by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
June 9, 2004
Last week, abortion surfaced as an election issue when Conservative Party health critic, Rob Merrifield, said that women who are about to have an abortion should receive counseling before they make a final decision to have the procedure. This was all the left wing media needed to get going about how Conservative leader Stephen Harper has a secret agenda that includes making abortion illegal.
It didnt seem to matter that Merrifield resigned his post as critic because what he said was not party policy.
It didnt seem to matter that Stephen Harper quickly said what he has always said--that a Harper government would not introduce new abortion legislation, nor would a referendum on the subject be held.
It didnt seem to matter that Merrifield was not proposing legislation that would make counseling mandatory.
It didnt seem to matter that abortion counseling falls under the area of health and falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
and more importantly, it didnt seem to matter that Prime Minister Paul Martin has said the same thing. Martin said, "I think you should always refer (women seeking abortions) to counseling".
all that mattered was that the media could use Merrifields statements to help the Liberals paint the Conservatives as extremist.
In a June 3 editorial, the Toronto Star criticized Harper for not making his position on abortion clear. By that they mean his personal opinion. The Star wants Harper to say that he is pro-life so that they can label him as some sort of religious zealot. as far as his political position goes, he has made that clear. He will not introduce legislation that would criminalize abortion, nor will he hold a referendum on the subject. To most people, Harpers position on abortion couldnt be clearer.
The paper paints Paul Martin as clear on where he stands. Martin has said that as a legislator, hes pro-choice. Martins position "as a legislator" is the same as Harpers; no change to the status quo. But the Star left out why Martin used the words "as a legislator". Those words only make sense if they are interpreted as being that Paul Martin, who portrays himself as a devout Catholic, is personally pro-life but will legislate as pro-choice. There is no difference between the positions taken by the two leaders but you cant tell the Toronto Star that.
The paper also chastises the Conservative leader for saying that he will allow a free vote on a private members bill concerning abortion if one is introduced in the House. The Star conveniently leaves out the fact that private members bills have about a one per cent chance of making it to a vote and when they do they are usually subject to a free vote. The editorial also fails to point out that if a private members bill is introduced, it is just as likely to be introduced by a Liberal member--many of whom are pro-life.
The Toronto Stars editorial was nothing more than the use of selected facts to paint Stephen Harper and the Conservatives as extremists.