Questions on 'equitable' access to abortion

Vincent J. Curtis

28 June 22

RE: Equitable access to abortion now! Spectator editorial 28 June 22.

Do you notice that everyone calling for more abortion access were themselves born alive?

Last month, the Spec couldn’t define what a woman was.  Now, it seems, it can.  “A woman’s right to choose.” “Woman’s reproductive rights.” What changed?

When does the “principle of bodily integrity” apply?  The Spectator was all-in on COVID-19 vaccinations, even when it became obvious that they weren’t working as advertised and health issues began springing up over their use.  The Spec called for and then cheered the firings of city workers and healthcare workers for not getting vaxxed.  This seems a straightforward violation of the principle of bodily integrity.

By invoking the word “equitable” is the Spec leaving open the possibility that men can become pregnant too?  That’s been the Spec’s editorial position for a couple of years now, what with “pregnant people” and all.

In respect of Canada, what was the “devastating setback” of Roe that Trudeau spoke of?  Or is he just stoking the fires of division in preparation for the next election? (The Tories have this secret agenda.....)

How is the Supreme Court decision an “attack on a woman’s right to choose?” (There’s that word again!) The decision cleaned up a constitutional mess the Court made in 1973.  Abortion wasn’t made illegal, its regulation was turned over to “elected representatives”, where it belongs and did belong prior to 1973.

Why is the Spec all-in on the abortion death cult?  Never seen the blood?  Never seen “Gosnell?”

-30-