October 17th, 2017

Blocking Harder as committee chair isn’t right


By Letter to the Editor on October 8, 2017.

Rachael Harder represents me, and I’m furious that anyone here is supporting the illegal Liberal stance. Her personal beliefs have no bearing on her activities in Parliament, same as Harper’s didn’t either. She has proven her professionalism in Parliament or Andrew Scheer would have never considered her.

At the same time, we need a law, as it is disgusting that it is legal to abort even healthy babies all nine months! The pediatricians and ultrasound groups have both campaigned to stop the late-term aborting of healthy baby girls between 21-29 weeks. Those abortion doctors cannot always accommodate quickly.

They are now saving preemies at 21 weeks. The polls show that 72 per cent support a law, and the Supreme Court had never envisioned that when they struck down the way the law was written, that it wouldn’t have been immediately replaced.

Back to Harder. If pro-life Harper could lead the entire party then pro-life Harder can lead the Status of Women committee. Where is anyone on that committee representing my views? Even Harder hasn’t been allowed to!

Jill Skriver

Lethbridge

25 Responses to “Blocking Harder as committee chair isn’t right”

  1. chinook says:

    Its important to keep religion out of politics. Problem is Harder wouldn’t be able to. Liberals absolutely made the right decision. What Harder & your pro-lifers ignore is how overpopulated our planet is with humans and how each day over 300 species that *also* have a right to life go extinct. We need to manage our species and we’re not; rather we’re out of control breeding like bugs.
    http://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2017/10/08/denying-harder-committee-chair-was-right-move/

    • biff says:

      chinook – on the money! other than bacteria and the like, not sure if any species that is not rooted to the earth is as plentiful as humans. certainly, nothing that is near as destructive to the overall balance of the necessaries of the planet.

    • jill0122 says:

      She has never brought religion in, so quit with the rhetoric. Scientifically, what we are doing is wrong, and EVERYWHERE else in the world acknowledges this.

    • JonathanVS says:

      Thomas Malthus warned of overpopulation 200 years ago. It hasn’t happened yet. Furthermore, better technology has resulted in higher and higher yields. Finally, consider the enormous amount of waste in our society – enough to feed millions. While I believe that you should be able to support and care for the children you have, strict population control is draconian and unnecessary.

      • Fescue says:

        There is no doubt that technology/efficiency has allowed the human population to mushroom since Malthus. What has happened in the past will not necessarily happen in the future.

        The fallacy of this extrapolation is that we (humans) are hitting planetary boundaries – nine of them according to Rockstrom.

        To put it another way, if the population grows at 1.5% per annum it will double every 40 years. That means that in the next 40 years we have to come up with twice the arable land, twice the resource extraction, twice the urban footprint, etc. Or, in your model, we will have to reduce waste and improve technology so as to double the efficiency over the same period. Then the next 40 years requires that you do it all over again. Do you really think that we are such clever monkeys that we can improve the efficiency of our system by double every 40 years forever? I would argue that what is draconian and unnecessary is to push our population to the edge of survival.

  2. diplomacy works says:

    Since Harder remains on the committee as a member, this outrage is ludicrous.

    And the fact Harder has said almost nothing on this topic, preferring to let Scheer grandstand on it as an issue between he and Trudeau, should warn you about her representing you.

    It was the Liberal and NDP members who refused Harder as Chair. A Conservative chairs the committee now so you are hardly without representation.

    Please don’t allow any one party to tell you lies about how our government functions.
    There is absolutely nothing illegal that went down here.

    http://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/FEWO

  3. Fescue says:

    Don’t forget, Jillo, to remind the good folks that you support Mauro, Harold! and Jeff Coffman in the upcoming municipal election.

    Kudos to the Herald for juxtaposing a 21st Century humanist Letter with this Middle Ages theocratic opinion. It shows how far homo sapiens sapiens has progressed ethically over the centuries.

  4. johnny57 says:

    Sorry Jill “Political Correctness” is the new Religion! All dissenting views will be crushed and kicked to the curb!

  5. snoutspot4 says:

    The letter writer is once again spewing bias. She wants women to be stripped of Charter rights to personhood for all women. She seeks to impose her views on all others. So do Andrew Scheer and Rachel Harder. Jill has spewed about the imaginary dangers of Sharia law taking over Canada (missing the point that it is illegal in Canada), yet here she spews in favour of the proclamation of religious control over women and stripping them of their personhood. Scheeria Law?

    • jill0122 says:

      I have NEVER brought in religious views. Nice try trying to smear me with that brush too. I’d never bring in religious views into an abortion debate. Those who do, frustrate and anger me, as anyone who doesn’t believe in God, could cares less about what he thinks. Scientifically now, there is ample data on how quickly a baby is formed, and preemies are being saved at 21 weeks. religious control??? Stripping personhood? You’ve never read that; ever from anything I’ve wrote! But hey, if you lie enough about someone, eventually it sticks? Not on my watch.

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      Ha! “Scheeria Law” is good! Keep using that; it’ll come in handy for Mr. Howdy Doody, Mr. Uber Catholic and his faithful disciples.
      The current Conservative party is interchangeable with religion since Preston Manning got hold of it. Note the elimination of the key descriptor, “progressive.” That explains the recurring bozo eruptions which will continue as long as we are forced to contend with the inexplicably tenacious medieval thinking that is behind all religion.

  6. onlymyopinion says:

    Jill-please tell us where you get your statistics? Most polls I see say people support abortion. as for Rachel Harder’s stance: she is entitled to her opinion but even prolife Harper did not want to open this issue. Also in a democracy we all have the right to protest so why was it wrong for them to walk out? She is still on the committee and another conservative is chair so cool your heels. Harder’s duty is to represent all in her riding NOT to block those who disagree with her on facebook or to send automated responses to emails stating that she gets far too many emails to answer them. She does not represent me . You people are not pro-life; you are pro-birth.

    • jill0122 says:

      I have NEVER brought in religious views. Nice try trying to smear me with that brush too. Those who do, frustrate and anger me, as anyone who doesn’t believe in God cares less. Scientifically now, there is ample ata on how quickly a baby is formed, and preemies are being saved at 21 weeks. religious control??? Stripping personhood? You’ve never read that; ever! But hey, if you lie enough about someone, eventually it sticks? Not on my watch.

  7. George McCrea says:

    It would appear that there are many others who are viewing this from a different point of view beyond Harder bashing

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadas-national-media-blast-trudeau-govt-for-abortion-hypocrisy


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.