This is Part Two of Smith's Risky History - Part One is Here
As I said in Part One, I was the School Board Trustee for Wards 6 and 7 after Ms Smith. Since the best indicator of future performance is past performance, we need to look at her past as a Trustee.
One of the things I've been blogging about lately is how Smith likes to blame liberal conspiracies for any dissent against her. It's interesting to note her language. She has blamed "eastern Canadian critics" (read liberals) for her troubles, attacking her opponents for doing their best to protect reproductive rights and gay rights, while she herself says she's pro-choice and pro-gay rights. On the one hand, Smith claims philosophical alignment with pro-choice and pro-gay rights folks, and on the other, she blames them for trying to bring her down.
Something doesn't add up. A person who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights doesn't propose or encourage strategies that will harm reproductive rights and gay rights. As Part One makes clear, there's nothing in her history to characterize her as a progressive on these issues except her statement at last night's forum. If there were, the media would have printed it when the stories broke. Progressives with some credibility as progressives understand her "fauxgressive" rhetoric. I think her party knows exactly who she is - someone who can appear moderate compared to the rest of them and won't lift a finger to stop their regressive agenda. Now, on to Part Two.
Part Two: Smith's Narrative of Persecution
Smith's tendency to demonize her critics and portray herself as persecuted was clear while she was a Trustee and continues today.
Here's one example from the School Board days. While on the Board, Smith and Peggy Anderson had their poor attendance reported to the government by a constituent, Donn Lovett. Lovett wanted them removed from the Board in accordance with the School Act. Smith claimed that the daytime budget meetings conflicted with her day job and suggested the scheduling of those meetings was done just so it would be impossible for her to attend. Jennifer Pollock, a Trustee at the time, confirms that Smith and Anderson had a political stance against attending budget meetings. They didn't think the elected board should have anything to do with the details of the budget, except to write general policy or guidelines. (I'll talk more about this in part three, when I talk about Smith's record on governance.) Smith and Anderson said trustees Jennifer Pollock, Liz LoVecchio and Judy Tilston had put Lovett up to the letter. Lovett responded, "Nobody needs to tell me to do anything." (See this source and Daveberta again.) [Addendum April 13, 2012: I've just been able to confirm with Donn Lovett that Smith initiated a law suit against him as a result of this incident.]
More recently, when opposition to the idea of “conscience rights” arose and a former supporter publicly bailed on Wildrose as a result, Wildrose started saying it was a plot against them by a liberals. Their former supporter was labelled a conservative mole. Like Lovett, she affirmed that she acted independently. (As do I, by the way.) Smith and Wildrose deny that their opponents might have brains of our own. To them, we are all puppets on a conspiratorial string.
Here's another example. Smith was well known as the subject of some legendary "mean girl" note passing during school board meetings, a situation widely believed to be the final straw for a frustrated public and the catalyst for the Board's removal. Smith released the notes to the media, and has since called this "good opposition research." She is obviously proud of her work here. Although she denies she retrieved the notes from the garbage, other trustees said that was the only place she could have found them. The point here is that Smith made it an issue, found the notes and made them public. She wanted those notes in the media. The media in turn were delighted to outline all the details of who said what about who's hair and someone's ugly suit. (See Daveberta's blog for excruciating detail on the whole note passing fiasco.)
In this campaign, Wildrose used another "mean girl" comment and made hay out of it. The Globe and Mail reported that Wildrose had used the ridiculous tweet about Smith's family life and childless status so that it played strongly in Smith's favour. At first, media was ignoring the tweet, because it was completely insignificant. Anyone who's ever been on Twitter knows it's full of crap like this. After being unable to light a fire under the tweet, Wildrose sent out a press release just to make sure everyone knew. They wanted it to be an issue. Yes, the tweet was ridiculous and insulting and the woman who tweeted it was idiotic and was dealt with. Similarly, yes, the notes were ridiculous and petty and all involved were publicly shamed. But Smith sure made the most of both of these situations to draw attention to herself. Even I felt sorry for her after the idiotic tweet. What a woman wants to do about a family is no one's business. I'm pro-choice. But I never would have known someone took a pot shot at her unless her people had spent so much time making sure I did. After I learned that, my sympathy evaporated. It reminded me too much of the "mean girl" note incident.
What’s interesting to me is that the "mean girl" notes about bad hair and the recent tweet are genuinely petty compared to saying you’ll put “issues like abortion” to citizen initiated referendum and enact conscience rights that override human rights. But it is this abortion issue and this conscience rights issue that Smith portrays as frivolous. Again, as the Globe and Mail notes, Smith says it's all liberal lies, electioneering and those darned easterners are behind it. (For the record, I'm from Toronto and moved to Calgary in 1988. In Smith's world, that fact alone would seem to be enough to dismiss my concerns about her policies.) If, as Smith says, “It’s typical of liberal politicians to demonize a conservative party using fear-mongering,” it is just as typical for Smith to demonize progressives and use their well-founded concerns to portray herself as hard done by and misrepresented.
This week, journalists are finding out just how little negative opinion Smith and the Wildrose are willing to brook. Another article in the Globe and Mail says that journalists who aren't towing the Wildrose Party line are being rebutted. But Wildrose is not just rebutting what they find to be errors in facts; they are rebutting so-called errors of opinion. They are coming down on people who merely disagree with them. This is all sounding very Stephen Harper to me. When Harper first got into power, he de-funded Status of Women Canada the Court Challenges Program, certainly both venues for dissenters. I could write a book about how Stephen Harper has quelled dissent, and right now the last chapter would be about CBC cuts.
As I've said before, the very idea that Conservatives are the subject of liberal media persecution is hard to buy when you remember that Smith used to work for the Calgary Herald, has had more than enough presence in media in both print and television, and that her husband is an executive with Sun Media. The media is biased? Really? In what direction? Does Smith really want to open up that can of worms?
I don't want a Provincial leader who cries persecution anytime anyone disagrees with them, or a leader who dismisses and derides dissent. And I sure don't want a leader who is going to pick a fight with the rest of Canada. I get a sense that Wildrose could start another persecution narrative, the old one where Alberta is hard done by within Canada. It's already started. Wildrose policy has enough in it to show us how a Wildrose government will relate to the rest of Canada. Wildrose is bothered by the fact that Albertans give more in transfer payments than we get. Oh poor Alberta. No reason for us to help out our neighbours. Libertarians leave that kind of stuff to individuals, remember? Wildrose policy suggests Alberta get its own immigration policy, opt out of Canada Pension in favour of our own, and that Alberta reject any federal legislation that might come to bear on our industry (read environmental rules). If Quebec were saying some of what's in the Wildrose policy book, the word "separatist" would surely arise. Someone else can blog about that.
