Who will be voting in favour of Motion 312? - Macleans.ca

Who will be voting in favour of Motion 312?


Liberal MP John  McKay will vote in favour of Stephen Woodworth’s motion. (Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae has condemned the motion, but has declined to whip the vote. Jeff Jedras has suggested there is a contradiction here.)

Meanwhile, on the government side, Jason Kenney says he will support the motion.


Who will be voting in favour of Motion 312?

  1. Certainly all the parties have anti-abortion MPs and we must remember that while keeping in mind the most dangerous party for women’s rights is Harper’s CPC.

    • What women’s rights are threatened by the CPC?

      • I think this is a really good point.

        That said, while GFMD’s comment is nonetheless pretty hyperbolic, I could see it being a valid point for someone to say “No party in Canada is really a threat to the rights of women, but of all the caucuses the Tory caucus probably has the most members who wish they COULD do something more to curtail certain rights of women (almost entirely, if not exclusively, around abortion rights).

        • You just said the same thing as GFMD….you just tried to make it sound nicer. LOL

          Can’t though…they are anti-women

          • LOL

            You just said the same thing as GFMD… you just tried to make it sound more scary.

          • It IS scary.

          • @EmilyOne – in all seriousness, what is scary? The Conservtives have had a majority for a long time. The Opposition is in disarray. There is no election on the horizon. They can do more or less whatever they want. And they haven’t done anything! Pretty much the worst you can say about them is that they are a sheep in wolf’s clothing. I have a hard time even calling them conservative.

          • They haven’t done anything?

            What do you call the present situation?

            It’s constant pushing, and constant publicizing, and constant campaigning on the issue.

            If they weren’t going to touch it…..they wouldn’t be mentioning it at all.

          • So a private members motion that is actively being discouraged by the PM, has no chance of passing, and is in fact supported by several Liberals is your best evidence of the “scary” changes being brought by the CPC?
            Canada has literally the most liberal abortion laws in the developed world (i.e. there are no restrictions whatsoever on abortion – no other developed country has a similar situation). There are no Charter or constitutional issues preventing the government from regulating abortion – in fact the Supreme Court told the government to do that. The Conservatives have a commanding majority and a disorganized opposition. And they have done absolutely nothing on this file. You seem to have a hair trigger fear response.

          • I’ve been a member of Reform/CA Mike, and I know what they believe, and how they think, and how they operate.

            You can afford to be blase about it….it doesn’t affect you.

          • Ahh, so it’s the hidden agenda thing again. Well, all I can say is they’ve done a pretty good job in hiding it.

          • The agenda has never been hidden. Libs and lefties are just naive

          • If it isn’t hidden, where is it? Where is the law regulating abortion that I have been assured will happen the moment the dasterdly CPC has a chance? They could pass such a law tomorrow (or yesterday, or last year) without any difficulty whatsoever. So where is it?

          • No, they couldn’t pass it without difficulty…..in fact all hell would break loose.

            So you do it step by step to accustom people to the idea.

            I can’t help it if you’re too dumb….or too much a Conbot… to hear dogwhistle stuff.

          • I have been pretty careful to not insult you personally as you seem to be a well spoken type, so I’m not sure your personal attack is warranted. Indeed most commentary boards on abortion are little more than personal attacks without reference to the issues, so I’m a bit disappointed you want to bring out discussion to that level.
            For the record, I am neither “dumb” nor a Conservative supporter, and I am in fact pro-choice.
            PM Harper is often unfairly labelled as a strategic genius. He is nothing of the sort. There is no greater “plan” on this issue, and in fact no plan at all on most issues from this government (though in fairness that could be said of most recent Canadian governments). He has no vision for Canada, and his only real skill is above average management ability. He’s a bit of a bore, frankly. But why don’t you and I meet here again in 4 years and see if he’s done anything on this file. I’ll bet you whatever you like that this motion is the last we hear of it.

          • You are insulting me with your babe-in-the-woods-innocence here.

            Of course you’re a liberal/leftie/pro-choice advocate! Of course you are!

            And no, I’m not interested in ocean-front property in Alberta either.

          • Ok – guess I misjudged you. But while you were being insulted, did you have a chance to respond to any of my actual arguments?
            See you in four years.

          • Mike you’ve BEEN responded to….several times.

            You just don’t want to accept it.

            You are unfamiliar with evangelicals, the party base and the CHP…..yet you insist only your view is correct.

            No, you won’t see me in 4 years….we’ll hear about it again long before that.

            Go read Free Dominion for awhile


          • Your sole response has been you know a bunch of stuff that about conservatives that others don’t so we should believe you that they are on the cusp of bringing about a theocracy. And that the hidden agenda is in fact there for all to see, and yet you have provided no examples of it.
            I think you are right that we will hear about it in less than four years. Like when the motion is defeated by a wide margin. The unhidden/hidden agenda at work!

