The Wrap on Reproductive Justice 2014: In Canada, Looking Pretty Good

DJ! is happy to report that on the reproductive justice front, at least, 2014 was not too bad. Well, depending on where you are, of course.

In Canada, I think we've turned a ginormous corner. In fact, 2014 was more a year of what did not happen rather than what did.

*First, there was not one single public opinion poll on abortion in 2014. None. Nobody wanted to pony up to pay for what everybody knows. Abortion rights are a done deal here. And we're sick to fucking death of talking about it. (See UPDATE below.)

Next, Justin Trudeau came right out and said that the Liberal Party of Canada is pro-choice and anybody who is not prepared to vote accordingly on such legislation should take their allegiance elsewhere. There was some squealing from the predictable dusty old corners of the party to which Trudeau replied:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, faced with an open letter from seven former Liberal MPs denouncing him for his stance on abortion, tweeted that the days "when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone.

And speaking of dusty, crusty, fusty old corners, there were just a few feeble pokes at the back-door of abortion rights, namely from at-long-fucking-last-about-to-retire Maurice Vellacott and Stephen ("The Wanker") Woodworth.

On Vellacott's motions, The Star reported (and was proven correct):

Both motions are almost certainly doomed to fail. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been consistent on having no desire to reopen the abortion debates in Canada, and his party has shut down numerous efforts by pro-life caucus members to do so.

In Saskatchewan, local fetus freaks launched a letter-writing campaign to force under-age people to get parental consent for an abortion, but after some schooling, Health Minister Dustin Duncan replied that abortion restrictions are not up to the government but rather the medical profession.

That's rather exhilarating to hear a politician admit, isn't it?

Even more exhilarating to us is the stink of acknowledged failure emanating from Official Fetus Freakdom. Its focus on one method of abortion, rather than the entire evil practice, for its annual March of the Fetii Bunfest signals their admission that instituting an abortion ban is beyond them, but hey give us a little sop, eh? Ban just this one method, pretty pleeeeeze?

Perhaps also in recognition that they're losing badly, attendance was significantly down at the March for Lies, and organizers didn't even bother to whine when their inflated estimates were dismissed by all legit observers.

All of these non-events betoken a growing shift towards seeing abortion as simply not a moral issue. Worldwide, people are increasingly accepting abortion and birth control as simple facts of life of no consequence to any but the individuals involved.

Now, for some things that did happen.

First, New Brunswick!!!! A new generation of activists made themselves heard to a (hopefully) new generation of politicians. We will watch to see how this plays out, but we are tremendously proud of our children and grandchildren for their hard work and clever strategizing.

Next, PEI where outgoing Premier Ghiz finally comes out as pro-choice but anti-action. He seems content to live in a place where people can't have nice things, despite the fact that nice local abortions would actually save the government money. More work needed there.

Over at the brand spanking new Museum of Human Rights, a woman's right to choose was publicly and federally celebrated in an exhibit featuring Dr Henry Morgentaler.

And lastly, a very cool thing happened in Ontario. When it was pointed out to the Trillium Foundation, which dispenses public funds from the government's various numbers rackets, that it was supporting a religious organization whose mission it is to deny those very human rights, it promptly yanked the dough.

In the new year, we -- and many other reproductive justice watchers -- are expecting Health Canada to approve the "gold standard" of medical abortion, mifepristone.

This act will finally prove to the world and to all of us that Canada is fully committed to PRO-CHOICE policies. Even total nutbars like SUZY ALLCAPS recognizes that it will be game over for her and her gang.

And Canada is never going back.

There will be, of course, a few ongoing battles, but the war will be over.


(Things are not so rosy in many other places and if we get a few minutes, we'll report on those events and developments for 2014.)


UPDATE (January 3/15): Wrong. There was the annual Angus Reid Global poll showing no change.

Git your souvenir oilsands globe here!

The pitch (yeah, eh, eh, eh):



The innovator is Dan Murphy.

For extra fun, enter the search term "A Celebration of Tarsands!" at  youtube.

Support for Unrestricted Abortion Skyrocketing

Oh dear. That old bugaboo, unintended consequences, is biting back big time.

In both Canada and the US, classic overreach on the abortion issue is creating a 'backlash among moderates'.

Here in Canada, support for unrestricted abortion is skyrocketing

The question asked on October 27: Should abortion be legal in all circumstances, should it be legal in some circumstances or should it be illegal in all circumstances?

