Barbara Kay: Justin Trudeau’s ‘Pro-Choice Charter of Values’
National Post - Wednesday May 14th, 2014
On the issue of abortion, Justin Trudeau has always been pro-choice. But last week we were informed that he is now “resolutely” pro-choice.
Practically speaking, “resolutely” apparently means that Justin cannot tolerate sitting in the same caucus with anyone who believes a baby at an advanced state of gestation has the moral right to live, or who believes sex selection abortion cannot co-exist in harmony with the Canadian principle of gender equality.
So, with the exception of a few grandfathered Liberal MPs, aspiring pro-life or even pro-regulation Liberal candidates will have to check their conscience at the door. Which is tantamount to telling the 60% of Canadians who think Canada needs regulatory laws that they are not worthy of representation in the Liberal Party.
When Justin announced this fatwa, Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values sprang to my mind. The now-defunct Charter proscribing religious accessories in education, hospitals and other tax-funded institutions, you will remember, dominated the Quebec political scene for many months leading up to the April 7 election in which the PQ were roundly defeated. No PQ spokesperson ever offered a rational answer as to why it was needed — because nobody could claim that hijabs or kippahs had up to then caused tension in public life. It became clear that the Charter was merely a political strategy to spin dormant fears of The Other in the PQ’s ethnic nationalist base into separation fervour.
Likewise, one must wonder exactly what problem has ramped up Justin’s sudden passion on the abortion issue. Are any Canadian women presently denied “choice”? As with the PQ in the case of the Quebec Charter, Justin is fear-mongering. Unfettered abortion being the litmus test for a politician’s good standing with leftist ideologues, “resolutely” is a kind of semaphore to feminists that in the alleged “war on women,” Liberal Party policies can be counted on to serve women’s interests in all social issues, as women themselves define them. As Obama’s multiple genuflections to feminist shibboleths have demonstrated, pandering to women’s fears translates into votes.
What would “resolutely” mean in the event of a majority Liberal government? It would mean that on social issues, the Liberal Party will be Women’s Studies, writ large.
First, it would obviously dash any hope for public debate on abortion regulation for the foreseeable future (not that there has been much under Stephen Harper). Funding for statistical archives on how many abortions are performed in Canada, and in what trimester, or whether sex selection was involved, will dry up, and so will funding for any research around the physical and psychological effects of abortion that may point to negative outcomes. The rape-culture industry will flourish, with new and more lavishly endowed sensitization programs on campuses. Equity programs for women in the civil service will be enhanced, rather than discontinued as no longer necessary, which is in fact an objective reality.
In other news this week, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada released a study, entitled “Interconnected: How abortion impacts mothers, families and our society.” The study examines the effect of abortion on relationships, sexuality, mental health and on society as a whole. It confirms that a certain number of women who choose to abort — estimated as anywhere between 10-40%, depending on the researcher — deeply regret their decision and suffer mild to severe, even suicidal depression, some for a lifetime.
The study also points to statistics showing that a significantly higher number of aborters separate or divorce than non-aborters. More aborters than non-aborters experience sexual difficulties post-abortion. One woman cited, who suffered deep long-term depression after her abortion, wishes she had been warned that might happen. “Women have a right to know,” she wrote in a long letter of reproach to her abortion clinic.
Yes. It’s called “informed consent” on risks accompanying any medical intervention that every patient has a right to know. But what are rights to a leader “resolutely” focused on special-interest votes?