Part Three: Government Smith Style
-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Smith's Risky History (Part One) The "Fauxgressive" Ms Smith
Last night at a forum in Okotoks, Danielle Smith said she supported gay rights and was pro-choice. If actions speak louder than words, it's time to look at actions.
I wasn't going to talk about Smith and the School Board. The focus of this blog is abortion and reproductive rights. But this is about reproductive rights. It's about protecting them. Here is part one of a three part series.
In Smith's ten months as a Trustee on the Calgary Board of Education, (Oct 19, 1998 to Aug 19, 1999) she told us some important things about who she was. Her actions in this present election period and the policies she has put forward indicate she hasn’t changed. Since the best indicator of future performance is past performance, the past is worth bringing up.
Danielle Smith, as everyone knows, was part of the infamous CBE Board of Trustees that got removed from office in 1999. Colloquially, people say they got fired. I know quite a bit about this time. My daughter was in elementary school and I was paying attention. I was a member of a parent activist group supporting public education and after the Board was sent packing, I thought I should try to help. I ran for Trustee in Wards 6 and 7 and won. I was the Trustee for Wards 6 and 7 after Smith.
Part One: The "Fauxgressive" Ms Smith
Tell me who you walk with and I’ll tell you who you are, goes the saying. In 1998, Danielle Smith and another Trustee, Peggy Anderson, were Reformers/neo cons elected to a board that had been made up of Liberals and non-partisans (sometimes referred to in the media as moderates). Seemingly joined at the hip, they shared a campaign manager who was also Jason Kenny's Executive Assistant. Smith campaigned with Rob Anders. They waved at traffic together on 17th Ave. S.W. Both Kenny and Anders are anti-choice/pro-life. Smith and Anderson were elected on narrow margins based on a platform of support for charter schools, back to basic education, and increased school discipline among other things. Anderson's day job was in Jason Kenny’s office. She also worked with some joint I think was called the Family Values Coalition, a group espousing the kind of values that say only straight and patriarchal families have value. In her first week in office, she put a poster up on her door that said, “Abstinence works every time.” This was no surprise. She spoke in candidate forums in favour of abstinence only education.
There were glowing reports written about them both many times in the now defunct Alberta Report. The message was always the same. The right finally had someone on the school board to put those progressives in their place.
The conflicts that this board was so famous for were, in part, generated by a conflict of values around human rights.The previous Board of Trustees, three of whom were returned to the Board in that same election, had managed to bring forward new policy ensuring the safety and security of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual staff and students. This was contentious. Remember back in the day when it was okay to say homosexuals didn’t deserve protection, security of the person and all the human rights straight people have? If you don't, don't worry. We might get to re-live it soon.
Today, Smith is interested in protecting “conscience rights.” That means she is interested in allowing certain people, like public marriage commissioners, to discriminate against LGBTI persons.Wildrose is trying to convince us that conscience rights are a progressive notion, even a way to protect rights. In a Libertarian view of the world like hers, the individual is everything. As my fellow blogger Pedgehog would say, it's "fauxgressive." It's a way of co-opting the language of progressive people and using it to establish regressive policies.
[Addendum: April 14, 2012. Thanks to Warren Kinsella for researching Smith's conscience in her own words. Read her record on these issues here.]
It is not progressive or gay friendly to give people a means to discriminate against gay people. No one is going to give Smith a rainbow pin for that.
Where would this right to discriminate end? The Globe and Mail in it's main editorial yesterday derides the idea and asks if it would extend to being allowed to refuse to marry inter-racial couples. Could doctors refuse to prescribe birth control, or could pharmacists refuse to dispense it? In many towns throughout Alberta, there is only one pharmacy. This could seriously affect people's capacity to access birth control and emergency contraception like Plan B.
I'm interested in how conscience rights would apply to teachers. Would teachers who objected to the idea of evolution be forced to comply with the curriculum? Would a policy like the one mentioned above, the one that protects gay students and staff be enforceable in a world where conscience rights can trump human rights protections?
Conscience rights could be used to justify all sorts of nonsense in schools. For example, once I joined the Board, I met with a group of parents concerned that an anti-choice group related to American Crisis Pregnancy Centres, an outfit called the Pregnancy Care Centre, was being invited into schools to provide sexuality education. They said they had not been able to make any headway on the issue and had been unable to get a response from their Trustee in the past. This did not surprise me. I met with many constituents who had been unable to get a response from Smith while she was in office and were frustrated by this. In an article by Maurice Tougas for Alberta Views about Smith’s leadership potential, Tougas interviewed Jennifer Pollock, who indicated that, "Smith had no interest in attending meetings with the public, and claims that Smith told people: 'We’ll tell you what we want you to know.' Smith and Anderson, Pollock says, only wanted to hear opinions from the public that reflected their own views, and were not interested in more 'esoteric' matters, such as art education." This parent group I met with had a well-founded concern that the CBE was not living up to its responsibility to offer comprehensive sexuality education according to Alberta Curriculum. One parent reported that the representative from the anti-choice group was in her child's class. She held out an oreo cookie and asked the class who wanted it. Hands shot up. Then she opened it, licked the filling, put it back together and asked who wanted it now. Groans and gags ensued. The representative said that's what the students would be like if they had sex before marriage.
Will conscience rights bring us back to abstinence lessons like this? Conscience rights will not move us forward. They invite discrimination and the kind of thinking that we have spent decades evolving beyond.
In a column written by Smith in 2000 and reproduced here, (go to the bottom) Smith mentions the Pregnancy Care Centre to say they seem to be doing things right because they want to help youth with sexual decision making. Yes, they do, as long as the decision isn't pro-choice. If Ms Smith is pro choice and stands for gay rights, her actions do not reflect it, then or now.
