drunken driving -  something many pro-choice people will support, but with tremendous slippery slope potential as well...)
  • Outlawing abortions being performed for specific reasons (sex selection, health conditions of the child, etc)
  • Limiting the number of universities and teaching hospitals providing training on how to perform abortions, resulting in shortage of providers
  • Attempts to mandate spousal notification, or notification of the father (courts have ruled these unconstitutional)
  • Laws that grant a broad religious/moral exemption - allowing health care providers, hospitals, clinics, and support staff to refuse to perform abortions, or to make referrals to those who do
  • Imposing a "litmus test" on all judicial appointments, requiring anti-choice ideology for all new judges

I'm sure I'm leaving out plenty of other steps that are being used in various parts of the US. Because of these restrictions, abortion is no longer available in the vast majority of counties in the US, and is rapidly becoming limited to only large cities and more progressive states. 

Part of the strategy is not simply to enact these restrictions, but also to shape the debate. If the anti-abortion activists shift the debate to sex-selection restrictions or harming a fetus during the commission of a crime, in their view they begin to eat away at the social consensus around abortion rights and lay the ground work for greater restrictions in the future. 

I suspect that the SCC would reject any laws like these, but it is important to be vigilant and prepared - not just to fight back against a full scale frontal assault on abortion rights, but also to stand strong against these more incremental measures designed to eat away at women's rights. 


@remind: Thanks for the civics lesson! I'm a new Canadian, I'm learning alot from these forums.


I agree completely. They will throw their anti-abortion fanatics some bones, like all of those restrictions around the edges, that will keep them busy for years.

Unfortunately it will makes life for everyone more difficult, but that is going to happen everywhere.

I think this is another reason why Harper has chosen some real weak "dunces" to be MP's for him. They are not likely to challenge him, and will just follow his orders.

But I can't believe the real rabid true believers are going to be held back. They will push Harper very hard, and threaten to withdraw votes, and defeat seats, etc.

Same with gay marriage, it drives them nuts, I've watched some of the Canadian right-wingers religionists (not crazies) talk about it. They can't stop thinking about gay marriage. I predict its going to crack wide open sooner or later. That hornets nest is going to hit Harper hard, and those folks won't back down. They shut their yappers for 15 years under Harper Orders, his people must have told them he was going to get them what they want, if they vote for him, and stay in the neo-con closet.

Harper urged to reopen abortion debate


Mike Stirner

In my opinion the right wing is a bit a head of the curve against you guys, they are trying to chip away on a more non universal basis, I'm not a big fan of a centralized aproach because if you get a guy or girl who for some reason makes general minds go in the anti abortion favour then you're fucked, do things on a more town to town level as opposed to putting everything in the universality basket which which can backfire big time.


@ Mike Stirner

Well that would be the great bugaboo of populist movements, wouldn't it. 

I agree with you to a point, and I would add that they are also attacking our ability to fight them on this issue by cutting funding to womens' groups and civil liberties groups. 

I am hopeful however, and I disagree with you in one aspect - that this is not an issue in isolation, but one which follows from respect and self-determination. As well, it ties into gender and family  issues, poverty issues, health care, harm reduction, and many other things. I think the only people who see it as a hard religious or moral question of destroying a fetus are those on the religious right. Aside from that hard line, someone can be personally opposed to abortion, yet supportive of the principle of choice, and the necessity of providing safe abortion services.

(I put myself in this camp, actually. It is not that I think abortion is evil, but neither do I buy they argument that a fetus is just a piece of tissue.  The bottom line though is that I am a fervent supporter of choice, and access to safe abortion )

When the catholic hospital board in Humboldt opened patient records some years back to see who was getting tubal ligations, the issue was invasion of privacy, and it led to a backlash which saw the hospital being taken out of their control. So abortion access is not a simple or isolated issue.

So again, I take your point, but I think there are a lot of other grassroots issues that help to educate people on the issue of accsss to abortion.


An ant-abortion rally on parliament hill on May 12?



Abortion will never be made illegal in Canada.


They may attack third trimester and partial birth abortions.
They may also hold a free vote on it which would be marketed as an exercise in free speech, and an attempt to appease the Chirstians.


Yes, they will just try to make it harder to get, and try to bring in some abortion legislation.