A Forum Research poll for the National Post recently asked 1,735 randomly selected Canadians 18 years of age or older when abortion should be legal.

A full 60% of Canadians said always.

That’s surprisingly high. Even more surprising: That number’s skyrocketed in recent months. In a similar Forum poll conducted last February, only 51% of Canadians took that position.

Leap of 9 points in 8 months. Woo.

Pundits speculate that the cause may be the attempted reopening of the abortion debate -- that nobody wants -- by wannabe allegorist Stephen Woodworth.

Perhaps amplified by moronic musings on rape and magic lady parts by USian ReThuglican candidates.

In the US, a poll taken after the election shows solid majority support for abortion rights.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 54% describe themselves as pro-choice on the issue of abortion, while 38% say they are pro-life.

Note that both these surveys were taken before the public learned of the death-by-religion of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland.

Wonder what the next polls will show. . .

They're Heeeeere!

On Twitter #prochoice, there was some crap from a crisis pregnancy center/centre, aka fake clinic, supporter. Ever helpful, I posted a link to stories from women who have been lied to, manipulated, guilt-tripped etc by such places. Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch is USian.

A Canadian tweep replied:

@Womanwhovotes Mary Pynenburg @fernhilldammit Could only read one - hope #cpc don't create cpc's here. I am pro abortion rights not anti abortion rights

Womanwhovotes is by no means alone in thinking that these evil outfits are exclusively USian.

Canada has them too.

While there are over 4,000 in the Excited States, we have about 200. Given that our size is about one-tenth that of the US, I suppose we should be grateful we don't have 400 of them, but still they are here preying on vulnerable women.

Here's one umbrella group boasting of supporting 71 fake clinics and developing 9 more (bold in original).

The Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) is a national, non-political, registered Christian charity, committed to equipping pregnancy support services.

CAPSS, the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services, was formed in 1997 as the fulfillment of a long-standing mission: "to help women and babies by encouraging and equipping pregnancy support centres across Canada."

CAPSS under girds 71 affiliate centres, and is presently assisting with the growth and development of another nine centres. Located in towns and cities across

Canada, these centres offer practical, material, emotional and spiritual assistance by helping women and their partners or significant other through distressing pregnancies.

Approved affiliation with CAPSS grants the option of dual or triple affiliation with CareNet and/or Heartbeat, with the related benefits of both organizations.

Google 'crisis pregnancy centre' and the name of any city in Canada and you'll find at least one. Go to page 1 of your Yellow Pages and you'll find two headings: 'Abortion Alternatives' and 'Abortion Services'.

Often, they are a stone's throw -- or less -- from a real abortion clinic as here in Toronto: Aid to Women at 300 Gerrard St. East, right next door to Cabbagetown Women's Clinic, 302 Gerrard St. East.

The terrific documentary 12th and Delaware follows activities at the two operations on opposite sides of the street.

The location is no accident. If they can't confuse women looking for the real clinic into dropping into their lie-lab, being nearby means they can pop out for a bit of slut-shaming/harassment on their lunch breaks.

Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada reported on fake clinics in BC a couple of years ago. (PDF here.)

Here are her recommendations for action:

* Stop deceptive advertising and false representations of CPCs in the media.

* Remove CPCs from referral lists used by the medical profession or social services.

* Ensure that the medical profession and social services have accurate information so they can refer women for abortion appropriately.

* Create more pro-choice counselling in communities, both options and post-abortion.

* Lobby governments and public foundations to stop funding CPCs.

* Ask Canada Revenue Agency to revoke the charity status of CPCs that have it.

Yes, they get public and government money. And yes, they have charitable status.

So, have a little time on your hands now that Canadians have voted to turn themselves into Fox Nation North for at least the next four years? Here's a Facebook group for Calgary.

Plummeting Teen Pregnancy Rate

We must be doing something right.

Teen pregnancy rates have fallen more steeply in Canada over the last decade than in the United States, England or Sweden, a new study shows.

Between 1996 and 2006, the most recent year for which information is available for all four countries, Canada's teen pregnancy rate declined in each consecutive year, falling from 44.2 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 1996 to to 27.9 in 2006. That represents a 36.9% decline over the course of a decade, compared to a 25% decline in the U.S., a 4.75% dip in England (where statistics include Wales) and a 19.1% increase in Sweden.

