It’s Time to “Reopen” the Abortion Debate
The recent request by several Conservative MPs, tireless anti-abortion crusader Maurice Vellacott among them, that the RCMP open murder investigations against physicians who have performed late-term abortions because the mother’s life was at stake has resulted in a predictable body of responses from across Canada. First, the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, announced that his party would not “reopen the abortion debate.” (It will, however, continue to produce a stream of private members’ bills and public declarations that abortion is murder.) And then feminists responded by condemning what they see as an effort to reopen the abortion debate. My favourite Canadian feminist blog, Dammit Janet, even has a post label for it: “fuck the debate.”
This puts us in what would be a hilarious position if the issue weren’t so important. Nobody, it seems, actually wants to have a debate about abortion right now. The Conservative backbench wants to jump straight to prosecutions. Stephen Harper is petrified of an abortion debate because he would probably have to choose between the Conservative base and the survival of his majority government. And many feminists don’t want to “reopen” the debate — I won’t say they’re scared of it, per se — because the Constitution is on their side, the courts have agreed, and that, as they say, is that.
Well I’ve had more than enough of this nonsense. I’m tired of Stephen Harper trying to have it both ways by saying he won’t “reopen the debate.” I’m tired of scurrilous backbenchers trying to score stealth victories by introducing bills that are actually pro-life pretexts so thinly veiled they wouldn’t fool a child. I’m tired of anti-abortion activists claiming that we are the totalitarian ones, and then, even as they mouth this piffle, trying to do an end run around the legislative process by calling on the RCMP to treat medically necessary abortions as murder cases. I am tired of the misogyny, and the hypocrisy, and the doublespeak, and the stupidity of it all.
So we are going to have this out. The abortion debate needs to be, as Harper puts it, “reopened.” And it should never be closed. It should never be closed for the same reason that debates are never closed on questions like whether slavery is wrong, whether the Holocaust happened, and whether the exploitation of children is evil. You can debate all of these things, which I strongly believe, and in a free democracy, it is right that you be allowed to debate all of these issues. This debate must never involve violence, and it must never involve outlawing free expression, and beyond that, it is pretty much a free-for-all, which is as it should be.
But fair warning: if you want to deny the Holocaust, or claim a right to exploit children, or demand that abortions be outlawed even to the extent of endangering women’s lives, I intend to see to it that your side loses, in as crushing and humiliating a fashion as possible. Those of us who stand on the side of basic human freedoms can never afford the complacency of thinking that debate is ever “closed.” We must always be prepared to test our arguments against those who would overturn our hard-won victories — and, yes, always be prepared to concede in the infinitely unlikely event that the other side raises a compelling argument. We will continue this fight wherever it may take us, as long as it takes, until the last dog dies.
Do note that “opening a debate” is in no sense the same thing as “passing a law.” We have just learned, as if we ever needed to, that the anti-abortion wing of the Conservative caucus is not interested in debating abortion, either. They want it banned, come hell or high water, and they’re prepared to do something as self-evidently ridiculous as calling on the judiciary to begin considering murder charges against abortion doctors in the absence of any direction to do so from either the legislative or executive branches of government. This is not reopening a debate: this is closing off debate through the rule of the police.
Harper is not interested in “opening an abortion debate” for more pragmatic reasons: he thinks it will cost him politically. This should not be a great concern to those who oppose Harper politically. Harper has for too long now been permitted to act as the spokesperson for a movement whose political priorities are dramatically at odds with his own. He should not be permitted to say that his position as prime minister is that debate is not permitted. He should be obliged — he should be compelled by public pressure, if necessary — to state his position on this matter. He worries about doing so because the consequence could be an irreparably divided Conservative Party. That is his problem, not ours.
But most important of all, it’s nonsense to talk about the danger of “reopening the abortion debate” because in the minds of some people the debate never ended. There are still anti-choice groups. They still run large protests in Ottawa. They still have a cabal of MPs on their side, some of them on the government benches, some of them on the opposition benches, and some of them in Cabinet. Some of the people in the Cabinet are men who believe God has told them to ban abortions.
Now, when those people claim it’s time to “reopen the debate,” what they seem to think is that free and open discussion somehow means that everyone who participates has a valid point. Uh-uh. You’re not getting off that easily. Anyone who claims that we should prosecute people for murder because they were trying to save one life where two might be lost is a morally compromised ignoramus. That includes you, Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit, and Wladyslaw Lizon. Don’t think that we will ever forget the stunt you tried to pull this month. We know what you are about. Do not expect us to stand in silence while you do this.
Tweet
the salamander
One would assume a majority of citizens or voters in the three respective ridings have demanded these MP’s take this action on their behalf. And that the respective MP’s will supply validation that this is the case. Surely they held a plebiscite ..? Or received massive numbers of letters and emails.
If there is such validation it infers the possibility that only three Canadian federal ridings have such majority views and concerns. Certainly no other MP’s have stepped forward.
No such electorate validation has ever come from MP Woodworth.
Strangely, however.. a majority of the Harper Government MP’s and a majority of his appointed Ministers purportedly represented the wishes of their respective electoral ridings by voting in favor of the Woodworth Motion 312
One assumes, that in Canada, if a majority of an electoral riding is against gambling and casinos within their riding, their representative elected MP will act according to their wishes, locally as well as in Ottawa. That’s their job as a public servant isn’t it? That’s what they were elected to do. Represent their constituents’ needs and wishes. To make a crude analogy, if you’re hired to repaint a kitchen, you don’t excavate the back yard and install a swimming pool.
One assumes the same electoral and parliamentary premise holds true regarding issues such as poisoning boreal wolves, buying ground attack jets to patrol the Canadian arctic, offing wild salmon in favor of farm salmon, electoral fraud.. or the health and welfare of Canadian women …
Bravo to you .. and all before you and with you now for taking up the ‘debate’, the hidden agendas, and challenging the unlawful requests to suppress and/or bypass justice and Canadian Law.
If it turns out that the three MP’s and others like Woodworth and Rona Ambrose and Jason Kenney and all those Harper Party MP’s simply forgot they were elected to represent and vote in support of thousands of Canadians in their respective ridings.. well AMEN .. and let’s remind them who hired them.. and why.
But if it turns out those three MP’s plus Woodworth, Ambrose, Kenney, Fantino, Flaherty et al, truly thought or think, or believe they vote in Ottawa just for themselves or for what Stephen Harper wants ..
Well then.. we have a problem here… Canada ..
We’re electing people that don’t care what we think or feel.. or need
and they have a leader and a political party
that’s telling them that’s great.. and that’s just the way it is ..
and don’t worry what ordinary Canadian’s think..
Stephen Harper is so smart he can do their thinking for them …
fern hill
Splendidly written piece. I do love a bit of vitriol.
But I’m sticking with the ‘fuck the debate’ stand. I’m old and tired and I’ve done my bit, as other old farts say.
You youngun’s go right ahead. Have fun. Kick ass.
As a preview of what you’re up against though, you might want to have a peek at the hashtags #M408 and #M312. Yes, the fetus fetishists are still wanking on that.
Sixth Estate
It’s your right to put it that way, of course.
But my point is this: there is still a debate. There will still be a debate as long as there are at least two sides. Right now the debate may be more of a “you’re misogynist crackpots” — “no, you’re Nazi fetus-bullies” sort of a thing. But the fight continues.
And as long as that is the case, saying “the debate is over and we’re not going to reopen it” doesn’t strike me as very helpful. It obviously isn’t over. If nothing else, it gives safe cover to people like Harper as a vague middle position that doesn’t require them to split their party along what might prove permanent lines.
fern hill
I don’t think the ‘not reopening’ bit gives Harper cover. The so-cons are mightily pissed at him. They know they’ve been conned.
I understand and support what you’re doing and saying. But imagine a First Nations person saying: ‘Sure, all you nonFNs go right ahead and debate my rights.’
It’s simply galling.
Sixth Estate
I’m sure they are. But it gives him more wiggle room than any of the positions he’d be left with if the media did not permit him this one. And it obviously does him safe cover, or at least he thinks it does, or he wouldn’t be using it.
Now, the First Nations issue is a fair parallel, with the exception that at this point I suspect a much larger proportion of Canadians are in favour of reproductive choice than are in favour of recognizing First Nations’ unceded land title, unmet treaty obligations, and special Constitutional protection. The Globe & Mail can muster itself to denounce Vellacott on occasion, evidently. That’s noticeably more than it’s prepared to grant First Nations.
All of that said, both women’s reproductive rights and aboriginal rights evidently are debated in this country. It’s unfortunate that they are, because I wish they were universally accepted. But whether we like it or not, those debates are going to continue until the country reaches some sort of a resolution — or, if it doesn’t, are simply going to continue indefinitely. As long as that remains the case, I’m not going to willingly cede an inch of ground on this. As of this week, the Conservative caucus is split between those who claim it’s “not the right time to reopen debate” and those who claim it’s time to start arresting doctors.
Well, I’m not going to give them the satisfaction of thinking that either of those positions is legitimate. If what Harper really means by “we’re not reopening this debate” is “I accept that women have constitutional rights and I would never do anything to challenge those,” then I believe he should say so. And at that point he would need to explain why, believing that, he continues to allow in his caucus a posse of misogynists who are demanding something be done that is not constitutional. If what he means is “I want to ban abortion too but I think it would lose us the election,” I think Canadians ought to know that too.
Beijing York
For me, both treaty rights and reproductive rights for women are human rights that should be respected and not debated. In my view, the courts basically set out that fact out for women 25 years ago. In terms of FN rights, the courts have been carving out their rights one case at a time but enough to ensure that section 35 rights under the Constitution (duty to consult) have been protected.
For me, these issues are resolved in terms of rights afforded. What isn’t resolved is how those rights are protected (i.e. lack of abortion access in PEI). Any debate that is required has to do with fulfilling the requirements attached to legally defined rights.
Sixth Estate
Well, I certainly agree that they should be respected, and if they were, there would be no debate. But this is clearly not the case. You’ve got MPs — not just bloggers, or columnists, but members of the governing party in the legislature — running around demanding that the police start rounding up doctors and charging them with murder. Under the circumstances, it is totally inadequate for the Prime Minister to be permitted to respond that this is not the time to “reopen the abortion debate.” Obviously, the Vellacott crew both do not respect women’s reproductive rights AND do not wish to debate women’s reproductive rights.
Moreover, rights are only what the Constitution, the legislation, and the courts say they are. They can be chipped away at, as they have been in the United States. If the opinion polls are any indication, in Canada the anti-choice movement is weak and weakening. This is an encouraging sign.
I guess my position boils down to the following two points. First, anything is up for debate. This country does have freedom of expression. If a position cannot be held against its opponents, that position needs to be rethought. So for me, it’s axiomatic in a democracy that any argument can commence at any time. That includes whether we should live in a democracy at all, and if so, what rights that democracy ought to uphold. The Constitution is not a divinely granted covenant. Its contents are debatable, and more importantly its contents are amendable, and for that reason in particular it’s vital that any movement that claims rights don’t exist when they currently do should be confronted head-on, and not permitted a moment of respite. Now, it would be nice if there was no need to argue about women’s reproductive rights, because there was no one taking the other side. But that obviously is not the case right now. And as long as it isn’t, it’s counterproductive to claim that the debate has been closed. That said, I think we may have different ideas about what is meant by debate here. I’m not proposing that we start by saying there’s a 50-50 chance of the other side being right. But I do accept the notion that everyone is fallible, and frankly, if we can’t muster an argument strong enough to defend the existence of human rights, then that’s our failing as much as anyone else’s.
Second, and the real reason I’m upset about this, is that although I know fern hill disagrees with me on this, I really do think that the way in which the “we will not reopen this debate” line has been picked up and misused in politics and the media is allowing the government cover that it should not be permitted to have. Instead of comparing it to aboriginal rights, which the majority of Canadians unfortunately reject anyways, compare it to slavery, or, for something a little more recent in the public memory, Holocaust denial. Suppose a Conservative backbencher were to introduce a private member’s bill to study whether people of African descent were fully human, or whether the Jews (and others) were never actually subjected to genocide in Nazi Europe.
