HuffPost Canada closed in 2021 and this site is maintained as an online archive. If you have questions or concerns, please check our FAQ or contact support@huffpost.com.

motion 312

A lecture by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth came to an abrupt and bizarre end at the University of Waterloo on Wednesday
What comes to mind when people think of Saskatchewan? Socialism, of course. Other things too, but certainly socialism. But since Tommy Douglas left provincial politics, Saskatchewanians have wandered back and forth on the political spectrum. Saskatchewan has 14 seats in the House of Commons. There's not a single socialist bum in those 14 seats.
Stephen Woodworth faced criticism Friday in Question Period over a scheduled appearance at an event with Michel Lizotte, an
The word "abortion" seemed to cast a hypnotic spell over MPs who spoke against Motion 312 in the Parliamentary debate, causing them to suspend thoughtful analysis and abandon time-honoured Canadian values and institutions. Canadians across our land are beginning to realize the damage to our democratic institutions and principles being done by those whose single-minded, intransigent and extreme preoccupation with protecting our abortion practices leads to abandon essential Canadian ideals.
Here's an age old riddle for you: how many old white guys does it take to editorialize on a subject that has to do solely with a woman's most intimate choice in life? Well, if you're the National Post, then four. The outrage radiating from the old white men commentariat ranges from "well, why can't we have this debate?" to "fetuses are people too, and they have rights just like you and me."
Wednesday evening was a perilous moment for every person with a uterus in Canada and elsewhere. In a country where we are applauded for not having legal restrictions on abortion, Parliament voted on M312, which was defeated 203-91. Though the motion claimed to be in the interest of equality for everyone, nowhere did the word woman, womb, fetus, uterus, or (heaven forbid) vagina appear in the motion. The person who should have been fighting the hardest Wednesday night was the Minister for the Status of Women, Rona Ambrose. Instead she sucker-punched everyone in this country who hopes and expects to be treated in accordance with their charter rights and as a person, by voting yes.
Many saw Rona Ambrose's vote as the opening salvo in an effort to unwind the long-established principle of a woman's right to choose, and a terrible betrayal by Ambrose, who should now be called the minister in charge of turning back the clock. None of this was terribly surprising, since women seem to have been coasting on autopilot when it comes to protecting the rights we have gained, much less advancing the cause of equality and fairness going forward.
Most British Columbia MPs voted down a controversial motion to reopen a debate on when human life begins, but the only members
Tory MP Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 to study the definition of human life was defeated in the House of Commons Wednesday
A lot has been made of Rona Ambrose's support for Motion 312, and her justification that she has concerns about sex selection abortion. I admit that it's difficult for me to support the abortion of an otherwise healthy fetus, simply because it has XX chromosomes. But I don't think that limiting womens' access to abortion is a productive answer. Why not look at the root of the problem? Health Canada's hastily-enacted policy, which prevents sex selection during artificial insemination. If Minister Ambrose truly cared about both a woman's right to choose and wanted to prevent sex-selective abortions, why wouldn't she try to remove this restrictive policy instead?
Stephen Harper has stayed true to his word, maintaining his stand that the issue of abortion will not be reopened in Canada so long as he is Prime Minister. That being the case, how did we reach the point where the blame for Motion 312 and it's implications on the reproductive rights of women in this country are perceived to be solely with Stephen Harper and the CPC?
One of the most contentious issues facing the 41st Parliament is Motion 312. My feelings on the abortion issue are complex and have evolved over time. I have come to the conclusion after years of deliberation and inner debate that I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
The political debate over abortion in Canada has been serious business over the last few months, but a new video is giving
A flood of postcards supporting MP Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 to study the definition of life has slowed Parliament's
Motion 312 proposes that Parliament evaluate a section of the Criminal Code of Canada that currently defines unborn children as non-human beings. Until Canada's criminal code is changed, every Canadian family's unborn child is at risk. Unborn children have less protection than animals under the Criminal Code of Canada. They are treated like dirt, literally. That's why I launched PASS312.
The Prime Minister himself has said he will not open the abortion debate. This goes as far as the PMO working to strongly encourage members of parliament to vote against MP Steven Woodworth's bill -- that asks our government to review the definition of when a child become a human being -- though that doesn't look to be stopping some members. If Prime Minister Harper is not interested in opening the abortion debate, and if this was only a private member's motion to create a committee -- the least threatening and most common of all government workings, then what makes Motion 312 important?
The Tories, like any other political party, are no stranger to voting against motions that don't fit in with the party's
Pro-choice advocate and HuffPost blogger Joyce Arthur's views on abortion are ripe with inconsistencies. She bemoans what she believes was a recent attack on a woman's "right" to abortion. But according to parliament, women do not have a right to abortion. The "right" to abortion that's so often touted is about as substantial as the unicorn, and the act itself is far uglier: the antithesis of good mothering.
Canadian women won equality rights 27 years ago when the gender equality clause in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms took effect. Yet, several times since the turn of the 21st century, parliament has seen fit to debate whether women's rights should be restricted. How can this happen?