"What's striking is that the magnitude of decline appears to be more significant in Canada," says Alex McKay, lead author of the study and research co-ordinator with the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada (SIECCAN), which released the study Wednesday morning. "Declining teen pregnancy rates for the country in general are indicative of better sexual and reproductive health among young women."

In 2006, Canada's teen pregnancy rate was lower than any of the other three countries, he says, and Canada has seen a decline both in babies born to teenage mothers and pregnant teens seeking abortions.

The Canadian teen birthrate fell 38% over a decade and the teen abortion rate declined by 35.7%, compared to a 21.7% decrease in the teen birthrate in the U.S. and a 28.6% drop in the teen abortion rate. In England, by comparison, teen birthrates fell 13.2% and the abortion rate increased by 9.1%, while Sweden's teen birthrate dropped 22.1% and abortions rose by 30%.

Canadians teens are availing themselves of our sensible attitude towards abortion.

Over the last decade, just over half of Canadian teen pregnancies ended in abortion, with births accounting for 45 to 50% of teen pregnancies in any given year. In the U.S. over the same time period, births accounted for 65 to 70% of teen pregnancies, while in England, that figure hovered between 58 and 64%.

And using effective contraception.

"By and large, the Canadian teenager today is not more or less likely to be sexually active than the Canadian teenager from a decade ago," Dr. McKay says. "But what is different is that the sexually active teenager today is more likely to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections."

More So Conned Reaction

Or, 'Another Instalment of DJ! Visits the Freaks So You Don't Have To'.

It's still early days for measuring the so-conned reaction to Stevie Peevie's steel-toed boot to their forced-pregnancy delusion, but it seems to me there are -- so far -- three identifiable types.

First, the over-reacting emotional dimbulb, example here being Cecilia:

Do you think Harper has secret prolife plan? He doesn't. Harper is a pro abortion zealot. He'll never let any type of abortion legislation pass while he's on watch. Harper doesn't give a damn about a woman who has been "coerced" into ending her pregnancy.

Harper has to go.

Um. OK. (I don't think Cecilia understands the proper use of sarcasm/scare quotation marks. But then, there's sooo much she doesn't understand, isn't there?)

Next, the reality-challenged ideologue, represented here by our old pal Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass/Sock-Tube Holocaust Survivor, Pacheco:

In my opinion, we are putting too much emphasis on what Harper thinks.

Politicians don't lead, they react and follow. So why take what they say too seriously?

Harper will bend when the underlying politics of the question go against him. And that is going to come with time. Harper is a passing leader. He won't be the guy who has to really face this issue. It will be the next leader.

I swear that I have never heard the phrase "this debate is over" by so many of our opponents. It's quite comical, not unlike the "unqualified support" management gives to a hockey coach before he gets the boot.

Besides, the otherside is confusing the numbers with political will. They are assuming that one correlates with the other. The fact is that the one-third who are pro-life have more gravitas than the weak kneed pro-aborts. Believe me, if the momentum shifts significantly, many of the so-called "women's right to choose" brigade will go silent when the politics of the question shift. Don't kid yourself. The key is in the momentum.

As the momentum shifts so do politicians. Very few are principled. And frankly, we have more principled pro-life politicians in power than we do "principled" pro-aborters. And that's the key factor here.

So not worry, the march for life continues with or without Harper who will still have to give a full accounting to God for his actions -- some of that "accountability" he likes to talk about -- except this kind of accountability has eternal consequences.

So, the anti-abortioneers have 'principles', time, and Gord on their side, while we 'pro-aborts' have only superior numbers of sane people. OK, works for me. (Pacheco does understand the correct use of quotation marks.)

Then there's yesterday's example: the once-hopeful now totally pissed-off, as represented by my Facebook friend Connie.

The ideologues are useless to DJ!'s evul scheme to divide the right. We'll just have to wait for them to die off.

But maybe we can work with the dimbulbs and the pissed-off.

I'm thinking a concerted chorus of 'nyah-nyah -- how's that "Waiting on a Majority Thingy" working out for ya?' might help our cause.

No one likes to be mocked, of course, but it may work differently on the two groups. The emotional dimbulbs might get whipped out of shape enough to vote for the far-far-right christianist parties. Whereas the pissed-off may just become cripplingly depressed over their painful and embarrassing realization of being strung along for so long and stay home.

Now, we at DJ! would never ever suggest trolling of any kind, but a good place to er, gauge how the Mock the Right Campaign is going over might be this Facebook group, Canadian So Cons. From the info page:

We are constantly told that Canada is a socially liberal country, and that social conservatives do not have a place in the public square.

