Over at Broadsides, Antonia Zerbisias has found some beautiful gems about the bill - straight from Mr. Epp's own writings:
"Even if people do start questioning abortion, it does not necessarily follow that they will change their minds about whether a woman should have the freedom to choose that option," Epp wrote in The Ottawa Citizen last month. "What it means is that pro-choice advocates will be in a position of having to justify abortion without relying on the illusion that the fetus is absolutely worthless.
"They will need to defend the view that, in spite of the unborn child being recognized as something of value, the woman's interests are paramount."
So, Mr. Epp, would you quit being a dishonest misogynist and admit that what your bill is really all about is feeding your festering desire to control women and create a world where male dominated "medical panels" decided if a woman would be allowed to have an abortion, or if she should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term.
As for Rona Ambrose's asinine claim that C-484 being about "an issue of protecting pregnant women ", it is such a dishonest statment it's not even funny.
By Epp's own admission, this bill isn't about protecting anyone. It's not like we have a sudden rash of people running around violently assault pregnant women these days.
Ambrose says it's Dion who's turning C-484 into a renewed abortion debate.
"I think he's taking a very partisan tack on what could be a very non-partisan issue that we could address together," Ambrose said. "I think he's fear-mongering women on this issue."
No Rona - Dion isn't fearmongering - women aren't stupid, and strangely most of them can read what's in C-484 just fine. It lifts most of its wording out of the wingnut arguments about abortion, and transplants them. If C-484 isn't about abortion, then why are you idiots in the government not adopting Bill C-543, which accomplishes the same thing without the slimy wording?
5 comments:
Well said, MgS.
And while we're at it, maybe the fetus fetishists could direct some of their energy towards pushing for a national daycare plan, although I realize of course that children are not as valuable to them as fetuses.
Good on Epp for this bill.
Anonymous @ 9:50:
So you approve of a legislation based on deceit? Thanks for reinforcing my opinion of so-called "social conservatives".
The fact is that Epp's legislation is based in a fabric of deception.
National day care - what a joke. Telling people how to raise their kids? No thanks. The tax credit option is far superior.
Anonymous @ 6:15:
Try again. You're so far off topic it's not funny...but like a typical conservative, you like to try and throw irrelevant points forth to cover up for the HarperCon$ deceitfulness.
Now, answer the question - do you support legislation that is based on deceit?
Post a Comment