sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

June 24, 2022 4:42 pm  #1


CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1540419540944793600?t=RyMSHUSWhRAhIvaf5Jj4yQ&s=19

On a day like today, while working on bringing together a group of people for a discussion, for the CBC to pull this feels exceptionally tone deaf.

Not an easy time for anyone to be on-air.

Last edited by betaylored (June 24, 2022 4:43 pm)

 

June 24, 2022 5:01 pm  #2


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

I think any news program that does discussion panels is really stuck to cover both sides.  By only having one side, the right will say the CBC is too leftist supporting.   To put only the right on, allows the right to control the conversation and the left will say they support their cause.    I for one support a women's right to choose.   I also know in Canada, we won't be reopening this issue and changing our laws.     I think it's ok to have both sides at the table to talk about the issue as long as the moderator controls the conversation and questions.      In this case, refusing to go on, actually makes it appear the "LEFT HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE" to the right side.      Sadly I hate this left vs right politics/talk but it's the world we are in.   I wish you could agree in the middle on topics, but today if you don't agree you apparently yell at the other side or refuse to talk to them.   

Simple policy on these issues.     If you don't want an abortion... don't get one.     But you have no right to tell someone what they can/can not do with their own body.    Same goes for same sex marriage between 2 consenting adults.   Don't agree?   Don't get married to a same sex partner.   It's the policy I've had about religion for many years, but I've never once said people shouldn't go to church or burn them down. 

Last edited by radiokid (June 24, 2022 5:03 pm)

 

June 24, 2022 6:15 pm  #3


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

The media has decided the issue, which is not their role.

Instead of saying "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice", they now say "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Choice."

"Amti-Abortion" puts a negative spin on this while "Pro-Choice" provides a positive spin and therefore unbalanced coverage.

I am not taking sides on this, just on the issue of the media taking sides when they should be non-partisan.

My view has always been that if women want an abortion, they can always get one, so why bother with laws for or against. A court ruling against it doesn't change a thing, and it won''t stop women from doing what is right for them.


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

June 24, 2022 7:28 pm  #4


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

https://twitter.com/MooreintheAM/status/1540463072111955969?t=bdVaeqVtlOuZjgiWDmXD7A&s=19

well this is a first.

Last edited by betaylored (June 24, 2022 8:27 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

June 24, 2022 7:29 pm  #5


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

"pro-life" is a biased term as it implies people favouring abortion rights are anti-life.

anti-abortion is descriptive and is no more pejorative than the terms "anti-slavery", "anti-war", or "anti-racist".

Last edited by Hansa (June 24, 2022 8:49 pm)

 

June 24, 2022 8:36 pm  #6


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

https://i.postimg.cc/Kz4XRdcx/john.jpg

Oddly enough, I thought the exact same thing. This is a U.S. court ruling and other than perhaps spurring "abortion tourism," it only affects Americans. Not Canadians. It has no immediate or direct effect here and I don't think any politician willing to overturn those rights here can possibly win office in this country. 

Still, the coverage about "can it happen here?" was pretty predictable. News producers always try to find a "local" angle, even if there isn't one.  

 

June 24, 2022 9:06 pm  #7


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

What an awful take. Canadians are "pearl clutching" because this is a massive happening to our nearest neighbours, and people have empathy for the huge population that we share a border and culture with.

And the "it can happen here" fears are valid. *Politicians* didn't decide this in the US, unelected judges did. Yes, we have a different system, but these types of shifts bleed over borders. If there's a will, there's a way.


 
 

June 24, 2022 9:24 pm  #8


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

RadioAaron wrote:

What an awful take. Canadians are "pearl clutching" because this is a massive happening to our nearest neighbours, and people have empathy for the huge population that we share a border and culture with.

And the "it can happen here" fears are valid. *Politicians* didn't decide this in the US, unelected judges did. Yes, we have a different system, but these types of shifts bleed over borders. If there's a will, there's a way.

What happens south of the border impacts Canadians, including many who have family and friends who are Americans, or who live there whether for work or another reason.

I'd like to think John Moore was impatient and something got lost in translation, but the replies he had from people on Twitter were blunt and negative.

I believe he has family in the U.S.