Looking at the potential candidates for a Wildrose Cabinet noted by blogger Daveberta, I’m concerned that protecting the human rights of LGBTI persons is going to be contentious again. Link Byfield (candidate in Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock) is the former publisher of Alberta Report, a magazine remembered by my gay and lesbian friends for the hateful nonsense it obsessively printed about homosexuals. Another potential Cabinet Minister is John Carpay (candidate in Calgary-Lougheed). He thought Ralph Klein should have used the Notwithstanding Clause so Alberta could continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Carpay has defended Bill Whatcott against charges in Saskatchewan. Whatcott recently delivered disgusting homophobic flyers door to door in Calgary. The Charter protects his right to free speech. He doesn't need a conscience clause for this. He does need a conscience clause if he wants to take this ideas one step further, become a marriage commissioner and refuse to marry gays or lesbians.
Moving on to reproductive rights rights, as Daveberta notes, potential Cabinet Member Carpay also defends the University of Calgary Campus pro-life group, a group discussed on this blog many times. They bring the CCBR's GAP presentation, also known as the fetus porn show, to campus. Many of the same faces from campus pro-life show up at various Calgary locations like Stampede to share their fetus porn with unsuspecting families and passersby. The GAP presentations compare abortion to the Holocaust. The CCBR also operates the dreadful fetus mobile that drives around Calgary. Many Calgarians despise this truck. Even Bishop Henry finds the tactics of this group offensive.
One way to test if policy is in any good is to apply specific cases and see what happens. For example, we have learned, thank goodness, that the application of the case of abortion in the Wildrose policy of citizen initiated referendum shows how the policy fails and fails spectacularly. Such a case would violate Charter rights. Worse, while it was fought, it would leave women vulnerable.
Smith is on the record stating that she doesn't think the public should have to fund abortions. Again, the column is reproduced here. In it, she says much more than that. She says:
How can someone who is pro-choice attack those who protect choice? From this, it is clear Ms Smith is very supportive of changing the status of abortion in law (admittedly out of provincial jurisdiction) and by extension, I think it is clear she would support citizen based referendum about changing the way it is delivered in Alberta Health, something that would be within her jurisdiction if she were to win. She has given every indication in the past that she would be happy to see abortion restricted, if not ended.
If Ms Smith looks progressive, it's only because she associates with the most regressive politicians in Canada. It has been made clear that de-listing could happen through a referendum and she has not definitively ruled that out. Meanwhile, the campaign to de-fund abortion has already started at Alberta Pro-Life. They seem pretty pumped. I wonder what they know?
If Ms Smith really is pro-choice and supportive of gay rights, I for one would like to see her act on those beliefs. Until then, I'll remain unconvinced.
Part Two of Smith's Risky History - Creating a Narrative of Persecution
Part Three of Smith's Risky History - Government Smith Style
-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords
I wasn't going to talk about Smith and the School Board. The focus of this blog is abortion and reproductive rights. But this is about reproductive rights. It's about protecting them. Here is part one of a three part series.
In Smith's ten months as a Trustee on the Calgary Board of Education, (Oct 19, 1998 to Aug 19, 1999) she told us some important things about who she was. Her actions in this present election period and the policies she has put forward indicate she hasn’t changed. Since the best indicator of future performance is past performance, the past is worth bringing up.
Danielle Smith, as everyone knows, was part of the infamous CBE Board of Trustees that got removed from office in 1999. Colloquially, people say they got fired. I know quite a bit about this time. My daughter was in elementary school and I was paying attention. I was a member of a parent activist group supporting public education and after the Board was sent packing, I thought I should try to help. I ran for Trustee in Wards 6 and 7 and won. I was the Trustee for Wards 6 and 7 after Smith.
Part One: The "Fauxgressive" Ms Smith
Tell me who you walk with and I’ll tell you who you are, goes the saying. In 1998, Danielle Smith and another Trustee, Peggy Anderson, were Reformers/neo cons elected to a board that had been made up of Liberals and non-partisans (sometimes referred to in the media as moderates). Seemingly joined at the hip, they shared a campaign manager who was also Jason Kenny's Executive Assistant. Smith campaigned with Rob Anders. They waved at traffic together on 17th Ave. S.W. Both Kenny and Anders are anti-choice/pro-life. Smith and Anderson were elected on narrow margins based on a platform of support for charter schools, back to basic education, and increased school discipline among other things. Anderson's day job was in Jason Kenny’s office. She also worked with some joint I think was called the Family Values Coalition, a group espousing the kind of values that say only straight and patriarchal families have value. In her first week in office, she put a poster up on her door that said, “Abstinence works every time.” This was no surprise. She spoke in candidate forums in favour of abstinence only education.
There were glowing reports written about them both many times in the now defunct Alberta Report. The message was always the same. The right finally had someone on the school board to put those progressives in their place.
The conflicts that this board was so famous for were, in part, generated by a conflict of values around human rights.The previous Board of Trustees, three of whom were returned to the Board in that same election, had managed to bring forward new policy ensuring the safety and security of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual staff and students. This was contentious. Remember back in the day when it was okay to say homosexuals didn’t deserve protection, security of the person and all the human rights straight people have? If you don't, don't worry. We might get to re-live it soon.
Today, Smith is interested in protecting “conscience rights.” That means she is interested in allowing certain people, like public marriage commissioners, to discriminate against LGBTI persons.Wildrose is trying to convince us that conscience rights are a progressive notion, even a way to protect rights. In a Libertarian view of the world like hers, the individual is everything. As my fellow blogger Pedgehog would say, it's "fauxgressive." It's a way of co-opting the language of progressive people and using it to establish regressive policies.
[Addendum: April 14, 2012. Thanks to Warren Kinsella for researching Smith's conscience in her own words. Read her record on these issues here.]
It is not progressive or gay friendly to give people a means to discriminate against gay people. No one is going to give Smith a rainbow pin for that.
Where would this right to discriminate end? The Globe and Mail in it's main editorial yesterday derides the idea and asks if it would extend to being allowed to refuse to marry inter-racial couples. Could doctors refuse to prescribe birth control, or could pharmacists refuse to dispense it? In many towns throughout Alberta, there is only one pharmacy. This could seriously affect people's capacity to access birth control and emergency contraception like Plan B.
I'm interested in how conscience rights would apply to teachers. Would teachers who objected to the idea of evolution be forced to comply with the curriculum? Would a policy like the one mentioned above, the one that protects gay students and staff be enforceable in a world where conscience rights can trump human rights protections?
