By Dave Andrusko
There are probably many more similarities that are obvious to Canadians than they are to an outsider (like me, an American), but what jumps out is that the head of the Liberal Party in Canada, Justin Trudeau, and President Obama have at least two traits in common.
First, they are extremists on abortion. Second, when it comes to issues of religious freedom, they both have tin-ears. Or, maybe they just don’t care.
In either case the two came together last month when Trudeau announced that henceforth “The Liberal Party is a pro-choice party and going forward, all new members and all new candidates are pro-choice.” Period.
There have been a few defenders (of course), but by and large Trudeau has been hammered. It wasn’t only the archbishop of Edmonton who pointed out that a “no choice but prochoice” position is “selfcontradictory” and “an astonishingly casual dismissal of the fundamental role of conscience in a democracy,” although Archbishop Richard W. Smith may have been the most eloquent. (The fuller statement was “The Liberal party has an official and absolute position that we are a pro-choice party …All Liberal party candidates in 2015 will have to accept and support that position.”)
Even some of the most hard-core pro-abortionists, like National Post columnist Chris Selley, drew the line. His overarching point was the Trudeau and his defenders were now saying it was no big deal, but that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Selley wrote
“[I]t was one thing for Mr. Trudeau to say his party won’t support any undertaking that could one day lead to abortion legislation. That’s the position of all three parties in Parliament, after all. It was another thing, a bigger thing, for him formally to end the practice of free votes on this particular matter of conscience. It was another thing altogether for him to seem to banish from the party anyone who thinks that ought not to be the party’s position. I suppose some people might officially change their minds about abortion on Mr. Trudeau’s say-so, but I suspect many others would have found themselves somewhat perplexed.”
Selley quotes another observer whose contribution was to counsel no law on abortion, a position which with Selley is sympathetic. But…
“[W]hen the entirety of the Western world does something one way, and only Canada does something the other way, it’s a bit awkward for the self-styled ultimate centrist big tent party to be excommunicating people who sympathize with the entire rest of the Western world.”
Can you think of one limitation on abortion state Senator, United States Senator, or President Barack Obama has ever suggested he would support? Of course not.
A while back NRLC put out a thoughtful update on the President’s extremism which included this:
In October, 2008, NRLC published a detailed article examining the news media’s collaboration in allowing Obama, during the post-nomination phase of the 2008 campaign, to rewrite his history on various abortion-related issues, including legislation dealing with infants born alive during abortions. The article, which is here [www.nrlc.org/FOCA/ObamaFOCAarticle.html], also explores the news media’s near-total disinterest in examining the implications of Obama’s endorsement of the most extreme pro-abortion measure ever proposed in Congress, the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.
An NRLC “white paper” documenting Obama’s actual history on the born-alive infants legislation is here.
An NRLC statement on President Obama’s recently announced (but virtually unreported) opposition to pending legislation to ban the use of abortion for sex selection is here.
Brothers in arms, Trudeau and Obama, against an unarmed “opponent.”