• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,195
Points
1,010
I don't understand why Trudeau is upset. Right now, Canadian and US federal legislation on the matter of allowing or disallowing abortion seem to be roughly similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,953
Points
1,360
Personally, I blame Harper.
You got that playbook memorized!

jon favreau nigel gruff GIF

Brace, brace, brace.... Trudeau self-righteous indignation incoming!
Season 4 Discovery GIF by Paramount+
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,516
Points
1,090
Trudeau was just called out on CBC's Power and Politics about his virtue signaling from a pro-choice activist.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,170
Points
1,160
Trudeau was just called out on CBC's Power and Politics about his virtue signaling from a pro-choice activist.

I must have missed that. However, there was a very vehement Canadian "anti-abortion" activist on the program who used the expression "virtue signalling". Her hope was that eventually (and soon) abortion would be outlawed in Canada as well.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,516
Points
1,090
I must have missed that. However, there was a very vehement Canadian "anti-abortion" activist on the program who used the expression "virtue signalling". Her hope was that eventually (and soon) abortion would be outlawed in Canada as well.
Hmm, maybe I misheard. I was sure that she was a pro-choicer.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,655
Points
1,090
Trudeau was just called out on CBC's Power and Politics about his virtue signaling from a pro-choice activist.
I’m a non activist pro choice type and wish he would keep quiet about this.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,195
Points
1,010
The government could pass legislation affirming access to abortion if it wanted to.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,195
Points
1,010
Here at least it can be done with just a parliamentary majority (I doubt the Senate would rise up on its hind legs and protest). The last best chance for Democrats was 2008.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
859
Points
910
Yes. Congress, too, if it wishes. That's been the primary argument for overturning all along - that it's a legislative matter, not a constitutional right (disagreement over just how far privacy extends).

Reason.com State by State Rundown. Closes with the important point that what results is inequality in abortion access. (Not that it matters; it'd be accessible somewhere just like gun clubs in Canada for those who want to sports shoot...)



Yes. Per 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Crux of the matter.

There is no scientific / purely logical or legal reasoning for proclaiming a right to abortion. Can you kill unborn babies or do you not have complete bodily autonomy? You can't really answer that question. It's a purely political one.

I'm generally in favour of the right to abortion, but this SCOTUS decision is the right one. High courts should not be in the business of legislation.

Good points by @Halifax Tar too. Move, vote, abstain. No one's existence has been shattered by this ruling.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,367
Points
1,260
This from the U.S. DHS (source)
(U//FOUO) Some domestic violent extremists (DVEs) will likely exploit the recent US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe V. Wade to intensify violence against a wide range of targets. We expect violence could occur for weeks following the release, particularly as DVEs may be mobilized to respond to changes in state laws and ballot measures on abortion stemming from the decision. We base this assessment on an observed increase in violent incidents across the United States following the unauthorized disclosure in May of a draft majority opinion on the case.

(U//FOUO) Federal and state government officials—including judges—and facilities probably are most at risk for violence in response to the decision. In late May, a network of loosely affiliated suspected violent extremists, known as “Jane’s Revenge”—which has been linked to arson attacks against the buildings of ideological opponents—shared a post online encouraging a “night of rage” following the Supreme Court announcement, stating, “we need the state to feel our full wrath” and “we need them to be afraid of us.” An individual is now awaiting trial for a plot in June to kill a US Supreme Court Justice in response to the draft opinion. A separate incident in Michigan involved vandalism claimed by “Jane’s Revenge” on a building that houses a US Representative’s campaign office and a pro-life advocacy group ...
More in attached - edited to add this footnote from the brief (highlight mine):
Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE): An individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals, wholly or in part, through unlawful acts of force or violence. The mere
advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics alone does not constitute violent extremism and may be constitutionally protected. DVEs can fit within one or multiple categories of ideological motivation and can span a broad range of groups or movements. (DHS) I&A utilizes this term synonymously with “domestic terrorist.”
 

Attachments

  • DHS-SupremeCourtAbortionDecision.pdf
    194.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
433
Points
810
Interesting how quickly it goes from Right wing extremists/terrorism to Left wing extremists/terrorism. Maybe it is just a decent proportion of their society is nuts.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,085
Points
1,260
Well, I certainly have an opinion on this, as do most of us here, and we are free to express that opinion.

But, when the decision has no application whatsoever for Canadians, there are some people who are NOT entitled to express their opinion. First among these is our Prime Minister. His job is to manage the relationship with the USA and their various constituent states. It is one of the most important part of his job. To do that, you don't take position on their internal affairs that are of no effect in Canada. Yet, he had to open his mouth and annoy a large portion of them in how he qualified the situation. To quote a recently elected American president "Will you just shut the hell up, man!"
I respectfully disagree - this decision definitely does (or will) affect Canadians. And Mexicans, I imagine.

I've already noticed in social media about folks offering to help Americans come to Canada for abortions. I'm going to keep my opinion out of it, but regardless, having X number of Americans come up means X number of Canadians not getting abortions or other procedures at that time because those spots are being taken by Americans. Also, will they be in line, or fast-tracked? I don't know and won't speculate.

Suffice to say that I 100% believe that this ruling affects Canadians. So, maybe the PM and other ministers should talk about it.

Also, other world leaders have made statements. It'd be a little weird that Canada doesn't talk about something on its border.
 
Top