Apparently “pro-life” is short-hand for “cheap, delusional bastard”

A Canadian man is refusing to pay taxes because he’s against abortion. I’m sure he’s also taking a stand against the government by refusing to avail himself of the things his taxes actually help fund — like public roads, law enforcement, the fire department, and the Canadian health care system.

Now might also be a good time to remember Drs. Garson Romalis, Hugh Short of Ancaster, and Jack Fainman, all of whom were shot and wounded (but thankfully not killed) by anti-choice terrorists in Canada, within a few days of Nov. 11th, Canadian Remembrance Day.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

16 comments for “Apparently “pro-life” is short-hand for “cheap, delusional bastard”

  1. November 11, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Thats a new one. I wonder if just a desire to not pay taxes has more to do with it. Sounds like a libertarian.

  2. j swift
    November 11, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    It is SOP for right wing extremists, when you get right down to it, that their real motivation is money. Either that money that they don’t get to keep or money that they are not allowed to scam from others.

    Modern Klan, Constitutionalists, or tax protesters, militias, anti-immigrant types often fall to dodging taxes, scamming people out of money or embezzling it from their organizations.

  3. RKMK
    November 11, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    Well, in fact, it’s the provinces that provide health care, though yes, the federal government does contribute funding to them.

    The irony of course being that the system he’s protesting (the healthcare system) provides not “just” abortions, but medical care to many people, without which many many people would, y’know, die.

    [“YOU’RE GOING TO LET WOMEN GO TO THE DOCTOR? I’M NOT PAYING TAXES!”]

  4. mustelid
    November 11, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Well, if he’s against abortions, he doesn’t have to have one.

  5. November 11, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Hmmm… this kind of thing comes from the left also.

    Would you be saying the same thing about war tax resisters?

  6. November 11, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    …like public roads, law enforcement, the fire department, and the Canadian health care system.

    And I suppose you’re going to claim that those weren’t provided by the Infrastructure Fairy?

  7. November 12, 2007 at 1:32 am

    Oh, yeah. Protesting against providing potentially life-saving health care is exactly the same as protesting against a war.

  8. prairielily
    November 12, 2007 at 1:49 am

    You guys are missing the best part of this.

    He’s from NEW BRUNSWICK, and he wants it to be HARDER for women to get an abortion.

    Maybe he should move to to Nicaragua.

  9. November 12, 2007 at 4:36 am

    Is it especially bad in New Brunswick? I knew the Maritimes in general don’t have very good access, but I thought PEI was the only province without ANY abortion services.

    I’m in BC, and while access is good in the Greater Vancouver area, it’s lousy as soon as you’re out of the Lower Mainland. I used to do volunteer work with a battered women’s transition house, and every so often we’d have women coming down from the sticks to go to Everywoman’s, and stay with us because they couldn’t afford an abortion, a couple of days off work, a Greyhound ticket, AND a hotel. Never mind that you can theoretically get an abortion for free at a hospital, in practice it rarely works out t hat way.

    Ya know, if BC had to pay for the bus ticket, the lost wages, and the hotel if a woman couldn’t get a free abortion in her own community, I imagine there’d be a WHOLE lot fewer women needing to head over to Vancouver.

  10. November 12, 2007 at 11:35 am

    Protesting against providing potentially life-saving health care is exactly the same as protesting against a war.

    That is not what I am saying.

    Jill is attacking his method because of what else taxes pay for. If you are going to use this argument, you would need to make a similar argument against war tax resisters.

    My point is that both are possibly valid steps to take, regardless of your beliefs for/against abortion or war. Jill is making an issue out of this one because it is about abortion, but she ignores the same issues on the pacifist front.

    I am not comparing abortion and war. I am talking about the methods, just as Jill was.

  11. November 12, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Jill is attacking his method because of what else taxes pay for. If you are going to use this argument, you would need to make a similar argument against war tax resisters.

    Well, I’d say scale and percentage matter — if you’re in the U.S., a ton of money goes towards defense, and none to abortion services. But even if a little bit was directed to abortion services, I think the argument could be made that because defense sucks up such a large percentage of our tax dollars, it makes more sense to refuse to pay taxes out of pacifism.

    That said, yeah, I do think that refusing to pay taxes is a poor way to go about social activism. Taxes fund a whole lot of important things, including education, law enforcement, fire departments, road maintenance, and on and on. There are lots of things that I don’t like my taxes paying for, but I also realize that they go towards a lot of important social services. Refusing to pay taxes at all short-changes all of the positives.

  12. Laura
    November 12, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    To be fair to war tax resisters, they tend to have a more nuanced way of going about their resistance. One common method is to practice simplicty – to earn too little money to actually owe any federal income tax at all. This means you’re neither breaking the law, nor contributing to the war machine.

    Another method is to only refuse to pay the surcharge on your telephone bill, which was instituted specifically to help pay for the Spanish-American War, and has been maintained specifically during wartime, but to pay the rest of your federal taxes that are used for other programs.

    More info here

  13. prairielily
    November 12, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    In NB, two doctors have to certify in writing that the abortion is “medically necessary,” and the abortion has to be provided by an Ob-Gyn for it to be funded by Medicare, and only up to 12 weeks. In addition, women leaving NB for abortions have to pay out-of-pocket.

    But yes, PEI’s situation is worse. In my opinion, both provinces should have their provincial transfer payments withheld until they start providing equal access to health care.

    Here’s a link:

    New Brunswick’s Anti-Abortion Law is an “Embarrassment” to Canada

  14. November 13, 2007 at 2:18 am

    Well, frak me. I’m embarassed now that I didn’t know that. In BC it’s an access problem, the actual LAW isn’t at fault.

    So, PrairieLily, do you know of any resources where I could find out more about abortion rights in Canada, and what we can do to try and fix this? Websites, Canadian pro-choice blogs, something? I’ll go looking for myself as well, but if you happen to have have any good suggestions, please let me know. I cna be reached through my site or at raincitygirl at gmail dot come.

  15. MB in YYC
    November 13, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    Seriously. Living in a large city in a province that tends to stare at it’s own bellybutton alot, I had no idea this was an issue. I’m a little ashamed! Raincitygirl, let me know if there’s anything I can do to help. I can be reached at pilot underscore gurl at hotmail dot com

Comments are closed.