Wonder if Bill Carroll and Jerry Agar would accept a job at a radio station now.

Would love to know if any of you who read the big yellow board would move to the U.S. for a radio gig after today.

Last edited by betaylored (June 24, 2022 9:25 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

June 24, 2022 9:36 pm  #9


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

betaylored wrote:

Would love to know if any of you who read the big yellow board would move to the U.S. for a radio gig after today.

Absolutely not, and it wasn't that long ago that I would have jumped at the chance.

One of the judges today wrote that the court now has to also "correct" legal contraception, gay rights, and sexual privacy next. And they will. 


 
 

June 24, 2022 9:54 pm  #10


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Hansa wrote:

"pro-life" is a biased term as it implies people favouring abortion rights are anti-life.

They are.
 


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

June 24, 2022 10:09 pm  #11


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Dale Patterson wrote:

Hansa wrote:

"pro-life" is a biased term as it implies people favouring abortion rights are anti-life.

They are.
 

I have read a lot of stupid things today and this is the stupidest.
Come by our front desk between 9 and 5 Monday to Friday to pick up your prize you sexiest buffoon.

Last edited by Tomas Barlow (June 24, 2022 10:10 pm)

 

June 24, 2022 10:40 pm  #12


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Moore's pearl clutching could be referring to our media and a few political parties who play politics with this sensitive topic.  Whenever something like this happens in the US, the predictable reflex of our media and some political parties will be to imply it could happen here too. Even when there is no evidence of this happening, or any momentum to revisit the issue.   RA is correct, some media look for a local angle when there really isn't one.  

Canada's abortion rate has been relatively stable and slightly below the international average.  Rates here are lower than many of our allies and friends like Australia, France, UK, US, New Zealand and Sweden. 

Would I work in radio in the US?  At one point in my life I would have, but it would have been somewhere south where it is warm all year.  Today it would be a no because of my age, some health issues, and the political climate in America.  Also I enjoy where I live. 

In fairness the variety of opportunities in media and most other lines of employment are better and more varied in many areas of the US than Canada. If you have the talent and are willing to work very hard, the sky is the limit, as is the compensation.

We still have lots of opportunities in Ontario and in the west.  Most of the younger generation of Paterson's in my extended family have good paying jobs and are doing very well and all live here. The myth that there are no good jobs for young people is just that.  There are lots of good jobs if you are willing to work and have the education and training or are willing to be trained.

Most of the younger generation in my family are doing much better financially and further ahead than I was at their age.  However they all have real jobs and careers and none are working in media!  Smart kids.. https://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons3/shocked.png
   

 

 

June 24, 2022 10:47 pm  #13


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

RadioAaron wrote:

betaylored wrote:

Would love to know if any of you who read the big yellow board would move to the U.S. for a radio gig after today.

Absolutely not, and it wasn't that long ago that I would have jumped at the chance.

One of the judges today wrote that the court now has to also "correct" legal contraception, gay rights, and sexual privacy next. And they will. 

& will that same judge go after interracial marriage?  (◔_◔)

Last edited by g121 (June 24, 2022 10:47 pm)

 

June 24, 2022 10:57 pm  #14


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Dale Patterson wrote:

The media has decided the issue, which is not their role.

Instead of saying "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice", they now say "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Choice."

"Amti-Abortion" puts a negative spin on this while "Pro-Choice" provides a positive spin and therefore unbalanced coverage.

I am not taking sides on this, just on the issue of the media taking sides when they should be non-partisan.

My view has always been that if women want an abortion, they can always get one, so why bother with laws for or against. A court ruling against it doesn't change a thing, and it won''t stop women from doing what is right for them.

re: I am not taking sides on this .. 

Dale Patterson wrote:

Hansa wrote:

"pro-life" is a biased term as it implies people favouring abortion rights are anti-life.

They are.
 

not taking sides? .. pretty sure you just did .. 

 

 

June 25, 2022 1:16 am  #15


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

RadioActive wrote:

https://i.postimg.cc/Kz4XRdcx/john.jpg

Oddly enough, I thought the exact same thing. This is a U.S. court ruling and other than perhaps spurring "abortion tourism," it only affects Americans. Not Canadians. It has no immediate or direct effect here and I don't think any politician willing to overturn those rights here can possibly win office in this country. 

