The Order of Candians is generally a large double double

So, some catholic dude handed back the Order of Canada because he didn't want to win an award that could be awarded to Henry Morgentaler.

Oy. You would think he would want to win an award that was imparted to Stompin' Tom Connors though.

Frankly, I can't think of a person who is MORE deserving of the award that the good doctor.

There are really three ideas that have to be conveyed here: Why do we have an OC? Who deserves to have an OC? And what are social conservatives doing wrong?

Why do we have an OC - to reward outstanding achievement in the field of excellence?

Maybe it is a little more involved than that.

I think it is to ensure that we have a place in our society to elevate particularly important people for whatever fantastic thing they did. It can be anything- charity, art, dance, hockey, being Prime Minister, being Premier, being alive a long time and nice to other people - it is a position of status in the community.

If I had my way, we would hand them out to LESS people, and Morgentaler would still get one. There are currently 5,479 people with an Order of Canada.

Who deserves an OC - You can think that Bryan Adams sucks and still believe he deserves the award.

Sure- we should have a public debate on who deserves the award each time someone moderately controversial gets it. And we do. Any person or group can nominate another person. I just nominated Buzz Hargrove because he hates Korea so much.

What did Mr. Morgantaler do? He risked his own freedom and his own life to provide women the opportunity to make a choice about their body. He has been in front of Canada's highest court TWICE in an attempt to protect that right.

If that doesn't qualify you, I don't know what does. The man is a hero.

What is the Social Conservative Right (SCR) doing wrong? Everything.

As a qualified libertarian, I don't give a shit what a person does to their own body. I believe that you have the sovereign right to do whatever you want inside it. Don't affect other people.

And that has always been the rub, right?

My thought, however, is that rather than making a choice which some people have no option but to take illegal, why not just convince them to chose your way?

It is the intellectual equivalent of combating communism by outlawing it. Or banning the NDP from elections so they can't win.

The SCR has to stop trying to change the rules to win the debate. a) It won't happen and b) even it if it does happen in country a, people can go to state b or back-alley c and get the same result.

The SCR has to do this one baby at a time- convince the mothers to keep the children. That it is morally/ethically wrong for them to terminate the pregnancy.

Arguing against the law just makes it harder for people to make the choice that is best for them. Open the process entirely and make them obsolete is the only sustainable method that will work.

Canada/US - what's the difference? Loads.

In my lifetime, we will see Roe v. Wade overturned. It is, despite the result, a remarkably poor decision. It is based in privacy - and let me assure you- the view of privacy in the 1970s is markedly different than it is now.

When Roe falls, however - it isn't like we are going to see abortions stop. Of the states that still have the anti-abortion laws on the books, I would daresay that less than five of them will vigorously defend those laws. Most of those states have only one vowel in them.

Others will be struck down by progressive legislatures/governors.

Others still will be ignored completely.

And it isn't far to drive from Alabama to another state.