Stephen Harper – We Need A Law

Time for Harper to set himself apart from other party leaders

WNAL Staff — Thu, 29 May 2014 03:30:42 +0000

This week’s Global Summit on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health is another opportunity for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to set himself apart from the leaders of the two opposition parties. The summit is themed: Saving Every Woman Every Child: Within Arm’s Reach. According to a recent government release, “Canada is a world leader in promoting women and children’s health in developing countries and in reducing the unacceptable mortality rates that these vulnerable populations face.”

Harper’s interest in maternal and newborn health these past few years has not come without controversy. One of the conditions Harper insisted on right from the beginning was that Canada’s contributions would not fund abortions.

The background to this week’s summit is the Muskoka Initiative, announced at the G8 meetings in 2010. It was then that Harper set in motion a five year, $1.1 billion commitment to maternal, newborn, and child health in developing countries. The $1.1 billion was in addition to the $1.75 billion already committed to such care.

The exclusion of funds to expand access to abortion around the world of course incensed the other political parties in Ottawa; especially Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Status of Women critic Niki Ashton who seem to think that women’s rights are synonymous with abortion access.

Some viewed the abortion exclusion as a move by the Prime Minister to pander to his social conservative base. While others, many from that same base, expressed a degree of skepticism as they openly wondered whether the prime minister could be trusted to follow through on this promise.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Harper’s position is very similar to that of Melinda Gates (who will be present at the summit this week). In a TED talk a few years ago she said, “If we’re going to make progress on this issue, we have to be really clear about what our agenda is. We’re not talking about abortion. We’re not talking about population control. What I’m talking about is giving women the power to save their lives, to save their children’s lives, and to give their families the best possible future.”

Harper’s position on maternal health is laudable – if we are ever going to live in a world where abortion is an unthinkable solution to an unplanned pregnancy, there must be adequate care for pregnant mothers and their newborn children. But it is inconsistent with the fact that Canada continues to contribute $6 million per year to International Planned Parenthood – an organization with a goal to dismantle abortion laws and to have abortion declared a worldwide fundamental human right.

The Saving Every Woman Every Child: Within Arm’s Reach summit is a positive sign that Canada is committed to ensuring we get the very best results for the money we spend – the Prime Minister has made real results a priority. In this he sits in stark contrast to the other party leaders who continue to frame their message in such a way that woman’s rights, both in Canada and around the world, will apparently only be achieved by granting unfettered access to abortion.

We can do better. Our humanity demands we do better. The Global Summit on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health should not be about partisan politics or pandering to one group over another. No, this is about caring for those less fortunate – the vulnerable in our human family. The Canadian government is leading us to do better. For that we can be thankful.

Harper strengthens pro-life vote on front benches

WNAL Staff — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 01:18:29 +0000

Last fall some in the media thought it was unconscionable for ten members of the front benches to go against the Prime Minister’s directive and vote in favour of a motion that would have seen a parliamentary committee study the definition of a human being. Considering the hard-line stance Mr. Harper has taken in establishing himself as one of the most pro-abortion prime ministers this country has seen, it wasn’t surprising to see some in the media attempt to create controversy by exploiting the apparent divide between the PMO and his most trusted members of parliament. But alas, the actions of high profile ministers Jason Kenney, Rona Ambrose and others in voting for Motion 312 seem to have had little consequence.

This week’s cabinet shuffle has received much attention from the politicos and pundits. Most of the buzz has been centred on the fact that there are eight new faces in the cabinet including four women (bringing the total number of women to 12). But one curious and under-reported fact is that of the 39 Cabinet members, 12 are on record as voting in favour of the last piece of pro-life legislation presented in the House of Commons.

What are we to make of this?

Only a few short months ago we were lead to believe that there was a rift between pro-life MPs and the Prime Minister; now he increases the pro-life vote on his front bench. It certainly isn’t for lack of talent among the 163 members of his party that he was forced to choose individuals he was not comfortable with. Some may be inclined to dismiss this fact as purely incidental. Granted, it would be difficult to ascertain the exact reason for giving an increase in responsibility to MPs who are clearly not of the same mind as their boss when it comes to a legal recognition of the pre-born child. Yet one thing is clear – being pro-life does not affect your credibility with the man who calls the shots. This is significant! Many have been duped into believing that a pro-life vote is detrimental to promotion within the Harper government. The latest cabinet appointments prove that belief to be entirely fallacious and, in fact, it could be argued that the opposite is true.

Consider St. Catherines MP Rick Dykstra. Many pro-lifers worked hard on Dykstra’s campaign based on statements he initially made indicating he would support measures to introduce and pass laws protecting pre-born human rights. His voting record (he voted against the recent Motion 312 as well as Bill C-510, a bill designed to criminalized coerced abortion known as Roxanne’s Law) is disturbing as it shows he felt political expediency was more important than staying true to his word. Clearly it hasn’t worked out well for him if his aspirations included a cabinet position. Not only was he left out of the recent cabinet shuffle; he is facing a serious backlash in his riding for his abandonment of pre-born children.

Whether the recent increase in pro-life support on the front benches was done intentionally or not remains to be seen. Canada’s pro-life movement certainly isn’t holding their collective breath waiting for Mr. Harper to unglue himself from his position of never re-opening the abortion debate. With that having been said, all members of his caucus need to be encouraged to do what is right. Those candidates who state openly during campaigns that they are pro-life but then consistently vote pro-choice should be held to account for their deceptive tactics by the pro-lifers who worked tirelessly to have them elected.