But never say never anymore. Harper will be able to stack the Supreme Court in the next few years. So who knows what they will do.

Only 20 years ago they struck it down, and only one generation ago it was illegal.


Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

So far our SCC has not become a partisan body like the US SC.  In Canada we have so far appointed jurists not politicians.  I can only hope the Law Society's from all the provinces work to maintain that strong tradition of judicial independence.  


Harper was raging about the "liberal" appointed activist judges just a few years ago.

Harper stacked the Senate with his cronies, there is no reason to assume he won't put some "right" judges into the Supreme Court. There is every reason to assume that he will, and even if they are only moderately ideological, it could have a huge impact.

Looking into it a bit, I think them trying to bring in an abortion law, is inevitable. A private members bill, a free vote, senate is stacked. I guess we'll find out.

Geoff OB

Ironically, I think Preston Manning summed up the election results best.  He said it was a victory for "Reform Conservatives".  The entire thread, above, illustrates Herr Preston's point perfectly.  In fact, even old-line Tories (i.e. Progressive Conservatives) I know are less than thrilled with Harper's version of the Conservative Party, and are particularly embarassed by the lunatic fringe that appears to be crawling out from under every rock in sight.

I suggest that from now on we defer to Manning's judgement (as weird as that sounds) and call his party by the name he has given it. We are now governed by a strong, anti-democratic, majority, Reform Conservative Government.  No offence to the NDP for whom I was elated on election night, but nevertheless, we have vandalized our country, and sadly, it will take many years to fix what we've broken.  

Lord Palmerston

I'm not so convinced that "old-line Tories" in general are really all that anti-Harper.  He has pretty much united the right of center vote - Reform, PC and blue Liberal.


Harpers devious tactics gave them power, so they will listen to him for a long time. But I do believe the social cons are not going to wait around too long. They've waited for years and are chomping at the bit.


Lorna Dueck
Parliament is the place to discuss abortion



observer521 wrote:

An ant-abortion rally on parliament hill on May 12?


Very interesting. The mayor of Ottawa has declared today "Respect for Life Day":

"In my own case I support the woman's right to choose," said Watson. "So these are requests that come in and I think you get down that slippery slope if you all of a sudden start deciding, 'Do I declare this day? Or shouldn't I declare that day?'" [...]

"If we start saying no based on my own personal views, we're going to be ending up on the human rights commission, and I'm not prepared to bring the city through that," Watson said.

Well now, we wouldn't want this poor lying creep being dragged in front of the human rights commission for violating the rights of misogynists, would we?

I'll be looking (in vain) to see which federal political party condemns this shithead for turning the country's capital into an anti-woman billboard for a day.



This is just speculation, but it may happen if Harper shuts down the anti-abortionists, they might try to break off to get more influence. As in, get a small party going, win 10+ seats in Jesusland Alta, and put Harper into a minority, and then try to use that balance of power.

The anti-abortionists and anti-gay marriage folks are not going anywhere, and won't give up. As shown, they can't even wait a week to start spouting off, as Harper had gagged them for years.

Now abortion and gay-marriage are back for judgement day...so to speak.


You know, another technique being used on abortion you see over and over now, are comments saying they are Pro-Life but an "atheist" or agnostic.

Belonging to various atheist groups, I have never heard an "atheist" yet say anything other than pro-choice. The atheist debate is about "life" being a biological process, etc.

So clearly they are trying to make it seem not just a religious issue.


If anyone is in Ottawa, they could check out the speeches at the anti-abortion rally. They will probably announce their plans on what they intend to try to do in parliament to the crowd.





apparently there was a private members bill on this recently that was defeated?


"link to Parliament's website is for a private member's bill "An Act to Prevent Coercion of Pregnant Women to Abort (Roxanne's Law)" introduced by Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South)."


They had almost 100 votes for this in a minority.



January 7, 2011

A private member's bill that would have made it a criminal offence to coerce or to attempt to coerce a woman into having an abortion has been defeated in the House of Commons.

"No more than a thinly veiled attempt to criminalize abortion providers and promote an anti-choice agenda" in the eyes of its critics, Bill C-510, An Act to Prevent Coercion of Pregnant Women to Abort (Roxanne's Law), was defeated 178 to 97.


Topic locked