QP Live: Justin Trudeau talks more about abortion

Your daily dose of political theatre

Adrian Wyld/CP

Adrian Wyld/CP

Asked about abortion, the average parliamentarian deploys one of three answers: a) defend a woman’s right to choose, and say little else; b) oppose abortion vehemently, and vocally, and publicly; or c) immediately run in the opposite direction. Justin Trudeau, the free-wheeling Liberal leader, isn’t the average parliamentarian. He decreed that Liberals are officially a pro-choice party, despite its historically mixed views on the subject. He said candidates in the next election would be expected to tow the line. Today, Trudeau told reporters that a bunch of guys in the House of Commons shouldn’t legislate away a woman’s right.

I don’t know that there’s anyone in this country that is in favour of abortions. But what I am very much in favour of is a woman’s right to make that determination on her own, in consultation with the medical community, in consultation with whoever she chooses to consult…It is not for a room full of predominantly male legislators to take away those rights from women.

Trudeau’s earlier comments found no fans in the Catholic establishment; indeed, they courted veiled threats from powerful clergy. His stridently pro-choice stance will undoubtedly repel a bunch of socially conservative voters (who were probably not Liberals, anyway). But today was no gaffe. Trudeau is as pro-choice a legislator as it gets, and he got there by rejecting the traditional terms of the debate—and forcing an issue most people avoid at all costs.

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period. If you’ve never watched, check out our primer. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3. We livestream and liveblog all the action.



Filed under:

QP Live: Justin Trudeau talks more about abortion

  1. Well, now that the brainy Trudeau Junior has pronounced men should not be passing laws that affect women……….when is he going to come out and pronounce that only children can pass laws affecting children?

    • The issue that you are sweeping over is who in the end bears the brunt of the responsibility for the choice to abort or not to abort? Let’s be brutally honest…the guy can walk away at any time…

      So maybe then the right thing to do is to legislate mandatory child support from men whose action(s) result in an unwanted pregnancy.

      • ZING!

      • Actually, you make an interesting point.

        Currently, the decision whether to abort of not rests soley with the woman. To be fair, we should enact the following:

        1. As a woman decides whether to abort or not, we should be fair to both. In the cases where a man does not want to be a father, he cannot demand a woman has an abortion, so to be fair, we should say that if a man doesn’t want to be a father, he does not have to pay child support for the next 18 years; but he loses all rights to the child in trade.

        Right now, the guy is screwed on both ends. He can’t stop an abortion, but he can’t stop being forced to provide child support if the pregnacy goes through.

        Of course, if a guy has a child, he should be supporting the kid…….but we’re talking about what is fair, not what is right.

Sign in to comment.