Still, the coverage about "can it happen here?" was pretty predictable. News producers always try to find a "local" angle, even if there isn't one.  

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/it-feels-so-good-alberta-mp-celebrates-overturning-of-roe-v-wade-1.5962293

 

June 25, 2022 1:54 am  #16


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Why did both CTV and CBC lead with this as their top story Friday at 6 PM. It's an American story that has little effect on Canada. 

And then scrambling to make the story seem Canadian story angle turned into - "what if this happens in Canada?" Stupid.

 

June 25, 2022 10:38 am  #17


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

g121 wrote:

Dale Patterson wrote:

The media has decided the issue, which is not their role.

Instead of saying "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice", they now say "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Choice."

"Amti-Abortion" puts a negative spin on this while "Pro-Choice" provides a positive spin and therefore unbalanced coverage.

I am not taking sides on this, just on the issue of the media taking sides when they should be non-partisan.

My view has always been that if women want an abortion, they can always get one, so why bother with laws for or against. A court ruling against it doesn't change a thing, and it won''t stop women from doing what is right for them.

re: I am not taking sides on this .. 

Dale Patterson wrote:

Hansa wrote:

"pro-life" is a biased term as it implies people favouring abortion rights are anti-life.

They are.
 

not taking sides? .. pretty sure you just did .. 

 

Just stating facts.


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

June 25, 2022 10:44 am  #18


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Tomas Barlow wrote:

Dale Patterson wrote:

Hansa wrote:

"pro-life" is a biased term as it implies people favouring abortion rights are anti-life.

They are.
 

I have read a lot of stupid things today and this is the stupidest.
Come by our front desk between 9 and 5 Monday to Friday to pick up your prize you sexiest buffoon.

So in your opinion, a fetus is not a life? The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled otherwise.
 

Last edited by Dale Patterson (June 25, 2022 10:57 am)


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

June 25, 2022 12:27 pm  #19


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Dale Patterson wrote:

Tomas Barlow wrote:

Dale Patterson wrote:


They are.
 

I have read a lot of stupid things today and this is the stupidest.
Come by our front desk between 9 and 5 Monday to Friday to pick up your prize you sexiest buffoon.

So in your opinion, a fetus is not a life? The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled otherwise.
 

No. Your opinion that people who have them are anti-life is incorrect and ill informed.
Go ask a woman what an ectopic pregnancy is.
Go ask a woman what a septic uterus is.
Go ask a woman what needs to happen if she has a miscarriage and it won’t come out.
These are not uncommon occurrences and in all three cases the mother will die without an abortion. Most of these states make no exception for these occurrences.
YOUR opinion is anti-life.

 

June 25, 2022 1:06 pm  #20


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Tomas Barlow wrote:

Dale Patterson wrote:

Tomas Barlow wrote:


I have read a lot of stupid things today and this is the stupidest.
Come by our front desk between 9 and 5 Monday to Friday to pick up your prize you sexiest buffoon.

So in your opinion, a fetus is not a life? The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled otherwise.
 

No. Your opinion that people who have them are anti-life is incorrect and ill informed.
Go ask a woman what an ectopic pregnancy is.
Go ask a woman what a septic uterus is.
Go ask a woman what needs to happen if she has a miscarriage and it won’t come out.
These are not uncommon occurrences and in all three cases the mother will die without an abortion. Most of these states make no exception for these occurrences.
YOUR opinion is anti-life.

Granted, but does the fetus not have rights too?
 


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

June 25, 2022 8:40 pm  #21


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Dale Patterson wrote:

Tomas Barlow wrote:

Dale Patterson wrote:


So in your opinion, a fetus is not a life? The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled otherwise.
 

No. Your opinion that people who have them are anti-life is incorrect and ill informed.
Go ask a woman what an ectopic pregnancy is.
Go ask a woman what a septic uterus is.
Go ask a woman what needs to happen if she has a miscarriage and it won’t come out.
These are not uncommon occurrences and in all three cases the mother will die without an abortion. Most of these states make no exception for these occurrences.
YOUR opinion is anti-life.

