Matt Gurney: As debate heats up, Canadian support for unrestricted abortions skyrockets
AP Photo/Orlin Wagner; REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein; REUTERS/Chris Wattie
U.S. politicians Todd Akin and
Richard Mourdock, and Canadian Stephen Woodworth, all of whom have been
at the centre of abortion-related debates in the past few months.
A Forum Research poll for the National Post recently asked 1,735 randomly selected Canadians 18 years of age or older when abortion should be legal.
A full 60% of Canadians said always.
That’s surprisingly high. Even more surprising: That number’s skyrocketed in recent months. In a similar Forum poll conducted last February, only 51% of Canadians took that position.
That Canadians are pro-choice isn’t news. But even many pro-choice individuals (this one included) feel that while abortion should be legal, safe and available, some restrictions or at least regulations are warranted. The complete absence of any laws surrounding abortion makes Canada an anomaly, and has long been contentious even here.
Any poll is just a snapshot in time, of course. The sudden swing toward the extreme pro-choice side of the spectrum could be a blip that will disappear the next time the same question is asked.
But why the blip?
Forum president Lorne Bozinoff has a theory: “In the absence of anything else happening, it appears [Conservative] MP Stephen Woodworth’s attempt to re-open the abortion debate had the effect of hardening opinion in favour of legal abortion.”
That’s an interesting thought. Could the maneuverings of the pro-life forces have produced a backlash among moderates?
Mr. Woodworth’s goal was pretty tame — he was seeking an all-party committee, not mortaring abortion clinics. But Mr. Woodworth’s (ultimately defeated) private member’s motion wasn’t happening in the “absence of anything else.” It was happening alongside a U.S. election campaign in which abortion played a very prominent, contentious part. And Canadians seem to have responded by becoming even more pro-choice.
The first major incident was Missouri Republican Todd Akin, who said that in cases of “legitimate rape,” the female body can avoid pregnancy. Remembered for being spectacularly insensitive to victims of sexual violence, his comments were actually addressing abortion. Mr. Akin didn’t believe abortion should be permitted for rape victims since, if they were pregnant, any talk of rape clearly wasn’t legitimate. Then, in October, Republican Richard Mourdock of Indiana, also addressing the issue of post-rape abortion, declared that pregnancies resulting from non-consensual intercourse were “God’s will.”
Mr. Mourdock’s fumble came right before the new Forum poll. He called pregnancy-by-rape God’s will on Oct. 23. Forum made their calls on Oct. 27, at a time when Canadian media outlets were closely covering the American election. (Both lost, and their comments have been cited as one reason women voted so disproportionately against Mitt Romney, a key reason for his loss.)
Canadians’ access to abortion goes further than even what most U.S. pro-choicers advocate for, so it wasn’t really an issue that should have resonated here. But, for 9% of the sampled Canadians, something sure resonated. The buffoonish fumbling of two GOP nobodies could have have moved the needle on Canadian opinion as much as Mr. Woodworth’s motion.
And for Canada’s pro-lifers, there’s a lesson to learned from that. Fiery rhetoric will kill your cause. Debating legal safeguards and definitions of life may not grab as much attention as fuming about “legitimate rape,” but it’s the best shot you have.
But it’s hard to promote your cause while treading cautiously. And Mr. Woodworth walked softly indeed, but when Status of Women minister Rona Ambrose voted for his motion, the NDP called on her to resign.
The bar for what constitutes extremism in Canada is set remarkably low. It’s not enough for Canadian pro-lifers to avoid sounding like Messrs. Akin or Mourdock. They’ve got to overcome the suspicion of millions of Canadians that, deep down, they agree with them, all while knowing they’ll be set back to zero if some abortion horror story — take the recent death of a woman in Ireland, dead of blood poisoning after being denied a medically necessary abortion — hits the news.
And that’s a tall order indeed. Canada should have an abortion law — that’s a fight worth fighting. But it might not be a winnable one.
National Post
A full 60% of Canadians said always.
That’s surprisingly high. Even more surprising: That number’s skyrocketed in recent months. In a similar Forum poll conducted last February, only 51% of Canadians took that position.
That Canadians are pro-choice isn’t news. But even many pro-choice individuals (this one included) feel that while abortion should be legal, safe and available, some restrictions or at least regulations are warranted. The complete absence of any laws surrounding abortion makes Canada an anomaly, and has long been contentious even here.
Any poll is just a snapshot in time, of course. The sudden swing toward the extreme pro-choice side of the spectrum could be a blip that will disappear the next time the same question is asked.
But why the blip?
Forum president Lorne Bozinoff has a theory: “In the absence of anything else happening, it appears [Conservative] MP Stephen Woodworth’s attempt to re-open the abortion debate had the effect of hardening opinion in favour of legal abortion.”
That’s an interesting thought. Could the maneuverings of the pro-life forces have produced a backlash among moderates?
Mr. Woodworth’s goal was pretty tame — he was seeking an all-party committee, not mortaring abortion clinics. But Mr. Woodworth’s (ultimately defeated) private member’s motion wasn’t happening in the “absence of anything else.” It was happening alongside a U.S. election campaign in which abortion played a very prominent, contentious part. And Canadians seem to have responded by becoming even more pro-choice.
The first major incident was Missouri Republican Todd Akin, who said that in cases of “legitimate rape,” the female body can avoid pregnancy. Remembered for being spectacularly insensitive to victims of sexual violence, his comments were actually addressing abortion. Mr. Akin didn’t believe abortion should be permitted for rape victims since, if they were pregnant, any talk of rape clearly wasn’t legitimate. Then, in October, Republican Richard Mourdock of Indiana, also addressing the issue of post-rape abortion, declared that pregnancies resulting from non-consensual intercourse were “God’s will.”
Mr. Mourdock’s fumble came right before the new Forum poll. He called pregnancy-by-rape God’s will on Oct. 23. Forum made their calls on Oct. 27, at a time when Canadian media outlets were closely covering the American election. (Both lost, and their comments have been cited as one reason women voted so disproportionately against Mitt Romney, a key reason for his loss.)
Canadians’ access to abortion goes further than even what most U.S. pro-choicers advocate for, so it wasn’t really an issue that should have resonated here. But, for 9% of the sampled Canadians, something sure resonated. The buffoonish fumbling of two GOP nobodies could have have moved the needle on Canadian opinion as much as Mr. Woodworth’s motion.
And for Canada’s pro-lifers, there’s a lesson to learned from that. Fiery rhetoric will kill your cause. Debating legal safeguards and definitions of life may not grab as much attention as fuming about “legitimate rape,” but it’s the best shot you have.
But it’s hard to promote your cause while treading cautiously. And Mr. Woodworth walked softly indeed, but when Status of Women minister Rona Ambrose voted for his motion, the NDP called on her to resign.
The bar for what constitutes extremism in Canada is set remarkably low. It’s not enough for Canadian pro-lifers to avoid sounding like Messrs. Akin or Mourdock. They’ve got to overcome the suspicion of millions of Canadians that, deep down, they agree with them, all while knowing they’ll be set back to zero if some abortion horror story — take the recent death of a woman in Ireland, dead of blood poisoning after being denied a medically necessary abortion — hits the news.
And that’s a tall order indeed. Canada should have an abortion law — that’s a fight worth fighting. But it might not be a winnable one.
National Post
Labels: Canada, Health, Human Relations, Medicine, Particularities, Sexism
posted by Pieface @ 10:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home