Well, they sure do! Membership in the group numbers a whopping 21! Including many of our fave fetus fetishists like SUZY ALL-CAPS.

Another place to um, monitor reaction might be Bruinooge's Facebook group set up to support his 'coerced abortion' private member's bill.

Mock the Right! It's fun and it might actually do some good!

UPDATE: The conversation at the Freaks continues. Our evul plan is working!

Despite the Manning Centre's Wishful Thinking. . .

Canada is pro-choice and socially liberal.

And a new poll demonstrates it again.

According to an EKOS survey provided exclusively to The Globe, 52 per cent of Canadians describe themselves as “pro-choice;” 27 per cent say they are “pro-life;” 10 per cent chose “neither” and 11 per cent opted for “do not know or no response.”

The long-dormant abortion issue popped up earlier this year after the government announced that maternal health in the developing world would be a key priority for the G8 meetings hosted by Canada this year. This week U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton challenged the Conservative government’s view that such an agenda could be addressed without including abortion as part of the options for women.

EKOS pollster Frank Graves says these Canadian numbers are virtually unchanged from 10 years ago. He also says this latest survey challenges the theory put forward by the Manning Center that Canadians are becoming more small-c conservative on social issues like abortion.

The right-leaning think tank’s survey, released last month, found 60 per cent of Canadians strongly agree that abortion is morally wrong. It also concluded that the “political centre” in Canada is becoming more conservative.

The fact the EKOS poll asks the same question as one posed 10 years ago shows there is no movement on abortion, Mr. Graves says.

In his news release, the pollster hints that he is working on research that could counter the Manning Centre’s theory that Canadians are becoming more conservative generally.

“We are not yet in a position to consolidate our research, but the early evidence suggests that on issues of social behaviour, the trend seems to be, if anything, in the opposite direction,” he states. “When measured over time, we have found that on indicators such as same-sex marriage, the decriminalization of marijuana, and capital punishment, Canadians are becoming less conservative, not more.”

Suck it up, TheoCons.

Still Baffled, with Fun Links Added

When I've occasionally watched Olympic opening ceremonies, I've been grateful for commentary that attempts to explain otherwise baffling symbols, songs, choreography, and whatnot.

Who knew I'd need such commentary for games being held in Canada?

Wasn't that one of the weirdest experiences you've ever had? I wasn't going to watch and in fact watched not much -- I hadda keep leaving the room out of embarrassment, bewilderment, or to get another drink.

First, who the hell was that broad auditioning for 'American Idol' with the Canadian national anthem? I muted it, but that wasn't enough. Her squirming was driving me batshit insane.

I left the room. Got another drink.

And would it have been too much to expect that CTV provide English translation for that terribly obscure language -- French?

I could go on. But I'll spare you.

Just two more things. Well, two and a half.

Joni wasn't available to sing her own song? Nobody could find a recording of her singing it?

And while I love k.d. laing and she did a terrific job, did anyone read the lyrics before choosing her number?

For that matter, did anyone read the lyrics to 'Both Sides Now'?

Here's my last question: What the FUCK?

For your perusal -- and that of the ijits who choose the music -- here are said lyrics.

'Hallelujah'

Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah

Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Baby I have been here before
I know this room, I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you.
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

There was a time you let me know
What's really going on below
But now you never show it to me, do you?
And remember when I moved in you
The holy dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn't matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah

'Both Sides Now'

Bows and flows of angel hair and ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere, i've looked at cloud that way.
But now they only block the sun, they rain and snow on everyone.
So many things i would have done but clouds got in my way.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud illusions i recall.
I really don't know clouds at all.

Moons and junes and ferris wheels, the dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairy tale comes real; i've looked at love that way.
But now it's just another show. you leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know, don't give yourself away.

I've looked at love from both sides now,
From give and take, and still somehow
It's love's illusions i recall.
I really don't know love at all.

Tears and fears and feeling proud to say "i love you" right out loud,
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds, i've looked at life that way.
But now old friends are acting strange, they shake their heads, they say
I've changed.
Something's lost but something's gained in living every day.

I've looked at life from both sides now,
From win and lose, and still somehow
It's life's illusions i recall.
I really don't know life at all.

ADDED: Salon snerks. Fun.

MORE: Heather Mallick enlightens the Brits.