Conscience rights could be used to justify all sorts of nonsense in schools. For example, once I joined the Board, I met with a group of parents concerned that an anti-choice group related to American Crisis Pregnancy Centres, an outfit called the Pregnancy Care Centre, was being invited into schools to provide sexuality education. They said they had not been able to make any headway on the issue and had been unable to get a response from their Trustee in the past. This did not surprise me. I met with many constituents who had been unable to get a response from Smith while she was in office and were frustrated by this. In an article by Maurice Tougas for Alberta Views about Smith’s leadership potential, Tougas interviewed Jennifer Pollock, who indicated that, "Smith had no interest in attending meetings with the public, and claims that Smith told people: 'We’ll tell you what we want you to know.' Smith and Anderson, Pollock says, only wanted to hear opinions from the public that reflected their own views, and were not interested in more 'esoteric' matters, such as art education." This parent group I met with had a well-founded concern that the CBE was not living up to its responsibility to offer comprehensive sexuality education according to Alberta Curriculum. One parent reported that the representative from the anti-choice group was in her child's class. She held out an oreo cookie and asked the class who wanted it. Hands shot up. Then she opened it, licked the filling, put it back together and asked who wanted it now. Groans and gags ensued. The representative said that's what the students would be like if they had sex before marriage.
Will conscience rights bring us back to abstinence lessons like this? Conscience rights will not move us forward. They invite discrimination and the kind of thinking that we have spent decades evolving beyond.
In a column written by Smith in 2000 and reproduced here, (go to the bottom) Smith mentions the Pregnancy Care Centre to say they seem to be doing things right because they want to help youth with sexual decision making. Yes, they do, as long as the decision isn't pro-choice. If Ms Smith is pro choice and stands for gay rights, her actions do not reflect it, then or now.
Looking at the potential candidates for a Wildrose Cabinet noted by blogger Daveberta, I’m concerned that protecting the human rights of LGBTI persons is going to be contentious again. Link Byfield (candidate in Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock) is the former publisher of Alberta Report, a magazine remembered by my gay and lesbian friends for the hateful nonsense it obsessively printed about homosexuals. Another potential Cabinet Minister is John Carpay (candidate in Calgary-Lougheed). He thought Ralph Klein should have used the Notwithstanding Clause so Alberta could continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Carpay has defended Bill Whatcott against charges in Saskatchewan. Whatcott recently delivered disgusting homophobic flyers door to door in Calgary. The Charter protects his right to free speech. He doesn't need a conscience clause for this. He does need a conscience clause if he wants to take this ideas one step further, become a marriage commissioner and refuse to marry gays or lesbians.
Moving on to reproductive rights rights, as Daveberta notes, potential Cabinet Member Carpay also defends the University of Calgary Campus pro-life group, a group discussed on this blog many times. They bring the CCBR's GAP presentation, also known as the fetus porn show, to campus. Many of the same faces from campus pro-life show up at various Calgary locations like Stampede to share their fetus porn with unsuspecting families and passersby. The GAP presentations compare abortion to the Holocaust. The CCBR also operates the dreadful fetus mobile that drives around Calgary. Many Calgarians despise this truck. Even Bishop Henry finds the tactics of this group offensive.
One way to test if policy is in any good is to apply specific cases and see what happens. For example, we have learned, thank goodness, that the application of the case of abortion in the Wildrose policy of citizen initiated referendum shows how the policy fails and fails spectacularly. Such a case would violate Charter rights. Worse, while it was fought, it would leave women vulnerable.
Smith is on the record stating that she doesn't think the public should have to fund abortions. Again, the column is reproduced here. In it, she says much more than that. She says:
"Any politician who challenges the status quo gets pilloried by the media, abortion-rights groups and opposing politicians.
Yet when the courts struck down the Criminal Code sections that dealt with abortion in 1988, they never said, 'And ye shall never pass laws on this matter again.'
What they did say was that the process for approving the procedure, through therapeutic abortion committees, was flawed and cumbersome, and denied a woman her right to security of the person.
However, writing in favour of striking down the legislation, Justice J. Wilson also said that the protection of the fetus 'is a perfectly valid legislative objective' and that 'Section 1 of the Charter authorizes reasonable limits to be put upon the woman’s right.'
In fact, the court said a fetus should be treated differently depending on its level of development, suggesting 'a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages where the woman’s autonomy would be absolute and a restrictive approach in the later stages where the state’s interest in protecting the fetus would justify its prescribing conditions.'
And where does the line get drawn?
The esteemed court said it 'should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature.'"
If Ms Smith looks progressive, it's only because she associates with the most regressive politicians in Canada. It has been made clear that de-listing could happen through a referendum and she has not definitively ruled that out. Meanwhile, the campaign to de-fund abortion has already started at Alberta Pro-Life. They seem pretty pumped. I wonder what they know?
If Ms Smith really is pro-choice and supportive of gay rights, I for one would like to see her act on those beliefs. Until then, I'll remain unconvinced.
Part Two of Smith's Risky History - Creating a Narrative of Persecution
Part Three of Smith's Risky History - Government Smith Style
-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Right turn in the Wrong Direction
I used to teach school and we used to talk about the 80/20 factor, how 20% of your kids took 80% of your time. I say the same is true in Alberta where 20% of the voices get 80% of the time. The rest of us are quietly working, building skate shacks in community centres, volunteering at our kids' schools, going to work, giving to charity, raising families, taking care of our parents, and being good people. The kind of people who get media play and take up the public discourse, who want to deny human rights, gay bash, call women who exercise their right to choice murderers, those folks, the kind of people who make us look like rednecks on the national stage, are in the minority. But they sure do waste a lot of time.
Recently, this image was starting to change. We've actually been starting to look diverse in our public image, as diverse as we really are. No one has done more to accomplish this than Calgary's Mayor Nenshi. Then Raj Sherman became opposition leader and Alison Redford won the PC leadership. Whip smart, thoughtful, a "red tory," by all accounts. And I've got to say, she seems like a good person. She wants Alberta to have a place at the national table. She wants Alberta to lead. Redford said quite plainly that Alberta is different now than it was twenty or thirty years ago, and thank goodness for that is all I can say. The redneck image, the embarrassing slams against LGBTI persons, the cries by Klein against "eastern bums and creeps" driving up the crime rate, incidents like throwing change at homeless people, and the "get a job" approach to social problems, was all getting to be a bit too much in the 21st Century.
Smith of the Wildrose mocked Redford for being happy about the way Alberta is growing, mocked her for pointing out what the rest of us have known for some time. Alberta is much more progressive than anyone thinks. Alberta is all grown up and ready to lead.
