Woodworth’s Awful Motion Is Aborted No Thanks To The Status Of Women Minister

From CBC yesterday afternoon:

A motion to study the Criminal Code’s definition of when human life begins was defeated in the House of Commons Wednesday night. Members of Parliament voted 203 to 91 against Motion 312, sponsored by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth. The private member’s motion sought to set up a committee to study how the Criminal Code defines when life begins. The provision, in the homicide section of the code, says a child becomes a human being when it has fully left its mother’s body.

But look at this:

Although Prime Minister Stephen Harper had opposed the motion and voted against it, some members of his cabinet voted in favour. Those included Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, Public Works and Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose, government House leader Peter Van Loan, International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino, Trade Minister Ed Fast, Intergovernmental Affairs Peter Penashue, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, and National Revenue Minister Gail Shea.

Story here. So the status of women minister voted for a motion that could have led to restrictions on women’s rights. It’s been a while since I’ve been surprised by how awful this government’s MPs tend to be, but this surprised me. The Conservatives are so stupid and horrible.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth will never, ever pass up a chance to make a Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo pun.

18 thoughts on “Woodworth’s Awful Motion Is Aborted No Thanks To The Status Of Women Minister”

  1. I enjoy most things on this website, but enough with the weekly posts where you mock people who believe abortions are wrong. Seriously, we get it, nobody here is unclear on your views.

    But other people, including I’m sure Rona Ambrose, believe it involves killing a human being. And you making fun of them on a weekly basis for believing murder is wrong is repetitive and annoying.

  2. I’d also add to your comments by noting that 4 members of the Liberal caucus voted in favour of this motion, so the next time we see LPC politicos getting sanctimonious on social issues, let’s remember that only one party walked the talk in defence of women’s rights.

  3. Enough#1:
    1. You say Steve goes on about this subject too much and yet stuff like the Status of Women minister voting for a ridiculous fetal definition bill keeps happening.

    If guys like Woodworth would quit trying to sneak bills like this through and places like Texas would stop forcing women to be vaginally probed, then I can assure you Steve would move on to other topics.

    You say it’s tedious. But personally, I think this is what vigilance looks like.

    2. Saying you’re tired of something is not an argument against it.

    3. You’ve been to the internet before, right? Because, if you had, you’d understand that this is a blog for an alternative newspaper. Personal opinion strongly stated is de rigueur. If you want less than that, there are plenty of publications that strive never to offend and whose mission statement is to distribute blowjobs to any and all potential readers.

    Really, if you have a problem with posts like Steve’s you can either give back in kind here in the comments (believe me, he’d enjoy it) or you can at least stop acting surprised to find content like this here.

  4. Hey Enough: knock off trying to criminalize women’s choices and I’ll knock off the mockery. Your team are the bad guys here.

  5. Yossarian: I am well aware that there are jerkwads in the Liberal Party too but the Liberals never appointed an anti-abortion minister for women. That takes a special kind of stupidity and malevolence.

  6. Stephen,

    If you take a look at the Morgentaler decision, the anti-choice minority reasons were given by a Liberal appointee.

    There was only one party that affirmed a woman’s right to choose is an unequivocal right between her and her doctor. That was the NDP.

  7. Believe all you want that abortion kills babies, but do something, then, about the things that lead to abortion. Treat things holistically, not symptomatically.

    If Rona Ambrose had done things for women’s sexual and emotional health in Canada – advocated publicly for stronger sex education, advocated men’s use of birth control and women’s access to birth control, and not only written speeches about how we have to take action to stop violence against women but actually advocated for groups working to that end – then I’d be willing to have this conversation on the terms rabid anti-legalized abortion types want (e.g. “but babies get killed!”)

    Ambrose, however, has not done any of that. What she HAS done is, for example, watch as programs like the Sisters in Spirit get cut, then talk out of the other side of her mouth about the government’s “concrete steps” to address the problem of missing Aboriginal women (http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/med/spe-dis/2010/1029-eng.html). And what she HAS done is vote to study when a human life begins without trying to address the idea that maybe people don’t want a human life beginning in their bodies and how can we help them make sure that happens without forcing someone else’s religious belief (abstinence! abstinence!) down their throat, because we don’t live in a medieval society anymore.

    If you’ve had “enough,” ask yourself: Are you doing what you can to make sure Planned Parenthood is appropriately funded and can give kids and teenagers and adults the advice and counseling they need? Are you doing what you can to make sure your kids know about sex in a way that means they can actually make responsible, informed choices when they inevitably decide they do want to have sex? Are you doing what you can, every single day of your life, to try and reverse the pervasive attitudes of sexualized violence against women, and the attitude that women exist first as caregivers and babymakers and then as people, by directly calling people out on it?