A sample:

For Canadians, the opening ceremonies in Vancouver on Friday were like watching your dad get drunk at a party. You love the guy, but my God, he isn't going to dance. In front of everyone. Look, he's taking off his jacket. As I live and die, what is he wearing? Awww, I love him. And so on.

Death by Childbirth

Northern Ireland is struggling towards ensuring that women have choice with respect to their reproductive potential. However it does have something to offer pregnant women that is enviable and admirable.

According to the United Nations, a woman’s chance of dying in childbirth in the United States is 1 in 4,800. In Ireland, which has the best rate in the world, it is 1 in 48,000. In Sierra Leone, it is 1 in 8.

One in eight. Think of eight women you know that are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Name each one out loud. Imagine one of them dying while giving birth. Perhaps a friend, a relative, a neighbour or someone very close to you almost died, but with the intervention of prompt, efficient professional health care workers, she survived and so did her infant.

Fatmata Jalloh’s body lay on a rusting metal gurney in a damp hospital ward, a scrap of paper with her name and “R.I.P.” taped to her stomach. In the soft light of a single candle — the power was out again in one of Africa’s poorest cities — Jalloh looked like a sleeping teenager. Dead just 15 minutes, the 18-year-old’s face was round and serene, with freckles around her closed eyes and her full lips frozen in a sad pucker. …

More than 500,000 women a year — about one every minute — die in childbirth across the globe, almost exclusively in the developing world, and almost always from causes preventable with basic medical care. The planet’s worst rates are in this startlingly poor nation on West Africa’s Atlantic coast, where a decade of civil war that ended in 2002 deepened chronic deprivation.

The women die from bleeding, infection, obstructed labor and preeclampsia or pregnancy-induced high blood pressure. But often the underlying cause is simply life in poor countries: Governments don’t provide enough decent hospitals or doctors; families can’t afford medications.

The above was first posted at Birth Pangs in 2008.

More recent figures on maternal mortality are available in the World Economic Forum's recently released Global Gender Gap Report which measures the size of the gender inequality gap in four critical areas:

1) Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment

2) Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education

3) Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures

4) Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio.

Antonia Zerbisias scrutinizes the Catholic Family and Fetal Rights Institute's distortion of the World Economic Forum report and exposes C-FAM's twisted logic and fallacious premise here. She does an excellent job of deconstructing the Institute's partial fact selection about medical care provided to women of child-bearing age, its use of false equivalency and its MASSIVE obfuscations and lies.

She demonstrates how The Fetus©™ fetishists do not value the lives of those they view only as Gestational Support Units, better known to non-zealots as women who are mothers, daughters, wives, sisters, friends and lovers.

The Wedge

I am depressed but not surprised by the healthcare debate in the US.

Again, we're shown that women's rights are ALWAYS negotiable.

Some commenters like Megan McArdle take women to task for making a big deal out of nothing much really.

Most of them seem to come from feminists who blithely assume away concerns about the personhood of the fetus, and the staunch political opposition to subsidized abortion from those who lean towards the "person" side. This allows them to spend 1,000 words or so having a completely irrelevant discussion of the disparate effects of the Stupak amendment on poor women, arguing that women's reproductive health care is too real health care, and similarly unrelated side points.

Talk about irrelevant . . . Dig this:

Last time I looked, there were over 1 million abortions a year in the United States. The most methodologically shoddy, activist-induced statistics on the number who die from lack of health insurance is 44,000, and the real number is much lower. The abortion statistics, on the other hand, are carefully collected numbers from a pro-choice group. Even if you only value a fetus as 1/20th of a person, the fetuses win.

She says that only 13% of abortions are insurance-funded. So, taking her own number of one million (which is too high, by the way), that measly 13% works out to 130,000 women per year having to pony up their own dough.

And for those women too poor? Fuck 'em.

The women who genuinely can't afford $500 bucks for an abortion are the women closest to the poverty line. Those women will be covered by Medicare, and they won't get abortion coverage anyway in most states.

There's much more, but as I said, it depresses me.

McArdle is a business writer. Nancy Folbre, on the other hand, is an actual economics professor. And she gets it.

With sex (as with food and exercise) Americans don’t seem, on average, to be very good at planning. Almost one-half of all pregnancies — and about one-third of births — are described as “unintended.”

We need insurance for a reason.

Nonetheless, despite heroic lobbying and phone-banking by people like Marta Evry and Jane Hamsher, I think the misogynist Christofascists are going to win.

Because paying for other people's (ahem) abortions really really bugs people.