I have often said that Albertans are the most wonderful people in the world as individuals. If your car were to break down on the side of the road, someone will stop to help you. They might even bring you back home for a cup of coffee and a slice of pie. As individuals, Albertans are kind and neighbourly. As a group, we have not been that way in the past. We've been isolationist, xenophobic, advocated for Firewalls, flaunted our wealth, and refused to play nice in the sandbox.
Now Ms Smith wants to lead us back to the past, a time not so long ago when Alberta was still a bit of a joke. A rich joke, yes, but a joke. She wants to implement "conscience rights," giving a license to discriminate to marriage commissioners, pharmacists, doctors, and who knows who else. She's willing to put social "issues like abortion" to citizen initiated referendum. She refuses to say she will not allow abortion to be de-funded or de-listed as a service paid for by public health care dollars. She invokes the spectre of "eastern liberals" when she faces dissent. The Globe and Mail found her channelling Klein with her comments that dissent she was facing in her campaign was a plot by “Eastern Canada and Eastern Canadian critics” intent on derailing conservative parties. Smith is leading us right into the past. Comments like that don't make us welcome in a national conversation.
Redford has a difficult job this campaign. Mired in the politics of the past, in the history of a party that has made mistakes, in the reality of Bill 44, there's plenty of reason to say she's the pot calling the kettle black on these issues. I'm the last person to defend a Tory. The Last.
But, remember this. The worst of her party, the most right wing, the most extreme, the most strident, the ones who believe the most outrageous things, the ones who want conscience rights and an end to abortion and who defend homophobia and want abstinence only education in the schools, moved over to the Wildrose. The PCs that have remained under Redford are more moderate. As the Redford campaign says, "This is not your father's PC party." Where did that party go? To Wildrose.
I know enough about politics to know that Redford is fighting the battle of her life both from party insiders who didn't want her there, and from outside the party in this election, from those who left the PCs behind and made a hard right turn into Wildrose country. I don't know what happened on the "no meet committee" issue behind closed doors, but the compromise she attempted with the old boys against her better judgement backfired horribly. She's admitted her mistake. What I don't know is which former Tory members now in the Wildrose had an influence on making that decision in the first place? Are there Wildrose members who received that cash? I don't know. But I do know, when the decision was made to pay committees in this way, many of the Wildrose folks were still PCs on the inside. They are as responsible over in the Wildrose for whatever problems there are in the PCs as the PCs are.
I'm not a PC, but at least their newest vision of Alberta under Redford is something I can take some pride in as an Albertan. Under Wildrose, I'd be explaining once again to my non-Albertan friends why I'm living in a province that thinks gays and lesbians shouldn't have rights and won't protect a woman's right to choose. Even Klein was smart enough to know you don't mess with abortion.
What does this mean? Ironically, it means the best chance for change in Alberta is sticking with the PCs. If you had told me a year ago I would publish that sentence, I would have told you that you were insane. The best chance to protect human rights and reproductive rights is to stick with the PCs. Yes, I know the Liberals and the NDs have better policies in this regard. But this is still Alberta. A few of their members will be re-elected this time and I am so glad we will have them as part of our public discourse. But we have to be pragmatic.
Recently, this image was starting to change. We've actually been starting to look diverse in our public image, as diverse as we really are. No one has done more to accomplish this than Calgary's Mayor Nenshi. Then Raj Sherman became opposition leader and Alison Redford won the PC leadership. Whip smart, thoughtful, a "red tory," by all accounts. And I've got to say, she seems like a good person. She wants Alberta to have a place at the national table. She wants Alberta to lead. Redford said quite plainly that Alberta is different now than it was twenty or thirty years ago, and thank goodness for that is all I can say. The redneck image, the embarrassing slams against LGBTI persons, the cries by Klein against "eastern bums and creeps" driving up the crime rate, incidents like throwing change at homeless people, and the "get a job" approach to social problems, was all getting to be a bit too much in the 21st Century.
Smith of the Wildrose mocked Redford for being happy about the way Alberta is growing, mocked her for pointing out what the rest of us have known for some time. Alberta is much more progressive than anyone thinks. Alberta is all grown up and ready to lead.
I have often said that Albertans are the most wonderful people in the world as individuals. If your car were to break down on the side of the road, someone will stop to help you. They might even bring you back home for a cup of coffee and a slice of pie. As individuals, Albertans are kind and neighbourly. As a group, we have not been that way in the past. We've been isolationist, xenophobic, advocated for Firewalls, flaunted our wealth, and refused to play nice in the sandbox.
Now Ms Smith wants to lead us back to the past, a time not so long ago when Alberta was still a bit of a joke. A rich joke, yes, but a joke. She wants to implement "conscience rights," giving a license to discriminate to marriage commissioners, pharmacists, doctors, and who knows who else. She's willing to put social "issues like abortion" to citizen initiated referendum. She refuses to say she will not allow abortion to be de-funded or de-listed as a service paid for by public health care dollars. She invokes the spectre of "eastern liberals" when she faces dissent. The Globe and Mail found her channelling Klein with her comments that dissent she was facing in her campaign was a plot by “Eastern Canada and Eastern Canadian critics” intent on derailing conservative parties. Smith is leading us right into the past. Comments like that don't make us welcome in a national conversation.
Redford has a difficult job this campaign. Mired in the politics of the past, in the history of a party that has made mistakes, in the reality of Bill 44, there's plenty of reason to say she's the pot calling the kettle black on these issues. I'm the last person to defend a Tory. The Last.
But, remember this. The worst of her party, the most right wing, the most extreme, the most strident, the ones who believe the most outrageous things, the ones who want conscience rights and an end to abortion and who defend homophobia and want abstinence only education in the schools, moved over to the Wildrose. The PCs that have remained under Redford are more moderate. As the Redford campaign says, "This is not your father's PC party." Where did that party go? To Wildrose.
I know enough about politics to know that Redford is fighting the battle of her life both from party insiders who didn't want her there, and from outside the party in this election, from those who left the PCs behind and made a hard right turn into Wildrose country. I don't know what happened on the "no meet committee" issue behind closed doors, but the compromise she attempted with the old boys against her better judgement backfired horribly. She's admitted her mistake. What I don't know is which former Tory members now in the Wildrose had an influence on making that decision in the first place? Are there Wildrose members who received that cash? I don't know. But I do know, when the decision was made to pay committees in this way, many of the Wildrose folks were still PCs on the inside. They are as responsible over in the Wildrose for whatever problems there are in the PCs as the PCs are.