    If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” or even “maybe, I’m not sure” – and to be clear, I do all of that stuff and still don’t do it to the extent that I think I could answer “yes” to all of it – then I’m sorry, but you haven’t yet earned the right to have “enough.” And if Rona Ambrose hasn’t done it as the Minister for the Status of Women, then she hasn’t yet earned the right to vote in favour of a motion that should have to be precluded by all of it.

  8. Wow.. how can people not be seriously disturbed by this betrayal to women? And don’t say that is over dramatic because it is actual a kind way to put things. Who knew we would be completly backwards in the year 2012. The women of the past must certainly be shaking their heads at us. Pro choice does NOT mean you condone abortion or think it is a solution, but it does mean you value and respect each individual’s right to exercise any option that is needed in order to benefit her. Please, continue to write about this! Maybe people will wake up and take action on the issue, instead of sleeping behind their conservative window shades. This is backwards, and this is terrifying. We all rant about the oppression and inequality of women in the Middle East. Well what about our own women? Don’t take away their voice, and most importantly do not deny them their rights!

  9. I think Leonard Cohen really nailed it in his song “The Future”:

    Destroy another fetus now
    We don’t like children anyhow
    I’ve seen the future, baby:
    it is murder

    Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
    Won’t be nothing
    Nothing you can measure anymore
    The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
    has crossed the threshold
    and it has overturned
    the order of the soul

  10. Some people, including myself if it isn’t obvious believe life begins at conception. Aborting a fetus is the same as taking you 2 year old daughter and drowning her in a bathtub. You disagree, you think they’re different … and its your right to that opinion.

    What I’m arguing is this statement, “Your team are the bad guys here.” That’s your answer to anything in this argument, and its the basis of your weekly pro-abortion post. I’m right, you’re wrong. If you don’t believe what I believe you are a “stupid”, “malevolent”, “horrible” “jerkwad”.

  11. Hah- that is like saying everytime you rub one out in your bathroom you are half murdering a child! How dare you!!! How do you figure life begins at conception when that “being” would have no chance of survival if it was not in the womb. Have you ever considered that maybe we wouldn’t have this problem if blind people like you started advocating for more birth control means, cheaper ways and easier ways to acess these means, and for more education in general?? No you have no solution you just choose to take away the RIGHTS of a human. I think the rights of a full grown human being that is completley capable of living on it’s own out weigh the rights of a friggin one celled blob. And has your so very insensitve self ever considered the fact that incest and rape contribute to a hell of a lot abortions. Clearly you are a man so you would never understand how psycologically fucked up that is. How about we just go around giving every man vasectomies with no choice. You are trying to take away a women’s right, so lets start with the main cause. Take away the man’s rights. Or no? Equality means nothing to you… that is clear.

  12. The difference is enough, that you would prefer your side to affect the ability of women to make that choice for themselves, on the advice of a medical professional.

    If you don’t want to have an abortion, nobody is forcing you too.

  13. Firstly I am against the motion, however, the Minister was merely voting for a study. This story is a huge over-reaction. Secondly, she is a minister for all Canadians. The Minister for the Status of Women is not just an advocate for pro-choice women, but rather should represent the interests of Canadian society as a whole.

    Secondly I agree with other posters that ridiculing those who are against abortion is inappropriate. These are generally well-meaning Canadians who have deep- seated feelings about a difficult moral and legal issue.

  14. From Wikipedia : On February 16,2005 ( she said ),” working women want to make their own choices,we don’t need old white guys telling us what to do.”
    While this was in reference to the proposed federal day-care program, she still said it.

    I’d call her a Bitch, but that would be dissn’ female dogs.

  15. So, the vote is quelled like it was predicted to be. Yet, debates between pro-choice vs pro-life or vice versa still linger on even on the PD.

    Time for a break?

  16. #17 ! break coming up as soon as churchy types and their stupid moralistic / religious : read, Alliance “party” Alberta rural disinformesd, cult of bullshit of ” bla bla integrity”, to tell women of all ages from ages ago until 1 second after I finish this rant cannot understand!!

    Only, stupid people want raped girls & women, to have children they don’t want and also women/ girls that weren’t raped ,but really can’t at this point in their lives have children they can’t afford to have.
    Is the state ,going to decide that they can afford to take “Care” of all newborn chikdren?
    Fuck the status quo can’t take care of the kids that they are “in charge of ” now..

    Imposition on any person isn’t Freedom for any of us.

    Google :Georgia Guidestones.
    Theres a future…

    Back in the the day , your sibling ( if you had 1 ), that was many years younger than you, was called ( as a nickname), the “mistake”.

Comments are closed.