And here's what I find really depressing -- the anti-choice forces here in Canada will get revved by the success of this tactic and push it even harder here.

While a recent poll by Angus-Reid clearly shows that Canadians are much more liberal than Murricans in their views (support for both abortion and same-sex relationships is up significantly -- for same-sex relationships by 7 points -- over the past two years), the question that polls 'best' for the anti-choicers, even here, is 'Should government fund abortion?'

Sorry, I couldn't find another source for this Environics poll:

The disconnect between official policy and the opinions of Canadians is even more stark in the area of abortion funding. Most abortions in Canada, which now total well over 100,000 annually, are paid for by taxpayers through the publicly funded health care system. Yet when asked, 68% of Canadians polled said that abortions should be either privately funded (18%) or only tax-funded in cases of medical emergency "such as a threat to the mother's life or in cases of rape or incest." Only 26% support tax-funding of all abortions, down from 30% last year.

They're spinning of course. An Angus-Reid poll from 2008 found that '43% say the health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested'.


But still, this is their wedge.

Two Shocks

Shock 1.

One in four men in South Africa may have raped someone - with most of those attacking more than one victim, data from a new survey suggests.

The study, by the country's Medical Research Council, also found three out of four who admitted rape attacked for the first time while in their teens.

It said practices such as gang rape were common because they were considered a form of male bonding.

The MRC spoke to 1,738 men in KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape provinces.

The study found that 73% of respondents said they had carried out their first assault before the age of 20.

Almost half who said they had carried out a rape admitted they had done so more than once.

Read the whole thing.

Shock 2.

I went to wikipedia to confirm the numbers. There's a table based on a UN report on 64 countries' rape statistics for 2001 and 2002. It shows raw numbers as well as the rate per 100,000 population.

Indeed, South Africa topped the list with rates of 121.16 and 115.61.

So, which country is number 2?

Canada at 77.36 and 77.64.

The wiki article points out the obvious difficulties with such statistics -- under-reporting, definition, false reporting.

And I know that Canada no longer has a 'rape' law, but rather 'sexual assault'.

Nonetheless, Canada is SECOND?

If you were wondering, USA is third at 31.85 and 32.99.

Social deprivation, not genetics, accounts for children's deaths.

An international, groundbreaking new study led by Dr Janet Smylie of the Centre for Research on Inner City Health based at the Keenan Research Centre, St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto has released its findings. The infant mortality rate for native babies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand is higher, as much as four times that of non-native newborns. It also identified spikes in occurences of SIDs, injury, suicide and accidental death among aboriginal kids in all four countries.

"Every infant who dies … I believe is a tragedy we should follow up on," Smylie said. She also spoke of stereotypical and at times racist treatment received by native people.

"I saw a lot of challenges when I was delivering babies here in Ottawa. Young aboriginal moms who had perfectly good networks of family support — sometimes they were being referred to have the social worker see them even though their family was strong. I remember [another] … patient who had called into the hospital in a little bit of a panic. She had some anxiety and a strong accent. The triage nurse called me and said: 'There's something wrong with your patient. I think she's retarded.'"

"Those are stories that are just a little too frequent."

The organizations and researchers who instigated, implemented, charted and compiled the results of the study hope that the information produced by this report will become the basis for stronger policies and programs to improve children's health in the aboriginal and indigenous communities.

The Un-Debate Rages

More on that abortion so-called debate that we're supposedly NOT having, that we need to open, re-open, that feminists are suppressing, yadayada.

Here are some Canadian examples of the non-debate, un-debate from today:

Clayton Ruby in the Globe

Naomi Lakritz in the Calgary Herald (caution: your head will hurt)

Antonia Zerbisias in the Toronto Star

Happy Almost-Valentine's Day.

21 Years of Lawlessness!

From Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, writing in the Star.

Today marks the 21st anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler, the Supreme Court ruling that decriminalized abortion in Canada. This landmark decision has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women, and was named as one of the most important and influential Charter cases of the last 25 years.

But access remains a problem, she says, particularly in rural Canada, PEI, and especially New Brunswick, Canada's answer to Kansas.

But here's another access problem I wasn't aware of (emphasis mine):

Women not living in their home province or territory also face challenges because abortion is not part of the inter-provincial billing agreement. In fact, abortion is the only time-sensitive and medically necessary procedure excluded from the list of services on the inter-provincial billing agreement.

