Another one bites the dust.

My co-blogger fern hill apologises in advance to Manitoba. So do I, in agreement with her urging Fetus lobbyist and Con Job MP Rod Bruinooge to run for the leadership of that province's reformaTory party.

We need to have 13 Contempt Party MPs vacate their seats so that by-elections can be held. Harper's government must go down to defeat in the House of Commons and we can do it, one riding at a time.

Remember, little more than 6,000 votes in 13 ridings allowed the Cons to secure the regime Stevie demanded.

And, the total number of votes received by the reformaTories was 38% of those cast by 61% of the electorate.



Yeah, Freddie. You may have died 20 years ago, but you keep inspiring us.

C-510: How They Voted

My last (I hope) post on Bruinooge's 'Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill'.

The Head Count.

Bloc all agin it. A few didn't vote.

ReformaTories really mixed. Cabinet ministers against it. Usual fetus fetishists for it. Some interesting nays, one from Julian Fantino, for example. Shelly (Farm Hair) Glover voted for it -- hmm, I thought she was supposedly pro-choice. But then it would take more than two functioning neurons to figure out that this is actually a backdoor anti-abortion bill, so there's that explanation. Again, some interesting no-shows: Rona Ambrose, Leona Aglukkaq, Lisa Raitt, and Helena Guergis, who, I think, was giving birth, presumably voluntarily.

Liberals also mixed. As Antonia commented, ten anti-choice Libs: Kevin Lamoureux, Ruby Dhalla, John McKay, Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, Alan Tonks, Jim Karygiannis, Gurbax Malhi, Albina Guarnieri, and Lawrence MacAulay. No shows: Iggy, Marlene Jennings, Keith Martin, Peter Milliken, Maria Minna, Joe Volpe.

NDP all nay, with some MIA.

So, that seems to be it for anti-choice panty-sniffing bills at the moment. Maurice Vellacott's C-537, 'Life Begins at Fertilization Bill' seems to be stuck at first reading.

ADDED: Oooh. I didn't realize that the redesigned LieShite allows comments. Go read. There are some pissed off fetus fetishists! *hugeevilgrin*

C-510 Officially Toast

Libby Davies tweets: Anti-abortion Bill C-510 defeated 97-178.

So. We're good. The fetus fetishists have been strung along again. They'll learn nothing from this and vote ReformaTory again and get strung along again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Xist, they're stoooopid.

ADDED: The SHRIEEEKING begins: Waaaah! PM Stevie Peevie voted against it!

Stringing the Fetishists Along: Final Phase (We Hope)

The Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill had its second hour of debate yesterday.

The bill was supported with speeches by Bruinooge, Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC), Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC), and David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC).

Speaking in opposition were France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ), Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP), and Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) [CPC??? huh???].

This morning Rod Bruinooge was on The Current lying his ass off as usual. (Listen at the link. There are also two clips from the debate: Shipley and Ashton.)

In her introduction, Anna Maria Tremonti briefly related the story of Roxanne Fernando's murder. Then said:

Roxanne's story struck a chord with Rod Bruinooge. He's the Conservative MP who he chairs the multi-party pro-life caucus in Parliament. He believes Roxanne was killed because she refused to have an abortion.

Note careful phrasing: 'He believes.' But, as regular readers here know, Roxanne's murder had zip zero nada to do with abortion.

Bruinooge blathers on for quite a while, repeating that Roxanne was killed defending her 'unborn child' and denying his bill has anything to do with abortion. Oh, but he also got in the phrase abortion in Canada is 'legal for the full nine months' several times.

Anna Maria tried to pin him down on his own opinion of abortion. But he wiggled and said that he supports the laws of Canada, or some such hogwash (I can't bear to listen again, but if someone wants to supply the exact phrase, I'll insert it). She let that go.

She did try to pin him down on the number of 'coerced' abortions happening in Canada. Well, he didn't have a number, but he felt sure there were lots of them. To her credit, she pressed on that and repeated something like 'even though we don't know how prevalent such situations are. . . '

Then, in rebuttal, Dawn Fowler, Canadian Director of the National Abortion Federation, came on to talk about violence against women and to wonder why Bruinooge's bill focussed on pregnant women coerced into abortion and did not include pregnant women coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy.

He dodged that to repeat 'full nine months' again, which of course got up Dawn Fowler's nose and she denied that abortions occur in the ninth month. 'It just doesn't happen.'

More blah-blah. Then Susan Delacourt came on to discuss the politics of it, specifically of Stevie Spiteful.

So, yeah, we feminazis could get behind a bill that 'protected' all pregnant women from coercion of any kind. Though how exactly that might work, I have no idea.

Because we know that pregnant women are coerced, threatened, harassed, and intimidated every bloody day.

