Don't step in that. It'll stick to your shoe.

Never has so much horse shit been cobbled together on one page by someone who has no clue what they're actually talking about.

She's unqualified. Anti woman. A "right-wing man in a skirt and fetching up-do." Feminists went apoplectic when Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was chosen as Senator John McCain's running mate. The same feminists who keep saying we must have more women in politics suddenly changed their minds. We need more women--just not that kind of woman.

That's just the start and it get progressively worse from there.

Ultimately, feminism -- in its current manifestation as a hodge-podge of left-wing positions on abortion, gender quotas and family law -- has become a brittle, insecure ideology. Nothing highlights this better than the animus feminists reserve for a woman like Sarah Palin.

Not just feminists, Andrea. Anyone who recognizes abuse of authority, those of us who abhor censorship, anybody who expects an elected representative to actually represent those who sent them to their office.

In short, Andrea, you're trying to camouflage what Palin really is - another incompetent, narrow-minded, religion-driven, fundamentalist right-wing freak. You're trying to use the "feminist" argument because you can't defend her on her record, which quite frankly, sucks.

But if you need your little strawman addressed, I'll hand you over to Jane who quite ably, (and far too politely, in my view), leaves your ridiculous diatribe in a smoking heap on the ground.

Take it away Jane.

What could possibly have motivated them?

When Justice minister Rob Nicholson cut loose Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime act he didn't stop there. He added this:

I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights.

That's nice, but what suddenly motivated the Conservatives to so blatantly abandon the heavily coded bill in the first place? It was playing into the demands of the base. As much as all of us were aware of what C-484 was all about (an incremental bill to eventually criminalize abortion), the Conservatives' nutball religious followers were also identifying it as that.

It could be that the embarrassing question being put to Harper by Stephane Dion was causing a lot of discomfort. Harper still hasn't answered, but he did vote in favour of C-484 at first and second* reading.

April Reign provides the answer. And yes, it because the last thing the Conservatives need is a leader in charge of a party who has a question hanging over his head like the Sword of Damocles. Get rid of the reason for the question because something of a light just went on in the head of some Conservative strategist.

With all the rumours of war election, it is hard to see this as anything but an abusive government suddenly recognizing that women have the vote and that vote is unlikely to go their way after forcing themselves into Canadian womens’ private parts.

Which then begs the question, why didn't the idea get dropped completely? Why the reference to a "new" bill?

Easy answer. They have to play back to the base... with something. Nicholson is providing reassurance to the fundie wingnut element that this whole thing will get revisited. That means the fight against this lot, on this subject is far from over.

Nicholson's suggestion is still focusing on the presence of a fetus. Judges already have the power to impose stiffer sentences on those who do harm to others who are either pregnant, incapacitated or otherwise likely to endure increased aggravation as a result of a personal condition.

By Cheryl:

Why single out pregnancy? If Nicholson felt a compelling need to do this he also needs to include elderly women, elderly men, disabled people and anyone else who could be considered weak and unable to remotely defend themselves.

The thin edge of the wedge is still there.

=====

* Corrected - Thanks skdadl.

Emma the Embryo and the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill

If a fetus is a person, then a woman isn't.

Or, if you prefer, any separate legal rights granted to a fetus as a person with the right not to be killed or injured must necessarily come at the expense of the person carrying that fetus.

In Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the word "child" appears 14 times and the phrase "unborn child" five times. Clause 5 states : "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being." (h/t Joyce Arthur)

Read that again : "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."

In Bill C-484 Endangers Abortion Rights and Women's Rights by Establishing Fetal Personhood, an excellent rebuttal to the supposed innocuousnous of the bill, Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada writes :

"Regardless of Ken Epp’s stated intent for the bill – to protect pregnant women and wanted fetuses from violence – he should realize that once enacted, his bill can be used in ways he did not intend .... By recognizing the "rights of the unborn," it creates the risk that pregnant women’s behaviour could be regulated or punished, and abortion rights restricted."

Plus, although Epp cannot be held directly responsible for the, uh, enthusiasm of his followers, their references to C-484 as a Kicking Abortion's Ass bill aren't really helping his case any.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Tuesday Update : PSA at Canadian Cynic massacres C-484 :

Ken Epp's Big Con