This policy forces students attending school in another province or women who have recently moved and are in the process of transitioning their health-care benefits to pay the full cost of their abortion care out-of-pocket, or incur additional expenses travelling back to their home province in order to obtain a publicly funded abortion.

Funny, innit? The only time-sensitive and medically necessary procedure NOT included in the agreement happens to be one affecting women only.

I wonder how people would react if, say, prostate cancer surgery were excluded from the inter-provinical billing agreement.

*sigh* We've still got a long way to go, baby.

But still, on this anniversary, we celebrate 21 years of lawlessness in Canada.

Apparently, I'm a propogandist

When it comes to the so-called abortion debate, I don't know which sort of opponent is more irritating -- the debaters or the authoritarians. Here, we have a combination of both, and a supposed progressive to boot.

The debaters want to get, as CC puts it, 'nuancy': when does life begin? what role does the state have? whose rights are they anyway?

The authoritarians are shalled and appocked that Canada has *gasp* NO LAW on abortion. Butbutbut all other countries have laws on what women can do with their own bodies. What kind of pissant country doesn't have a law on what women can do with their own bodies?

What's really rich is that Gordie the Progressive accuses us of propoganda [sic and snerk]. Check out The Signal Hill's links page, Gordie. While the outfit professes neutrality, it links to all the usual lying liars.

By the way, here is a progressive who does get it.

Dear Signal Hill/BC Pro-Life*: Is this the best you can do?

I'm laughing my ass off. In the comments to this post, an Anonymous commenter (as deBeauxOs sleuthed out, probably a Signal Hiller checking out what kind of bang they're getting for their news-wire buck) directs us to its polls page. (Last night, there was also a link to a PowerPoint slide show. I downloaded it, but it was corrupted and would not open. Now, it's gone.)

I hit the link called 'Polling Tables' and downloaded a legit-looking spreadsheet from Angus Reid.

It is dated August 22/24, 2008.

Here's what I think: It took the geniuses at Signal Hill four and a half months to figure out how to spin it.

And here's why I'm laughing. The best they could do was shrieeeeek about how few people know that there is shrieeeeek! NO TIME LIMIT ON ABORTION!!!

Q: As far as you know, when can an abortion be performed in Canada?

61% replied 'only in the first 3 months'. 11% went for 'only in the first 6 months' and a measly 8% knew that an abortion can be performed any time up to 9 months gestation. (What I find fascinating is that 19% answered 'not sure'.)

But look at the responses to other agree/disagree statements:

Abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor: 81% agree

I would never personally choose abortion, but I do not want to force my moral views on others: 63% agree

Abortion takes a human life and should therefore never be sanctioned except if the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life: 67% disagree

I personally believe having an abortion is wrong: 64% disagree

And what were they thinking with these two?

The government should dictate how many children a woman can have: 93% disagree

The government should limit the number of abortions a woman can have in her lifetime: 56% disagree

The closest they got to a 'right' answer was on the matter of funding, and even here, a majority disagreed.

I consider abortion an elective medical procedure —- taxpayers should not pay for abortions: 47% agree, 49% disagree

So, here's how it went: The Signal Hill commissioned and paid for a poll. They got results they did not like. (Results, in fact, that demonstrate yet again that Canada is a pro-choice country.) They worry at the numbers for FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS and the best they can do is try to spin it like this: A previous poll showed a majority of Canadians are OK with the status quo. Our poll shows that a MASSIVE majority of Canadians don't know what the status quo actually is. Therefore. . . um, er, shrieeeeeek!!!

Then they write a press release and pay again to have it run at CNW Group.

The plain and simple fact is Canadians are cool with the status quo because they know that women are mostly sensible and make important decisions about continuing a pregnancy in a careful and timely way. Canadians know that late-term abortions are performed only if there is a serious risk to the woman's health or if the fetus is a no-hoper.

But does anyone think the fetus fetishists will get the message and STFU?

Nah, me either.

UPPITY-DATE: In the comments here JJ suggests we refer to this gang of sneaky liars as The Signal Hill/BC Pro-life.

Fetus Fetishists: 'Canucks MASSIVELY Stoopid'

The fetus fetishists are getting 2009 off to a roaring start. Remember the MASSIVE poll of last year? Now they're shrieeeeking that a 'vast majority' of Canadians are pig-stupid.