I'm not a PC, but at least their newest vision of Alberta under Redford is something I can take some pride in as an Albertan. Under Wildrose, I'd be explaining once again to my non-Albertan friends why I'm living in a province that thinks gays and lesbians shouldn't have rights and won't protect a woman's right to choose. Even Klein was smart enough to know you don't mess with abortion.
What does this mean? Ironically, it means the best chance for change in Alberta is sticking with the PCs. If you had told me a year ago I would publish that sentence, I would have told you that you were insane. The best chance to protect human rights and reproductive rights is to stick with the PCs. Yes, I know the Liberals and the NDs have better policies in this regard. But this is still Alberta. A few of their members will be re-elected this time and I am so glad we will have them as part of our public discourse. But we have to be pragmatic.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Stupid Policy Results in Media Attention - It's not a liberal plot
I've had a day to study the different responses to blog posts about the Wildrose on Abortion and the Alberta Party on Abortion. My conclusion? Abortion becomes an issue when a party says something stupid about it. Case in point. I blogged about the Alberta Party's stance on abortion and there was no response. A few hits on the posting, but not many. Why? Cynics might say it's because the Alberta Party has no chance of forming government. No one cares. Probably true. But what is also true is they didn't say anything shocking. Now, if all the parties said reasonable things, abortion never would have been mentioned in the mainstream media at all. (That's the media that Wildrose has taken to calling "lamestream" media as they channel Sarah Palin.)
So why did abortion become an issue? Is it those damn liberals? No, it was Wildrose who made it an issue. They said they would put social "issues like abortion" to citizen initiated referendum. Even if that was a "mistake" because now they realize and have to admit it would violate the Charter, it was a clear message to their base that they wanted to. It's just that darn Charter of Rights and Freedoms that keeps them from doing what they want.
It wasn't a one time mistake. They said it to me, they said it at least to one other citizen. (See my earlier post on the response to Wildrose.) That person didn't blog about it. They initially just shook their head, had their question answered, and moved on. I got the answer and spread the word. Why? Because I can. Because I consider it a public service. Because I care about the issue, not because I am an Eastern liberal cabal member. It wasn't a carefully laid plan to expose Wildrose. Yeah, that's it, I wrote a play about abortion and blogged about the issue for years, just waiting to expose a party that didn't exist yet when I started thinking about this issue. Yeah, that must be it. What a plan! I'm freaking brilliant.
I have read and heard repeated reports over the past few days that Danielle Smith says attacks on Wildrose on issues of conscience rights and their policy to govern by referendum are typical liberal attacks, part of a pattern of Liberals to demonize and vilify the right. Poor Wildrose. They have to concern themselves with dissent. Edmonton blogger Kathleen Smith posted about her decision to stop supporting Wildrose as a result of their stance on conscience rights and was immediately lambasted by the party who accused her of being a Conservative Mole (in Wildrose speak, a flaming capital L Liberal.) Apparently the phrase "terrorism campaign" was used. According the an Edmonton Journal article on the events, Kathleen Smith laughs off the suggestion that she's a Tory mole: "If I am, I'm brilliant." Yeah, I feel what you're saying Kathleen.
Of course the person getting the worst of this is Alison Redford. A progressive conservative in the style of Peter Lougheed, she is painted as being part of this imaginary liberal cabal that the Wildrose likes to vilify and that we hear so much about in Republican politics to the south. Apparently we control the media. If so, we've given Danielle Smith quite a pass. Her own history with the Calgary Herald and the fact that her husband is an executive with Sun Media is seldom made an issue. All I'm saying is in Alberta, the very notion that the media is liberal is laughable. Smith's political history has been largely whitewashed, with the notable exception of another blogger, Daveberta, who like Kathleen Smith has a much wider following than little old me. These days, with reduced media budgets for real investigation, digging up information gets left to folks like Daveberta. He does his homework. See these two articles on the Wildrose, the first on who the candidates are and who might form cabinet and the second on Ms. Smith's history on the Calgary Public School Board. Occasionally, someone like me stumbles upon a story without even realizing it's a story.
And again, it never would have been a story if Wildrose hadn't said something so surprising. Their own policy got seen for the craziness that it is through the application of a specific case, in this case, abortion. Governing by referendum is a hopelessly flawed way to govern. Anyone who needs proof, look no farther than California ballot initiatives. What kinds of things could be brought to referendum? Here's a start, without details beyond the general topic, in no particular order, with no logic or weight given to the possible success of the topic or whether it passes a charter challenge, because that's the way these initiatives would come up - totally randomly. Raising the age of consent. Lowering the age of consent. Parental consent for birth control for minors. Parental consent for abortion for minors, even if the preganancy was caused by incest. Require a panel of doctors to approve an abortion. Fund IVF. Don't fund IVF. Defund abortion. End Gay Marriage (hey it happened in California). Lower taxes. Lower corporate taxes. Implement flat taxes. Implement a sales tax. Eliminate school boards. Increase the power of school boards. Change the royalty regime (an oil business thing, for those who don't live here). Legislate a portion of all oil revenue into the Heritage Fund. End the Heritage Fund and distribute its contents to Albertans because our money is better off in our pockets with our Dani bucks. Alter property rights in favour of land owners. Alter property rights in favour of business. Reduce environmental protection. Increase environmental protection. Take flouride out of drinking water. Put flouride into drinking water. Ban the sale of genetically modified food. Ban the import of asparagus out of season. Impose a special fee on everyone who lives in Okotoks and Airdrie and commutes to Calgary to work for their daily use of Calgary's urban roads and services. Alternately, take a portion of property taxes raised in Airdrie and Okotoks and give it to Calgary for wear and tear. Impose Public Private Partnerships on all new school and hospital projects. Give urban centres more seats. Give rural Alberta more seats. Go nuclear free. Add nuclear power. Do I need to go on? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Government by referendum is a bad idea. What Wildrose said about abortion was a problem, but the policy (a real policy) of citizen initiated referendum that was behind that statement is the real problem. When we elect a government, we elect them to decide things. Wildrose wants power, but not the responsbility of government. They want to turn human rights over to the courts and people's individual consciences. They want to give any thorny issues back to the public.