Like this (warning, it's hard to watch):





So, the second-reading vote is tomorrow, December 15. Stevie Peevie has instructed his cabmins to vote against it and people in the know seem to think that'll be enough to kill it.

I sure hope so.

But if you live in one of the three ridings of what LieShite calls Liberal Pro-Life Heroes, maybe you'd like to shoot them a line.

Paul Szabo
Dan McTeague
John McKay

Still Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along

LifeShite is reporting that The Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill will get its first hour of debate next Monday.

Bill C-510 is bathetically styled 'Roxanne's Law' after a woman who was NOT -- contrary to the lying liars' claim -- murdered because she refused to have an abortion.

On Monday, Rod Bruinooge and his merry band of misogynists will no doubt spout a bunch of bullshit about the MASSIVE numbers of women coerced into abortion.

Alas, to no avail. Stevie Spiteful has already nixed the deal.

There will be another hour of debate in December then a vote.

Then we'll be done with this round of Kicking Abortion's Ass.

Until the next one.

Any excuse for a party

The fetus fetishists are celebrating the fact that Rod Bruinooge's idiotic private member's bill, C-510, on 'coerced' abortion has NOT been deemed non-votable.

Despite the fact that it is toast. I'll spare you the creepy (is there any other kind?) photo of Soudas accompanying the article and quote:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will vote against a private member’s bill promoted by one of his own MPs that would add new Criminal Code penalties for those who coerce women to have an abortion.

A senior government official also says that while the prime minister will not “whip” or demand Conservative MPs vote as he votes, it will be “very strongly recommended” that Conservatives vote to defeat the bill.

Meanwhile, Mr. Harper’s communications director, Dimitri Soudas, says that recommendation is consistent with Harper’s position since 2002 on any bill dealing with abortion: He and his government will neither introduce nor support any such legislation.

“The government’s not going to initiate or support legislation on abortion,” Mr. Soudas said.

And despite the fact that the criteria for votable and non-votable items are pretty darn basic. (Scroll down at the link for details.)

97% of Fetus Fetishists Make Sh*t Up

JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie, among others, doesn't think the Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill has much of a chance of passing, mainly because we already have laws to deal with coercion and threats. Also:

There’s no legitimate rationale for amending the existing law to address so rare a circumstance as “coerced abortion”, especially within the hazy parameters defined by Bill C-510.

But, but, but, JJ, you're wrong! Coerced abortion is rampant! Here's what LieShite said:

A Canadian MP has introduced legislation similar to bills in the United States that helps women who face pressure or coercion when considering an abortion. With surveys showing anywhere from 40-60 percent of women are pressured into unwanted abortions, the legislation can help large numbers of women.

This struck me as totally bogus, so I got googling but I could not find anything that backs up that 40-60 per cent number, or the plural 'surveys'.

But I have found multiple citations of one very precise number -- 64% -- all with the same reference, for example, this 22-page pdf called 'Forced Abortion in America: A Special Report'.

Page 1 headline: 'Most abortions are unwanted or coerced. Many are forced.' Bullet copy detailing anecdotes, duly end-noted.

Page 2 headline: 'The Un-Choice', then some statistical bullet copy with end-note numbers. (There is a lot of bullshit there unrelated to coercion that I'm leaving out. Stuff about post-abortion depression, suicide, other health complications -- all thoroughly and regularly debunked by real researchers. This is the single page with anything like facts on it. The rest of the 22-page report is all anecdotal.)

64% of women reported feeling pressured to abort.1

Most felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% weren’t counseled.1

79% weren’t told of available reasources.1

84% weren’t sufficiently informed before abortion.1

So what is that all-important Reference 1?

VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004).

I ran it through Google Scholar and this is what turned up -- miles of anti-choice pseudo-science articles referencing it.

I chased down the abstract at Medical Science Monitor, a Polish monthly that styles itself as an 'International Medical Journal for Experimental and Clinical Research'.

Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women
Vincent Rue, Priscilla Coleman, James Rue, David Reardon
Med Sci Monit 2004; 10(10): SR 5 - 16
Manuscript ID: 11784

Institute for Pregnancy Loss, Jacksonville, FL, U.S.A.
Human Development and Family Studies, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, U.S.A.
Sir Thomas More Clinic, Downey, CA, U.S.A.
Elliot Institute, Springfield, IL, U.S.A.

Background: Individual and situational risk factors associated with negative postabortion psychological sequelae have been identified, but the degree of posttraumatic stress reactions and the effects of culture are largely unknown.

Material/Methods: Retrospective data were collected using the Institute for Pregnancy Loss Questionnaire (IPLQ) and the Traumatic Stress Institute’s (TSI) Belief Scale administered at health care facilities to 548 women (331 Russian and 217 American) who had experienced one or more abortions, but no other pregnancy losses.

