The “not-about-abortion” abortion bill

Judging by the enthusiasm it was met with last week from the MSM, MP Rod Bruinooge’s private member’s bill against “coerced abortion” is almost certainly dead in the water.  Recall the Unborn Victims bill which was initially greeted with optimism by many until it became apparent that it was a backdoor attack on abortion rights.  It’s a bad sign when the media starts mocking a bill right out of the gate:

Let me make sure I have this right; Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge is chair of the House pro-life caucus. Despite this fact, he really, really doesn’t want to reopen the abortion debate in Canada. Please believe him – he doesn’t want to discuss abortion in any way. Not sure what they discuss at their pro-life caucus meetings but no matter.

Bruinooge himself almost certainly knows the bill is unpassable — he no sooner tabled it than he admitted it would present an enforcement challenge:

Mr. Bruinooge, who leads Parliament’s “pro-life caucus,” agreed that so called “he said she said” scenarios would be difficult to deal with but not impossible.

Just what the doctor ordered:  another intrusive, redundant, administrative nightmare of a law that would be next to impossible to enforce, terrorize doctors and allow anti-choicers to waste the courts’ time with gibberish law suits.

Clearly it’s little more than an election year dog whistle meant to raise an urgent little hardon in the disgruntled, sex-obsessed socon vote.   Bruinooge might have even had Harper’s secret blessing on this thing — with the caveat that it be so unpassable that it wouldn’t survive its second reading.  But the message about the abortion bill that’s not really about abortion except that it is has been sent.  And received.

UPDATE: From the comments with a thread on this topic at BigCityLib, Buckets nails what could be behind the bizarre theory that “coerced abortion” is such a big problem as to require punitive legislation:

buckets said…

There are several interesting contrasts here. First, it’s interesting that roughly the same people who demand that there be no limits (or almost none) on speech seem to want to regulate private arguments about reproduction.

Also, it is (roughly) the same people too who are willing themselves to resort to coercive speech to dissuade women from having abortions. Indeed, I wonder here whether we don’t have an interesting example of transference — because their own ideology invites them to coerce women out of abortions, they imagine that their opposites must be true.

6 Responses to “The “not-about-abortion” abortion bill”

  1. 1 brebis noire Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 8:38 am

    BBW similarly interprets coercion very loosely, even stating that governments use coercion to ensure respect for people of other races. Er, ya.

    So I was naturally confused as to why she would define coercion in such a large way, as that essentially is what shoots this bill in the foot, from a legal standpoint.

  2. 2 JJ Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 9:09 am

    brebis –

    BBW similarly interprets coercion very loosely, even stating that governments use coercion to ensure respect for people of other races.

    😆 What kind of bullshit is that? You either respect people or you don’t. Sort of like, you either believe in human rights or you don’t. Cherry picking means you don’t. Pretty simple concept, really… so simple I’m not surprised she doesn’t get it.

  3. 3 brebis noire Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Well, I’m guessing that as a social conservative and conservative Catholic, coercion is a normal part of daily life in various ways?

  4. 4 Cornelius T.Zen Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Good morrow, all!
    Coercion, blackmail, guilt, intimidation…yeah, it’s all there, and, to socons, it’s all good.
    It’s all about control. People tend to fear whatever they cannot control. And what they tend to fear, they seek to either control, or destroy.
    Men fear women. That is why they seek to control them, or destroy them. Otherwise, you would see a lot more respect displayed by men toward women.
    Andrew Greeley once wrote: In any Irishman’s life, there are four sacred women. His mother, his sister, his wife and his daughter. You might as well ordain them, you won’t be giving them any more power and influence than they already have.
    Whatever you do not control, controls you. That is what men fear. What men do not understand is, the most important form of control is self-control. Once you that, nothing else *can* control you. And fear takes a hike.
    I am open to a better explanation – CTZen

  5. 5 apophaticattic Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    “…attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity (def: insistent solicitation and entreaty)”

    Rancorous badgering? Uh-oh – he’s going after our blogs.

  1. 1 Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome: Weekly Reader Trackback on Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change


  • 646,078
[Most Recent Quotes from]


%d bloggers like this: