Canadian lawmakers vote down a motion to sendÂ a bill to make it illegal to coerce, threaten, or physically force a woman to have an abortion to the Human Rights Commision for further discussion.Â
Mark Penninga director of the Association for Reformed Polical Action responded by saying,"What kind of leaders refuse to protect pregnant women who want to keep their child? We need to ask the MPs who voted against it how exactly they can justify their vote, especially given that all of the arguments raised in the House against it were answered in detail."
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada President Joyce Arthur says, "We feel strongly that the bill isn't necessary as threats and coercion are already illegal under our criminal code. So this bill simply was duplicating something. There was no evidence at all that women are being coerced into abortion in significant numbers."
The question I would like to ask Joyce Authur is, "What is a significant number?".Â How many pregnant woman have to be abused before it comes on her radar screen as significant?Â What harm would it do to pass such a law even if it only protected one woman?Â Also I do not buy the excuse that it is already illegal under Canadian criminal code to threaten and coerce someone.Â If she really believed that she would be against hate crime laws.Â How many times have we heard from hate crime law opponents saying that there are already laws against so called "hate" crimes.Â Apparently this truth isÂ only relevent to Liberals when it is convenient to their agenda.
So what happened to this so-called Woman's Right to Choose.Â I guess this "right" is only valid and protected for those who choose to kill their unborn life.Â Or maybe Canadians no longer believe it is a woman's right to choose.Â But I venture to guess this fallacy is only promoted when it is convenient to their agenda.