Now, suppose further that the Prime Minister offered the following statement: “They did not clear this proposal with me, and I’m not going to kick them out of the caucus for it, but I don’t think Canadians want to reopen the debate about whether blacks are people.”
I cannot imagine that such a mealy-mouthed response would be tolerated for a moment, even in the generally right-wing media.
fern hill
It’s late and I need to sleep but what the hell, I’m among friends here.
See, the thing is — women’s rights are always up for debate, always negotiable.
USA, Egypt. Wait your turn, missy, we’ll get to you.
Obama totally screwed (and not in a nice way) women over abortion in his healthcare plan. And now it appears that he’s backtracking again on birth control under insurance plans that WOMEN PAY FOR, i.e. not government money.
In Egypt, women were a huge part of the ousting of Mubarak, and look at the backlash there.
Women’s rights, ‘women’s’ issues (like childcare, elder care, violence against women) are always frills, always things we’ll get around to after other more important stuff is dealt with.
Always negotiable, always debatable.
I don’t want to fight with you SE, but this is bigger than partisan politics. Cons are worst, Libs not much better, NDP somewhat better, but none of them really get it. The ‘woman vote’. Soccer moms, hockey moms.
All bullshit.
We will not be poker chips in the boyos’ game. Someday.
Abortion is only part. Important part, but only part.
I’m going to bed. Night-night.
P. D. Carswell
A small, niggling point, but semantically important: you said, “I’m tired of anti-abortion activists[....]”
Please call these people “anti-choice” activists, which counters “pro-choice.” The term “anti-abortion” by its very definition, suggests the possibility of its opposite, “pro-abortion,” which is very loaded terminology.
Sixth Estate
See, the thing is — women’s rights are always up for debate, always negotiable.
I would say there is a difference between non-debatable and non-negotiable. In my opinion women’s rights are not (or at least should not be) negotiable. However, also in my opinion, if freedom of expression means anything, it is the freedom to express honestly held beliefs that the rest of us consider to be outrageous and unacceptable. It’s a fairly paltry freedom otherwise. And so long as said freedom extends to the outrageous, the rest of must be prepared to answer and defeat the outrageous, persuasively and in detail. Hence, debate.
I think my choice of words is backing us into a fight we really don’t need to have here. If by “debate” you think I mean some back-and-forth setting where we all agree in advance that each side has a 50-50 chance of being right and we’ll let the audience pick the winner, I really don’t mean that at all.
Now, in the present context, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled clearly in our favour and despite the fact that a large proportion of the Canadian population appears to be okay with this, an annoyingly loudmouthed minority backed by a disturbingly large proportion of MPs claims that it is now time to force the issue, apparently, in this most recent instance, by short-circuiting the legislative process and launching prosecutions for murder if an ostensible legal loophole will permit them to do so.
Under those circumstances, I think we’re kidding ourselves by saying that the debate is over. Believe me, I wish it was.
fern hill
Ok, you’re right, I’m being sloppy with terms. But if what you mean is reasoned, respectful exchange of views, I respectfully submit that such a discussion is not to be had with anti-choicers.
I’ve been arguing with them for years. Look at Woodworth’s tautologies. And he thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room.
They redefine things, move the goal posts when you score a hit. Etc. Etc.
Just read this.
http://simplyleftbehind.blogspot.ca/2006/07/how-conservatives-argue.html
Sixth Estate
Am I the only one who sees something slightly pathological in the need to write THAT long an imaginary “dialogue”?
fern hill
Maybe a tad pathological.
But the point is that they are absolutely indefatigable. They can go and go and go and go. . .
And the attacks on our rights continue… « the regina mom
[...] Benoit and Lizon, which really digs into the glurge, is the latest attempt. The Sixth Estate takes it down quite handily. Vellacott’s attack follows a long string of attacks including the recently [...]
The Sixth Estate » Why I Want to “Reopen the Abortion Debate”: Sixth Estate Responds to Critics
[...] useful to respond in detail to the complaints from a number of people who’ve suggested that Friday’s rant saying it was “time to reopen the abortion debate” was at the very least counterproductive, and also insulting in that women’s rights are not [...]