Redford will impose abortion, homosexual marriage on Christi

[Bill Whatcott]

Great column! Alison Redford is red, as in communist. Real pro-choice people would give those who disagree, the option of opting out of killing children, which is absolutely contrary to Christian morality. We can learn from Redford; pro-abortionsits, really don't believe in private choices. They believe in imposing abortion!
Bill Whatcott

COLUMN: Levant – Redford wants to uphold rights by ripping them away from citizens
Brian Lilley - April 8th, 2012

So much for pro-choice
by Ezra Levant
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/contri ... ment-60681

Do you think doctors who are opposed to abortion on religious grounds should be forced by the government to perform them anyway?

It’s not a real issue in Canada, where abortions are available on demand, for any reason or no reason, from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayers.

Doctors who believe in it do it. Doctors who don’t, don’t.

Canada has no legal limits on abortion whatsoever. It’s a pro-choice utopia.

But on the campaign trail last week, Alberta Premier Alison Redford said she no longer believes abortion is a matter of personal conscience.

True, for years, she was the justice minister of Alberta where that was the rule. But Redford is losing the Alberta election badly — a new poll put her 17 points behind the upstart Wildrose party, with just two weeks to the election —so she hit the panic button.

So, off the cuff, she told reporters that doctors should now be compelled to provide abortions on demand, even if they don’t believe in it. She styled it as an attack on the Wildrose party, whose platform supports freedom of conscience— like Redford herself did, until about fifteen minutes ago.

“I was very frightened to hear the discussion today,” said Redford, who bravely managed to overcome that fear during her four years in a government where that was the law. “I certainly respect people’s personal beliefs,” she said. Unless, of course, she happens to disagree with them.

“All of the unique families in this province have the opportunity to know that when they’re accessing services, they can trust those services can be provided. And when they take on professional responsibilities, I expect them to be able to meet those professional responsibilities.”

That’s buzz words and clichés and newspeak. What is a “unique family”? What is an “opportunity to know”? How does a unique family take on a professional responsibility?

No matter. Her meaning was pulled out of her: She opposes freedom of conscience for doctors.

She now believes that the government should have the power to force someone to perform an abortion.

So much for pro-choice and respecting diversity.

But see, there’s this little thing called the Charter of Rights, and the very first freedom mentioned in — even ahead of free speech — is freedom of conscience. It’s so important, it’s in a special list in the Charter called “fundamental freedoms.”

Redford might have heard of that, being a self-described human rights expert and all.

In fact, when she was justice minister back in 2009, her government brought in a law that guaranteed freedom of conscience for parents and their children in schools. Under Bill 44, parents can withdraw their children from classes where religion or sex ed were being taught in a manner that offended parents.

But desperate times call for desperate measures — and being behind 28% to 45% is certainly desperate. So now Redford isn’t an advocate of freedom of conscience. She’s its undertaker. And the token conservative in cabinet, Ted Morton, the Charter expert, is happy to help.

Imagine a world under a Redford-Morton government: A doctor who has moral concerns about abortion can pull his children out of a class at school. But then at work, he will be compelled to perform an abortion.

This is incoherent. It’s desperate.

It’s illiberal. It’s pitiful.

It’s a whimpering end to a 41-year political dynasty. It’s not just an attack on the Wildrose party. It’s an insult to the common sense of voters, who Redford thinks will go along with this.

Redford was a Red Tory back in 1993, when the Reform Party threw every single federal PC out of Alberta. In that desperate campaign, the PCs attacked Reformers as bigots and rednecks and dangers to minorities. It didn’t work.

Panicked and exhausted, confused and angry, Redford and Morton are reaching for that old PC playbook again.

May it backfire in their faces as badly as it did back then.

[evolution8]

I can't vote but if I could, it wouldn't be Redford who's getting my vote.

[Bill Whatcott]

I can't vote but if I could, it wouldn't be Redford who's getting my vote.

You can vote in this poll hon, it's not scientific, so much as an opportunity for FNAers to express themselves......

[Ebedmelech]

I'm afraid you good people in Alberta are in for a major disappointment
Leader of Alberta’s surging Wildrose Party insists she’s ‘pro-choice,’ pro-gay ‘marriage’

by Patrick B. Craine Life Site News
Wed Apr 11, 2012 15:32 EST


CALGARY, Alberta, April 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As her party dominates polls in the lead-up to Alberta’s April 23 election, the leader of the upstart right-wing party Wildrose has insisted she is ‘pro-choice’ and has no intention to ‘legislate morality.’

After criticizing Wildrose leader Danielle Smith last week over her previous support of conscience rights for doctors and marriage commissioners, the reigning Progressive Conservatives attacked a Wildrose proposal to institute a mechanism for citizen referendums, calling it a backdoor plan to repeal the ‘rights’ of women and homosexuals.

But Smith made her own views clear at an all-candidates debate in her riding of Highwood on Tuesday.

“When our members elected me they knew they were electing a candidate that was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage,” she said, according to the Canadian Press.

“The only way we’re going to be able to become a mainstream, big-tent conservative party capable of forming government is to focus on the issues that matter to Albertans,” she continued. “If I am elected premier, a Wildrose government will not be legislating in areas of morality.”

On Tuesday the PC Party’s campaign manager Susan Elliott told the Calgary Sun that women would be targeted through citizen-initiated referendums.

“Women understand who the target is,” she said. “You’re not the target. I’m the target. Ethnic minorities are targets. Gays and lesbians are targets. We’re the targets of those kinds of things.”

And Liberal Leader Raj Sherman declared: “This is Alberta, not Alabama.”

“There is no place in this province and this country for this hard right-wing Tea Party thinking,” said Sherman.

Brian Mason, the NDP Leader, claimed the debate over abortion funding was settled by the Supreme Court. “We have an obligation to provide all medically necessary services based on the Supreme Court decision in Canada, and that is what we support,” he said.

The controversy arose after a senior Wildrose staffer told a Calgary blogger that the referendums could be a mechanism for pro-life citizens to take action against abortion.

Asked the party’s view on abortion, chief administrative officer Jeffery Trynchy wrote, “The legalities of abortion fall under federal jurisdiction. We respect that Albertans view social issues differently, which is why Wildrose would immediately introduce legislation allowing citizens to put issues like abortion to a citizen initiated referendum.”

Smith herself expressed opposition to public funding for abortions in a 2000 column for the Calgary Herald, and she has not ruled out the possibility that citizens could put the issue to a vote through the referendum mechanism.

But she insists her government would not bring forward a bill to defund abortion and suggested that any potential referendum on abortion would never make it to a vote.

Under the Wildrose proposal, referendum questions would have to be vetted by a federal judge to ensure they are within the province’s jurisdiction and conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“I’ve spoken with a legal scholar in the past couple of days, and he indicated it would likely be offside with section 7 of the Charter,” she said. Section 7 upholds the right to “life, liberty and the security of the person.”

“This is the reason why it has to go to a judge. Because we can’t be having public referenda on things that can’t be instituted.”

Wildrose has been performing well in polls as Albertans show increasing dissatisfaction with the PCs after their 41-year reign. Last week, Wildrose looked like it was headed to a majority, though a poll this week put them only slightly ahead.

The new right-wing party has taken strong stances in support of parental freedom in education and against the controversial human rights commissions that have been used to target Christians and other conservative-leaning citizens.

Last week, Premier Alison Redford, who heads the PC Party, claimed she was “frightened” by Wildrose’s apparent support for conscience rights and argued that doctors should be forced to commit abortions and prescribe contraception even if it goes against their beliefs.