Hey, Paul Wells reads my blog.

Whadda you know.

He reports I was "with the Harpers" when they met the pope, as if I'm a close friend of the family or something. I was among the 15-20 journalists who covered the Harper's papal audience, not up there with the family when they met the pope, which he makes it sound like. Paul Wells likes to paint me as shill for Harper. Knock yourself out, Paul.

The Bill, C-510, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Coercion), was introduced by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South). It sought to specify that coercing a woman to have an abortion would be a Criminal Code offense. The bill was defeated in a recorded division on second reading, and that’s the end of that for now.

Cabinet itself was divided on the motion, with Stephen Harper, James Moore and Lawrence Cannon, among others, voting against it, while Stockwell Day, Jason Kenney and Gail Shea, among others, voting in favour. Sun Media’s Brian Lilley quotes PMO press guy Andrew MacDougall: “The prime minister has always said he wouldn’t support a bill that reopens the abortion debate.”

Some pro-life groups are really angry at the Prime Minister. Other commentators are more muted. Deborah Gyapong, who was with the Harpers when they met the Pope in 2009, mentions his vote at the bottom of her Catholic Register article but not, at this writing, on her blog.

I think Harper assumes the socially conservative base of his party will not desert him even if he gives them little or nothing.

He's probably right. Where else can they go? But voting against Roxanne's Law when he could have stayed true to his pledge to "not reopen the abortion debate" and not vote at all, is akin to poking a stick in the eye of the pro-life movement. Many could just choose to stay home in the next federal election or stop sending any money to the party or their local candidate. Pro-lifers are not all fiscal conservatives. There are still a number of solid pro-life Liberals and any Liberal candidate who stands up for life and family could get a lot of support.

The other thing that social conservatives may find disturbing is the role that recent Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada played in the Dec. 22 opinion on the Quebec reference on the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Both the Canadian Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada have expressed concern over the opinion that opens the way to transgenic research and the treatment of human embryos in ways that could violate their human dignity. The hero of the hour is Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who articulated many of the moral concerns of both the CCCB and the EFC, not the Harper picks--Justices Rothstein and Cromwell-- who voted to remove aspects of the Act out from under the Criminal Law power.

When social conservatives wake up to this, the Tories may find a little coal in their stockings.

But the accumulated effect of Harper's actions is sending a message that the Conservatives are a mainstream party that has replaced the Liberals as the party of the center.

That may not make social conservatives especially happy, but it is what it is.

The Tories may be poised to win a majority and social conservatives should probably not expect much to change concerning their specific concerns if that happens.

Of course, when and if we move into election mode, there will be shrill cries of "hidden agenda" and the dangerous Christian right etc. etc. It's laughable.