Isn't coercion already a crime?

Seriously, just crawl up inside your mother's vagina, Rod. Your obsession with women's wombs is disturbing. Sickening.

Glad this obscenity was voted down.

And if you insist on making coercing abortion a separate coercion law, then hell, how about laws against coercing women to bear children; coercing women to be stay-at-home moms; coercing women to put up with domestic violence because breaking up a family unit is baaaaad; coercing women to comply with their husband's sexual demands; coercing women to shut the fuck up; coercing women to place their own careers second to that of their spouses; coercing women to serve their spouse as though it's a natural law; coercing women to dress sexy; coercing women not to dress sexy...

Exaggerating, 900?       

Hardly (emphasis mine) -

Bill C-510, sponsored by anti-abortion Winnipeg Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, would have criminalized forcing a woman into an abortion through threats of violence, withdrawal of financial resources or a place to live.  The proposed law would have had no impact on abortion providers.

First off, that’s bull-shit.  The actual Bill says:  (inserted italics mine)

“coercion”, in respect of an abortion, means conduct that, directly or indirectly, causes a female person to consent to an abortion that she would otherwise have refused. A person coerces an abortion if he or she knows of or suspects the pregnancy of a female person and engages, or conspires with another to engage in, conduct that is intentionally and purposely aimed at directing the female person who has not chosen to have an abortion ( note it does not say who has chosen not to have one) to have an abortion, including but not limited to the following conduct:
1. (a) committing, attempting to commit, or threatening to commit physical harm to the female person, the child or another person;
(b) committing, attempting to commit or threatening to commit any act prohibited by any provincial or federal law;
(c) denying or removing, or making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct; and
(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity;

“threat”, for the purposes of paragraph © of the definition “coercion”, means one or more statements, or a course of conduct, by an individual that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the individual is likely to act in accordance with the statements or as implied by the course of conduct (Depository Services, Public Works and Government Services Canada)

Note the vague definitions as well as the huge fucking net created purposefully to snare as much by-catch as possible: including but not limited to

It would have no impact on abortion providers nor would it put legal limits on abortion.

Yeah right. Abortion providers would have to prove - every damn time - that they are not coercing a woman. You can just heard the womb-obssessed Rod: the center by its very nature is coercive; the staff encourage abortion and that is coercive especially because the poor, fragile female is even more fragile due to her hormones being all fucked up;...any damn lie the foetus fetishists can come up with along those lines will be held up by people like Rod as truth and proof.

And caring family would be targets as well: they were kind of upset at finding out their 14 year old was pregnant - maybe the result of rape, and negative reactions are interpreted as threats by poor, vulnerable, feeble-minded walking wombs...

And the big, big circus net, the catch-all: a pregnant woman considering an abortion is fragile, not right in the head, so anyone helping her obtain an abortion is exercising coercion, and now that we've established that coercion is baaaaad, let's charge the whole lot. And charge them with violence against pregnant women as well, because every woman who has ever had an abortion regretted it and suffered physically and/or psychologically, and if they didn't it's only because they are so traumatized by the abortion (which was coerced) that they don't know they are traumatized.

This pathological obsession with women's wombs has no place in Parliament. What a woman does with her womb - and that includes whatever may be in her womb while it's in her womb is her business as far as the law is concerned, so deal with it, all of you Tools Rods out there.

And if you fuckers are so damned concerned about poor, fragile, trod-upon women, try looking at all women, and woman as a whole being. How about protecting First Nations women who are still vanishing? How about making sure women who are beat on by violent spouses have a safe place to go until the bastards learns he can't keep beating on them? How about re-funding Sisters in Spirit? How about giving back Status of Women it's old mandate that included advocacy? How about promoting pay equity in the private sector instead of gutting it in the public service? How about promoting employment equity in the private sector? How about giving smart, capable women decent positions on politics instead of back-benching anyone with a brain?
How about you stay out of women's bodies and rights, you pompous, moronic, back-woodsy, atavistic, pasty, wimpy, soft-dick, mama's-boy, dart board model...eunuch?

Gotta wonder about men like that who are so, so fixated on dominating women through attempting to control their reproductive freedom. Sort of makes me wonder what the fuck is wrong with their plumbing that they obsess over the other gender's?