          • And your sole response is that you know better than anyone….yer working for the other side guy…..we are all aware of that gimmick on here

          • With respect, I think you are seeing only what you want to see. I don’t know better than anyone, but I try to marshall my arguments with facts instead of personal or off topic attacks – the most common of which is to accuse the other party of being a CPC mole. It is a diservice to the seriousness of the issues involved to resort to such practices.
            And maybe I am mistaken on this, but my guess is that if an impartial observer were to read this thread and were asked to guess which commentor was a shill, they wouldn’t pick me. Aaron – what do you think?

          • Yeah cuz a ‘male leftie’ would know more on this subject than anyone, right?

            Sorry pal….yer busted.

          • I’ve heard that if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, people will eventually believe it is true, even if there is not a scintilla of evidence to support it. Indeed, it is the Conservatives that are most often accused of doing this (see the many articles at Maclean’s on their absurd carbon tax position). You also appear to be a proponent of this tactic.

          • You’re the one carrying on the topic pal.

        • Well, ok, but that is pretty thin gruel.

  2. Mother Teresa ~ It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish

  3. The only possible outcome for this motion is for it to be defeated. It is bad for women, bad for families, is divisive but perhaps most importantly, it goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Abortions restrictions hurt women and put their lives at risk. Do we REALLY need a reminder of how “awesome” things were in the good old days? I think not. Reopening this issue will only oppress and hurt women while it will do nothing to 1) prevent unwanted pregnancies and 2) lower the number of abortions. Banning abortions do not make them go away. It only makes them unsafe.

    • Unwanted pregnancies = unwanted children. There are so many couples that want these children. We should probably legalize rape, murder of any form, child molestation, child trafficking and slavery, and prostitution too. Let’s hope by legalizing these that the government will at least find ways to make it safer for the victims or at the very least make it a bit more comfortable for them. There is no such thing as a safe abortion. Women have died countless number of times – not even counting all the baby girls that die or suffer because of a botched abortion. Do some research and watch this video on how an abortion is performed.

      The government isn’t trying to pass a bill, it is just a motion. Why are people so against it?? Are you scared that there will be proof that the child is indeed a human in the womb? And if he/she is, this is going to leave a guilty feeling that you have indeed just killed a human being…

      • Oh cute! Another anti-choice man telling women what to do, bullying them around and controlling their bodies and their lives. Not impressed.

        This said, the only decision you are entitled to make regards your own body, your own life. Against abortion? Don’t have one. (Not that you’ll ever face that choice, uh? It’s easy to be anti-choice when you’re not the one being pregnant…)

        As for what a REAL abortion looks like, I suggest you check this out ;http://www.thisismyabortion.com/
        A far cry from propaganda videos you’re posting.

        BTW I stand for the right of ALL women to terminate a pregnancy. Even anti-choice ones. Think anti-choice women enver have abortions? Think again! This might interest you: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

        So yeah. Come back to us when you’ve actually faced an unwanted pregnancy. Otherwise this is a woman’s body. It’s also her choice. Not yours.

    • Legislation regulating abortion is not againt the Charter. The Supreme Court practically begged Parliament to write a new law when it struck the then existing law in Morgentaler (on the grounds that it was overly broad, not that the government couldn’t regulate abortion).

      • And the current situation works prefectly. We do not need a law making women criminals. BTW abortion restrictions DO put women’s lives in danger. That IS against the charter.

        • I don’t know how to make this any more clear, but regulation on abortion is not counter to the Charter. This is the Supreme Court’s view, not mine: read the Morgentaler decision.

          • Actually the Supreme court has been cristal clear in 1988, and again 1989. Abortion restrictions harm women and putting women’s lives in danger is unconstitutional. Which is exactly what M-312 attempts to do: restrict women’s access to a safe, legal abortion. It’s not a discussion, it’s restriction. Not to mention that it will do nothing to stop abortions. abortions restrictions do not stop abortions but only make them unsafe.

            We can discuss this day and night. At the end of the day, though, this is not YOUR choice to make. Nor mine, for that matter. That choice belongs to the pregnant woman.

  4. A vote for Kenney or McKay is a vote for a return to backalley clotheshangers. Good to know.

  5. Passing Bill 312 would suggest that Canadians are ready and mature enough to hold a new discussion on the subject of when life really begins. Our law is 400 years old and does not take into account the latest technology to inform our laws. Canada should be a champion of human rights. Currently we are looking for “life” on Mars. Would a 15 week old fetus qualify as a life form? Would that “life” have any right to exist?