Granted, but does the fetus not have rights too?
 

The woman carrying the fetus has more rights, including the right to cease carrying the fetus if that's what they wish. 

Abortion has been around since the dawn of time. In the US it wasn't until 1821 that a state banned it. It wasn't banned in England until 1829. 

 

June 26, 2022 12:52 pm  #22


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Dale Patterson wrote:

Tomas Barlow wrote:

Dale Patterson wrote:


So in your opinion, a fetus is not a life? The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled otherwise.
 

No. Your opinion that people who have them are anti-life is incorrect and ill informed.
Go ask a woman what an ectopic pregnancy is.
Go ask a woman what a septic uterus is.
Go ask a woman what needs to happen if she has a miscarriage and it won’t come out.
These are not uncommon occurrences and in all three cases the mother will die without an abortion. Most of these states make no exception for these occurrences.
YOUR opinion is anti-life.

Granted, but does the fetus not have rights too?
 

It's been over 10 years since I have posted in this forum. I have ignored a lot of crap.  Not this. 

NO. The fetus does not. The Mother comes first. 

 

June 26, 2022 3:11 pm  #23


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

I’ve got no direct skin in this game because (a) I’m not a woman, and (b) I’m not American. But I will say this - I would likely not be alive today if my birth mother was able to access abortion in London, Ont. many years ago. She was a Western student at the time and her only two options were ending her studies and raising me, or putting me up for adoption. She chose the latter. Although I don’t know for sure that if presented with the same situation today that she would choose abortion, it is highly likely that she would.

I am not religious, but the way I was conceived has had an impact on my feelings around this situation, and some comments on the pro-choice side have definitely been a source of personal struggle around my own self-worth. However, I also know multiple women who have had multiple miscarriages, they were not at fault for any of them, and medically necessary abortions were needed to save their lives. I see both sides of the coin.

It’s a very complicated issue in terms of my beliefs, and I think there’s a lot of nuance around it that gets missed by both sides in these highly polarized times.

Last edited by MJ Vancouver (June 26, 2022 3:21 pm)

 

June 27, 2022 8:33 am  #24


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

RadioActive wrote:

https://i.postimg.cc/Kz4XRdcx/john.jpg

Oddly enough, I thought the exact same thing. This is a U.S. court ruling and other than perhaps spurring "abortion tourism," it only affects Americans. Not Canadians. It has no immediate or direct effect here and I don't think any politician willing to overturn those rights here can possibly win office in this country. 

Still, the coverage about "can it happen here?" was pretty predictable. News producers always try to find a "local" angle, even if there isn't one.  

Anyone who thinks developments in US politics have no influence here hasn't been paying attention for the last 100 years. Developments in the US are often echoed in Canada (though not consistently and not in the same way - sometimes we go further than the US, sometimes not). When Trump took office a lot of Canadian pundits thought Canada was immune from Trumpism, yet we have seen Conservative populism making inroads here, even if it hasn't gotten as far. 

If overturning Roe results in a progressive backlash and Republicans being severely punished in the fall election - then Canadian Conservatives are more likely to remain skittish about implementing social conservative policies and avoid doing so out of pragmatism, even if their hearts are elsewhere, but if the Republicans don't suffer or, in particular, if they say gain the Senate and in two years win the White House then they will be emboldened and you're more likely to see Conservative governments responding to pressure from the social conservative bloc of MPs and party activists and roll back abortion rights. 

Last edited by Hansa (June 27, 2022 8:36 am)

 

June 27, 2022 9:00 am  #25


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Dale Patterson wrote:

Hansa wrote:

"pro-life" is a biased term as it implies people favouring abortion rights are anti-life.

They are.
 

Hey Dale...delete your account you old buffoon...the woman carrying a fetus takes precedent 1 million percent of the time....full stop...she can choose to end the pregnancy and all the GOP and Conservative Christian men out there that cannot get pregnant need to STFU and get off their religious brainwashing control the masses rhetoric....how far does this go then in terms of the rights of the fetus?...if the father takes a hike before the child is born should he be forced to provide child support as of conception?...can the woman take out a life insurance policy on the fetus and if it dies before birth get a pay out?...should a 14 year old rape victim have to endure the stress of childbirth and then help raise a child that was forced upon her against her will?...this goes on and on....The Americans are devolving and their bullshit is influencing Canadians...look at how many Con MPs openly support anti-abortion stances?....their current CPC leadership openly supports U.S. style political rhetoric, their next leader may very well be as close to Max Bernier as Max was to winning that very same leadership role in 2017...

