Saturday, May 28, 2005

Umm, what is a socon, anyway?

This post has been moved here.

5 Comments:

Blogger Toronto Tory said...

Honestly, You can vote for a "study into the medical necessity of abortion" and not be a so-con. I would imagine there are some MPs who voted for that, but also voted for gay marriage.. aren't there?

What is a so-con, anyways?

10:00 PM  
Blogger buckets said...

What is a so-con, anyways? Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

M-83 moved that ”That the Standing Committee on Health fully examine, study and report to Parliament on: (a) whether or not abortions are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability; and (b) the health risks for women undergoing abortions compared to women carrying their babies to full term.”

Since these coincide quite closely with the talking points of the prolife movement, I think it was pretty clear what it was about.

As to comparison of those who voted for SSM, that's an interesting question. I'll have a gander and see what I can see.

10:22 PM  
Blogger buckets said...

Hi, TT. I can indeed find four MPs who voted for M-83 (which was a prolife gesture) and also for SSM: two are cabinet ministers (Comuzzi and McGuire) and were therefore whipped; two were parliamentary secretaries, but presumably voted their conscience (Murphy and Eyking). The other 53 who voted for M-83 and are still MPs voted against SSM.

11:32 PM  
Blogger Koby said...

The following Conservative MPs did not live up to Lifesite standards on at least one occasion. Some were absent for certain votes though.

Jaffer, Rahim 83
James Moore 83
Keddy, Gerald 83, 250
Peter McKay 250, 13
Bill Casey 83

Keddy, James Moore and Jim Prentice voted for 38.

4:29 AM  
Blogger Mark Francis said...

This is a good idea.

Perhaps the point is less about which are socons, and which vote according to a certain pattern.

This would be a cool database.

8:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home