Danielle Smith mocks Alison Redford for suggesting Alberta is changing and for stating she likes those changes. Alberta is fine, just the way it is, says Smith. Apparently, she doesn't believe that for a second. There are changes in store for us. Wildrose has a vision for Alberta, and the fact that I don't like it doesn't make me part of a terrorist campaign.
[Addendum April 15: Same theory proved again. Less than 50 hits on the post about the Progressive Conservative position on Abortion. Why? Because no one said anything ridiculous.]
-----
The Abortion Monologues is now available as an e-book through Smashwords. Download a copy onto your e-reader or as a PDF. Better yet, put on a show!
So why did abortion become an issue? Is it those damn liberals? No, it was Wildrose who made it an issue. They said they would put social "issues like abortion" to citizen initiated referendum. Even if that was a "mistake" because now they realize and have to admit it would violate the Charter, it was a clear message to their base that they wanted to. It's just that darn Charter of Rights and Freedoms that keeps them from doing what they want.
It wasn't a one time mistake. They said it to me, they said it at least to one other citizen. (See my earlier post on the response to Wildrose.) That person didn't blog about it. They initially just shook their head, had their question answered, and moved on. I got the answer and spread the word. Why? Because I can. Because I consider it a public service. Because I care about the issue, not because I am an Eastern liberal cabal member. It wasn't a carefully laid plan to expose Wildrose. Yeah, that's it, I wrote a play about abortion and blogged about the issue for years, just waiting to expose a party that didn't exist yet when I started thinking about this issue. Yeah, that must be it. What a plan! I'm freaking brilliant.
I have read and heard repeated reports over the past few days that Danielle Smith says attacks on Wildrose on issues of conscience rights and their policy to govern by referendum are typical liberal attacks, part of a pattern of Liberals to demonize and vilify the right. Poor Wildrose. They have to concern themselves with dissent. Edmonton blogger Kathleen Smith posted about her decision to stop supporting Wildrose as a result of their stance on conscience rights and was immediately lambasted by the party who accused her of being a Conservative Mole (in Wildrose speak, a flaming capital L Liberal.) Apparently the phrase "terrorism campaign" was used. According the an Edmonton Journal article on the events, Kathleen Smith laughs off the suggestion that she's a Tory mole: "If I am, I'm brilliant." Yeah, I feel what you're saying Kathleen.
Of course the person getting the worst of this is Alison Redford. A progressive conservative in the style of Peter Lougheed, she is painted as being part of this imaginary liberal cabal that the Wildrose likes to vilify and that we hear so much about in Republican politics to the south. Apparently we control the media. If so, we've given Danielle Smith quite a pass. Her own history with the Calgary Herald and the fact that her husband is an executive with Sun Media is seldom made an issue. All I'm saying is in Alberta, the very notion that the media is liberal is laughable. Smith's political history has been largely whitewashed, with the notable exception of another blogger, Daveberta, who like Kathleen Smith has a much wider following than little old me. These days, with reduced media budgets for real investigation, digging up information gets left to folks like Daveberta. He does his homework. See these two articles on the Wildrose, the first on who the candidates are and who might form cabinet and the second on Ms. Smith's history on the Calgary Public School Board. Occasionally, someone like me stumbles upon a story without even realizing it's a story.
And again, it never would have been a story if Wildrose hadn't said something so surprising. Their own policy got seen for the craziness that it is through the application of a specific case, in this case, abortion. Governing by referendum is a hopelessly flawed way to govern. Anyone who needs proof, look no farther than California ballot initiatives. What kinds of things could be brought to referendum? Here's a start, without details beyond the general topic, in no particular order, with no logic or weight given to the possible success of the topic or whether it passes a charter challenge, because that's the way these initiatives would come up - totally randomly. Raising the age of consent. Lowering the age of consent. Parental consent for birth control for minors. Parental consent for abortion for minors, even if the preganancy was caused by incest. Require a panel of doctors to approve an abortion. Fund IVF. Don't fund IVF. Defund abortion. End Gay Marriage (hey it happened in California). Lower taxes. Lower corporate taxes. Implement flat taxes. Implement a sales tax. Eliminate school boards. Increase the power of school boards. Change the royalty regime (an oil business thing, for those who don't live here). Legislate a portion of all oil revenue into the Heritage Fund. End the Heritage Fund and distribute its contents to Albertans because our money is better off in our pockets with our Dani bucks. Alter property rights in favour of land owners. Alter property rights in favour of business. Reduce environmental protection. Increase environmental protection. Take flouride out of drinking water. Put flouride into drinking water. Ban the sale of genetically modified food. Ban the import of asparagus out of season. Impose a special fee on everyone who lives in Okotoks and Airdrie and commutes to Calgary to work for their daily use of Calgary's urban roads and services. Alternately, take a portion of property taxes raised in Airdrie and Okotoks and give it to Calgary for wear and tear. Impose Public Private Partnerships on all new school and hospital projects. Give urban centres more seats. Give rural Alberta more seats. Go nuclear free. Add nuclear power. Do I need to go on? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Government by referendum is a bad idea. What Wildrose said about abortion was a problem, but the policy (a real policy) of citizen initiated referendum that was behind that statement is the real problem. When we elect a government, we elect them to decide things. Wildrose wants power, but not the responsbility of government. They want to turn human rights over to the courts and people's individual consciences. They want to give any thorny issues back to the public.
Danielle Smith mocks Alison Redford for suggesting Alberta is changing and for stating she likes those changes. Alberta is fine, just the way it is, says Smith. Apparently, she doesn't believe that for a second. There are changes in store for us. Wildrose has a vision for Alberta, and the fact that I don't like it doesn't make me part of a terrorist campaign.
[Addendum April 15: Same theory proved again. Less than 50 hits on the post about the Progressive Conservative position on Abortion. Why? Because no one said anything ridiculous.]
-----
The Abortion Monologues is now available as an e-book through Smashwords. Download a copy onto your e-reader or as a PDF. Better yet, put on a show!
Saturday, April 7, 2012
5 Signs you are arguing with an Anti-Choicer
Terrific blog post here from Gender Focus on signs you are arguing with an anti-choicer. I have to agree with this completely. I've been forced to spend a little more time than usual on line in the past few days because of the Wildrose abortion policy storm, and I've seen every single one of these things. Don't forget the feminist baiting. There's always lots of that too.