 

June 27, 2022 9:05 am  #26


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

I'm rarely an optimist when it comes to politicians, but I honestly believe any party that even suggests they would take this same route here would never be voted into office. I cling to the hope that most Canadians are centrist and not so far to the left or right that they'd even consider voting en masse for those who would remove the right to this procedure. (Maxime Bernier's People's Party made a lot of noise in the last federal election, but didn't get a single seat. That speaks volumes.)

Plus, our Supreme Court is not the same as the one in the U.S., with an entirely different philosophy and makeup, and it would almost certainly be challenged legally the instant anyone tried to touch the status quo. I'm pretty sure the Court would never allow those rights to be removed here. It's just not the Canadian way and the SoCons are still in the minority overall and will likely stay that way. 

At least that's my hope. 

 

June 27, 2022 9:27 am  #27


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Historically, our supreme court has been less partisan (and historically there's also been less actual difference between Liberal and Conservative governments on legal issues) but constitutionally the difference between the US and Canadian courts is there is no confirmation required in Canada. There's nothing stopping an ideologically social conservative PM and justice minister from appointing activist social conservative judges.

 

June 27, 2022 9:31 am  #28


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

Perhaps, but how many openings come up during an average government's term in office? The chance to alter the makeup of the Court was a very long-term plan by the Republicans in the U.S. that unfortunately, finally worked after 50 years of trying. And even then, it took a confluence of unpredictable events, including the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to make it happen. I would hope our system is different enough that something like what you suggest would not be possible in the lifetime of the average government. 

But hey, I'm willing to admit after last week, that anything is possible. Which, given what we just witnessed, is a pretty scary thought. 

 

June 27, 2022 12:05 pm  #29


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

And then there's this from Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion on Roe v Wade, which will, of course embolden the right even more: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote, referring to landmark opinions that blocked states from banning contraception, sex by same-sex couples and gay marriage. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

Samuel L. Jackson's response possibly wins the Internet today: "How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!" That case: "
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down all state laws banning interracial marriage as violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Since Justice Thomas' wife is white, I doubt very much he will be looking to overturn that decision. That doesn't mean there won't be someone who will try, given his opinion on the other issues the religious right and others condemn.

And I hope like RA that the majority of Canadians recognize the threat of extremism, from from the right or the left. Unhappily, due to voter apathy and other, factors we have an Ontario Government that was elected by less that 20% of the eligible voter pool. I really believe that for most elections, we should have the same law as Australia. All eligible voters must vote and showing up and getting your name crossed off the list is not enough. You have to take a ballot, you have to at least go through the motions of marking it and then put it in the ballot box. This at least offers the chance for a true majority and mandate.

And on a side note, what is in Doug Ford's cabinet mandate letters?  Hopefully our Supreme Court rules against him for the ones from 2018 and that will negate the need for him to spend more tax payers money keeping the 2022 ones secret.

 

June 27, 2022 1:16 pm  #30


Re: CBC judgement call: Roe vs. Wade & the Supreme Court

RadioActive wrote:

Perhaps, but how many openings come up during an average government's term in office? 

You'd be surprised -

Justin Trudeau has appointed 4 out of the current 9 justices.
Harper appointed 8 justices.
Chretien appointed 6 justices. 
Mulroney appointed 9 justices. 

Remember Canadian justices retire at 75. I think the average justice is in their 60s when their appointed so I wouldn't be surprised if the tenure of the average Canadian Supreme Court justice is 10 or 12 years - but in the US appointments have become more tactical with Trump appointing younger (arguably underqualified) people with the expectation that they'll remain for decades. A PM with an agenda could easily stack the Supreme Court with justices in their 40s and lock in a majority for the next 30 years. 
 

Last edited by Hansa (June 27, 2022 1:17 pm)