Antonia Zerbisias and the Anti-Abortion Bogeyman

Zerbisias weaves anti-abortion conspiracy theory

If there's any one issue that spins Canada's Lunatic Left into a frenzy, it's the abortion issue.

Writing in her column at the Toronto Star, Antonia Zerbisias suggests that the Conservative Party has concocted an elaborate conspiracy to conceal its true stance on the issue of abortion.

Despite the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper intervened to derail Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill, a bill that had nothing to do with abortion but was still deemed unacceptable by Canada's pro-abortion movement -- Zerbisias insists that Harper is secretly plotting against a woman's right to choose.

"I don't believe him when he talks about reopening the abortion debate," Zerbisias writes. "Not that it has ever really been closed."

The evidence Zerbisias offers? That some members of the Conservative caucus have their own opinion on the matter of abortion; opinions that conflict with her own.

"His credibility isn't helped by Conservative caucus members who constantly harp on the subject by introducing private member's bills, making speeches, attending pro-life rallies and putting out news releases," Zerbisias writes, as if Harper ought to be whipping his MPs into not making such speeches or attending such events.

(What she thinks Opposition leaders should do with MPs who attend pro-abortion rallies and make pro-abortion speeches goes unstated, yet remains perfectly obvious.)

In particular, Zerbisias takes exception to Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP Maurice Vellacott.

"Vellacott stepped in it once again last month when he put out a release commending local doctors for 'reducing the availability of abortion in our city,'" Zerbisias fumes. "It came in response to news that Saskatoon women had to leave town to terminate their pregnancies."

What Zerbisias declines to mention is that it's the doctors themselves that are exercising some restraint in regards to late-term abortion. (Of course, the matter of the doctor's right to choose has been a difficult matter for the "pro-choice" movement. They generally tend to oppose it.)

Zerbisias also fumes at the notion that Vellacott would even mention studies that have suggested that abortion may pose health problems for women later in life.

"As if this weren't unsympathetic enough to the plight of scared teenagers and desperate women, Vellacott added that 'a growing body of research reveals significant health problems caused by abortion, including a greater risk of breast cancer, cervical lacerations and injury, uterine perforations, hemorrhage, and serious infection,'" Zerbisias writes. "This is not only incorrect, it's pure propaganda espoused by those who would rather that pregnant women act as walking incubators for all those couples on adoption waiting lists."

Not only does Zerbisias draw a lunatic conclusion, but as it turns out she's wrong.

Chinese studies, where abortion isn't stigmatized like in North America and so is more likely to be self-reported in the course of such studies, have suggested at least a higher correlation between abortion and breast cancer later in life.

At best, Vellacott is mistaking correlation for causation. Further study would be necessary to determine a causational relationship -- studies which the pro-abortion movement have, oddly enough, also tended to oppose.

Despite these studies, Zerbisias seems to insist that Harper ought to force Vellacott to apologize. Failing that, Zerbisias seems to think that either Harper himself or Helena Guergis should apologize for Vellacott's opinion.

And as eager as Zerbisias is to criticize Vellacott for what turns out to actually be accurate statements, Zerbisias is more than willing to twist or dismiss any factoids that don't support her particular point of view.

"Coincidentally, or not, all this happened just as the Ottawa-based 'educational' LifeCanada issued its survey on attitudes toward abortion. 'For the ninth year in a row, a majority of Canadians have rejected the status quo on abortion in this country,' its statement said. 'Over half say there should be legal protection for human life before birth and over two-thirds say abortions should only be paid for by taxpayers in medical emergencies or in cases of rape or incest,'" Zerbisias writes. "But a closer look at the numbers reveals that only 30 per cent of us feel there should be no abortion rights. The rest say that abortion should be available only up to various trimesters."

Which is still a rejection of the current abortion status quo, which Zerbisias' fellows in the pro-abortion movement support. That is, unless, they can shift matters even further toward their own particular desires.

And it's still in line with Maurice Vellacott's approval of the self-adopted abortion constraints in Saskatoon.

As to what Zerbisias thinks should be done about those constraints, that goes unstated in her column. It would certainly be interesting to know.

But beyond that, Antonia Zerbisias is trying to ascribe a position on abortion to Stephen Harper based on opinions that other people hold, and based on comments that other people have made.

Her hunt for an anti-abortion bogeyman may appeal to her base readership, but it's far less compelling to anyone with a rational mind.


From the archives:

November 25, 2009 - "The Philosophical Dilemma of 'Pro-Choice'"

September 25, 2009 - "Eeek! It's Christians! And They're Praying!"