Speaking of feminist baiting and the anti-choice, do you know why feminists work so hard to protect choice? Why we bring it up over and over again? Because it's always threatened. Because if we lose that, we lose everything. Case in point. Gov. Scott Walker just ended protections that ensure equal pay for work of equal value after decimating reproductive rights. The slippery slope is so, so real.
Speaking of feminist baiting and the anti-choice, do you know why feminists work so hard to protect choice? Why we bring it up over and over again? Because it's always threatened. Because if we lose that, we lose everything. Case in point. Gov. Scott Walker just ended protections that ensure equal pay for work of equal value after decimating reproductive rights. The slippery slope is so, so real.
Alberta Party on Abortion
Another response to my check up on choice has trickled in and this time it's from the Alberta Party.
Again, my questions were, "Does your party support a woman's right to choose? What will your party do to expand access to abortion services in Alberta, especially in rural areas and the north? Does your party believe in fully funding all medically necessary health services, including abortion?"
And here is the response, from the Alberta Party, excluding salutations.
"Officially, the Alberta Party respects that this issue is under federal jurisdiction and has no intention of legislating in this area. We trust and respect the right and ability of Albertans to exercise their moral and religious conscience with regard to this very personal issue.
I would also like to answer your question personally as well as referring you to the Alberta Party stance on the so-called "conscience rights" issue that has come up in this election.
As a woman and a long time feminist, I am appalled that this personal issue continues to come up in political debate. I would not support a party that tries to suppress a woman's right to choose, and refuses to provide through our publicly funded health care system what is essentially a health care issue to women across the world.
I also completely support the statement from our leader Glenn Taylor on conscience rights, http://www.albertaparty.ca/strong_stand_on_conscience_rights It is framed around the marriage commissioners, but I believe it extends to all the other areas that still continue to be so contentious, including women's choice, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.
The Alberta Party wants to ensure that no one is ever again singled out or excluded from society because someone with power disapproves of or looks down on them. This new political party we are building is based on the idea of active and equal citizenry."
The email is from Midge Lambert, VP Membership & CA Organization, Alberta Party
Firstly, given the storm over my post on the Wildrose and Abortion, I've got to say, good on you, Alberta Party. That takes guts to respond. One article in the Edmonton Journal suggested the Wildrose's mistake may have been responding at all. I disagree. I don't think questions should be dodged. If you're not willing to state a position during an election, what is an election for?
Based on this response, I'd say from a choice point of view, the Alberta Party looks okay. Like Wildrose, they deflect the issue to federal jurisdiction without fully acknowledging the vital role the province has in delivering care and deciding how that care is delivered. But the rest of the response indicates clear support of choice and of fully funding all medically necessary services. As for what they will do to improve access in the north and rural areas, that question remains unanswered. For me, that question is really one that tells us how deep and specific their policy or intentions go. Let the record show, it could be deeper and more specific.
Further I appreciate how they understand this issue is linked to the recent explosion of information about "conscience rights." They get an A for being able to connect the dots.
Unlike Ms. Lambert, I am not upset that this abortion issue continues to rear its head. That is because it is always about more than abortion. A party's perspective and policy on this issue is always telling. Look what we have learned already.
So, Albertans add this to your mix of information and remember to vote on April 23.
----
The Abortion Monologues is available now as an e-book at Smashwords.
Again, my questions were, "Does your party support a woman's right to choose? What will your party do to expand access to abortion services in Alberta, especially in rural areas and the north? Does your party believe in fully funding all medically necessary health services, including abortion?"
And here is the response, from the Alberta Party, excluding salutations.
"Officially, the Alberta Party respects that this issue is under federal jurisdiction and has no intention of legislating in this area. We trust and respect the right and ability of Albertans to exercise their moral and religious conscience with regard to this very personal issue.
I would also like to answer your question personally as well as referring you to the Alberta Party stance on the so-called "conscience rights" issue that has come up in this election.
As a woman and a long time feminist, I am appalled that this personal issue continues to come up in political debate. I would not support a party that tries to suppress a woman's right to choose, and refuses to provide through our publicly funded health care system what is essentially a health care issue to women across the world.
I also completely support the statement from our leader Glenn Taylor on conscience rights, http://www.albertaparty.ca/strong_stand_on_conscience_rights It is framed around the marriage commissioners, but I believe it extends to all the other areas that still continue to be so contentious, including women's choice, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.
The Alberta Party wants to ensure that no one is ever again singled out or excluded from society because someone with power disapproves of or looks down on them. This new political party we are building is based on the idea of active and equal citizenry."
The email is from Midge Lambert, VP Membership & CA Organization, Alberta Party
Firstly, given the storm over my post on the Wildrose and Abortion, I've got to say, good on you, Alberta Party. That takes guts to respond. One article in the Edmonton Journal suggested the Wildrose's mistake may have been responding at all. I disagree. I don't think questions should be dodged. If you're not willing to state a position during an election, what is an election for?
Based on this response, I'd say from a choice point of view, the Alberta Party looks okay. Like Wildrose, they deflect the issue to federal jurisdiction without fully acknowledging the vital role the province has in delivering care and deciding how that care is delivered. But the rest of the response indicates clear support of choice and of fully funding all medically necessary services. As for what they will do to improve access in the north and rural areas, that question remains unanswered. For me, that question is really one that tells us how deep and specific their policy or intentions go. Let the record show, it could be deeper and more specific.
Further I appreciate how they understand this issue is linked to the recent explosion of information about "conscience rights." They get an A for being able to connect the dots.
Unlike Ms. Lambert, I am not upset that this abortion issue continues to rear its head. That is because it is always about more than abortion. A party's perspective and policy on this issue is always telling. Look what we have learned already.
So, Albertans add this to your mix of information and remember to vote on April 23.
----
The Abortion Monologues is available now as an e-book at Smashwords.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Defunding Abortion in Wildrose Alberta
Do you think "they" aren't getting ready to defund abortion? ("They" being the ubiquitous, ever-present they, the they who are not we.) Think again. The campaign has already started according to Lifesite news. I wonder who they've talked to already? Any guesses?
Also, read the last paragraph of this post on Rabble. You can read the whole thing if you want, but that last paragraph is a tease, isn't it? What does David Climenhaga know? Where's the beef?
Also, read the last paragraph of this post on Rabble. You can read the whole thing if you want, but that last paragraph is a tease, isn't it? What does David Climenhaga know? Where's the beef?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