This outfit, which appears to be rather new, seems to have commissioned a poll and put out a press release on it via CNW Group, which used to be Canada News Wire, you know, a wire agency that one pays to run one's press releases. (Of course, LifeShite went for it and, a little more surprisingly, the stenographers at the Glob did too.)

An Angus Reid poll has found that a vast majority of Canadians do not know, under the country's current legal situation that abortion is permitted at any time from conception up to the moment of birth.

The poll results have been made public on the heels of a late-December declaration by Dimitri Soudas, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that the Conservative government has no intention of reopening the abortion debate in Canada.

The Angus Reid poll found that 92 percent of the respondents did not know abortion was available to a woman throughout the full nine months of gestation.

It goes on to refer to this Angus Reid poll from last summer that found a majority of Canadians are fine with the status quo.

Well, shrieeeeek! Dumb-fuck Canadians don't know what the status quo is!!!

The press release gives no links, no wording for the question(s), no dates, no number of respondents, no statistical error. We are really looking forward to seeing all that facty stuff.

Meanwhile, what the heck is The Signal Hill?

From the first link up there:

Welcome to Signal Hill - a vibrant new voice advocating for women, children and the family. Signal Hill's mission is to deliver clear and supportive education on life issues to all people, helping them make informed and life-affirming decisions. Our resources reflect the best and latest academic research, and are non-judgmental, compassionate and understanding. We welcome people of all backgrounds and convictions.

Doesn't that sound nice?

Again, their links give them away. Yup, links to all those known lying liars about abortion and breast cancer and abortion and instant insanity.

Then I googled the two names given as contacts in the press release. Oh, look: Natalie Hudson is the director of education for Pro-Life BC and Yvonne Douma, Executive Director of The Signal Hill, seems to moonlight as a personal chef.

A new year, a new set of lying liars, a new poll. *sigh*

They'll never stop, will they?

A: Slow News Week

From the Ottawa Citizen:

Harper stiff-arms Tory talk of reopening abortion debate

In the face of dissension within the party, Stephen Harper's Conservative government is reiterating its commitment to not reopen the debate on abortion.

"Throughout his political career, the prime minister has been clear on this issue," said Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister. "We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion."

The issue resurfaced Monday when Rod Bruinooge, a Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, published an opinion piece in the National Post arguing why he has "no choice but to advocate for the unborn and seek to have their value restored."

Bruinooge was recently elected chairman of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, a multi-party caucus that predates the Harper government by many years. Bruinooge could not be reached for comment.

Conservative officials were quick to denounce any suggestion that the government will reopen the debate on abortion, but the issue is likely not closed.

So. I guess we have our answer: Slow news week.

A laborious work of non-fiction.

Reality is often more bizarre than fiction. If four years ago, a satirist had written a novel about the travails of a US right-wing political party and a turbulent election campaign that featured a political ‘marriage of convenience’ between an ersatz war hero and a ditzy moose-hunting governor, critics might have found it over the top.

Thus literary embellishment is applied to the gritty re-telling of 24 real-life stories of childbirth.

Zsuzsi Gartner reviews Great Expectations:

The cover belies the bloody, Gothic comedy of childbirth. An infant sleeps serenely, small spidery fingers curved to cheeks, efficiently wrapped in a cone of white blanket like a little amuse gueule - or a Communion wafer - ready to be plucked up and savoured. But inside Great Expectations there is blood aplenty (and copious other fluids, including tears), thundering pain, death and near-death experiences. The final month of pregnancy is Waiting for Godot, then suddenly the curtain rises on Act IV, Scene III of Macbeth. Editors Dede Crane and Lisa Moore have assembled a hot pot of two dozen Canadian fiction writers and journalists, women and men, to reflect on the childbirth experience from the trenches.

Trench?!? Ha! That’s a new one, I’ve never heard the

va-jay-jay called that.

Celebrating 20 Years of Lawlessness

Twenty years ago today, Canada became the only country on the planet without a law on abortion.

Here, you can see an annual review of abortion law around the world.

Here is the page for Canada, which we reproduce in its entirety:

CANADA.

Canada has no abortion law.

Is this a good thing?

Let's let
Dr Jehu-Appiah of Ghana have the last word:

Despite Ghana having a more progressive law than many African countries, he believes there should be no law on abortion at all, following in the footsteps of countries like Canada where the maternal mortality rate is very low, "if we did not have a law restricting abortions we would be able to reduce this figure to zero." He added "a woman of 15-25 years old does not deserve to die just because she is pregnant."

(First published at Birth Pangs.)