Results: Overall, the findings here indicated that American women were more negatively influenced by their abortion experiences than Russian women. While 65% of American women and 13.1% of Russian women experienced multiple symptoms of increased arousal, re-experiencing and avoidance associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 14.3% of American and 0.9% of Russian women met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Russian women had significantly higher scores on the TSI Belief Scale than American women, indicating more disruption of cognitive schemas. In this sample, American women were considerably more likely to have experienced childhood and adult traumatic experiences than Russian women. Predictors of positive and negative outcomes associated with abortion differed across the two cultures.

Conclusions: Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion. Consistent with previous research, the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities, particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior traumata. Study limitations preclude drawing definitive conclusions, but the findings do suggest additional cross-cultural research is warranted.

We'll get to the authors and institutions in a moment, but first, a question. Do you see the words 'pressure' or 'coercion' anywhere in that abstract? Anything about counselling or information?

What I see is a pretty interesting cross-cultural study of the impact of culture on stress-inducing events.

With even more interesting implications. Why would Russian women -- where abortion has been very common and accepted as an unfortunate method of birth control for decades -- experience so much less stress than Merkin women -- where abortion continues to be one of the most hotly contested societal issues with a ton of stigma attached?

Oh. Did I just answer that question?

Still, coerced abortion is not the focus of the study. It appears that the authors were concerned to show a link between abortion and stress. Well, shit, anybody's who has had an abortion or knows someone who has had an abortion could have told them that.

Much more informative and interesting would be a comparison of stress measures between women who had abortions and women who gave birth.

But perhaps information about 'pressure' was gleaned from those Institute for Pregnancy Loss Questionnaires and inserted into a footnote or something. We don't know, do we?

Other obvious problems with it: number of participants (548, fewer than half of whom are Merkin) and date (six years old).

Not to mention the fact that it seems to be the only study anybody cites.

On to the bias part. All the authors and three of the four institutions are anti-choice.

Vincent Rue is the coiner of the term 'post-abortion syndrome' and director of the Institute for Pregnancy Loss, which has no online presence, by the way.

We ran into Priscilla Coleman doing her SHRIEEEKY thing over the most recent -- and no doubt not last -- scholarly debunking of the 'abortion=insanity' equation.

Coleman has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals that claim there is a causal relationship between abortion and poor mental health. Her co-authors are pro-life advocates J.R. Cougle, Vincent Rue and David Reardon. Reardon is controversial for misrepresenting his academic credentials and for his research methods.

The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA). A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."

And now, the clincher -- the 'controversial' David Reardon, founder of the anti-choice Elliot Institute, creator of the 'pro-woman pro-life' strategy, and profiled in 2005 as an example of 'Christian conservatives [who] have gone a long way towards creating their own scientific counter-establishment.'

Right. The 'make-up-the-facts-to-fit-the-agenda' gang.

So this is what the HonMem Bruinooge is relying on as evidence for his urgently needed bill. Oh, and the tragic murder of Roxanne Fernando who was NOT murdered because she refused to have an abortion, but, seemingly, because she was infatuated with a Really Bad Boy who was so dim that the only way he could think of to get her to leave him alone was to kill her.

And other anti-coerced abortion legislation is based on the same bogus 'research'.

Sen. Jack Johnson has sponsored legislation requiring abortion clinics in Tennessee to post anti-coercion signs. He cites statistics that purport to show that 64 percent of women “were coerced into having that abortion.” Let’s dig a little deeper.

(snip)

In other words, these statistics are 6 years old, are based on a very small data sample (over half of which wasn’t even in the U.S.), and were prepared at the behest of organizations with a clear bias about the outcome.

Is this the sort of informed decision-making we should expect from our legislators?

Apparently. ReformaTories and ReThuglicans never let facts get in the way of their authoritarian, paternalistic, misogynist agenda.

My Bad?

Those hapless fetus fetishists. Remember when Ken Epp was yelping all over the place that his private member's bill, C-484, had zip zero nada to do with abortion and his lie was abruptly and definitively shot to shit by the big-mouthed blogger subsequently dubbed Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass?

It seems that Rod Bruinooge's current backdoor attempt to restrict abortion, aka Roxanne's Law, has just had its very own Kicking Abortion's Ass moment.

And I may be responsible for it.

Yesterday, I blogged about the bill and included a link to its inevitable Facebook page and my intention to join to ask questions.

I did and my question was deleted, so I unjoined. Others reported that all critical and/or pro-choice comments were being deleted. Fine.

I didn't keep a copy of the question -- my first bad -- but it was along the lines of: 'I'm getting flashbacks to C-484 which was also not atall atall about abortion except all its supporters knew it was. If this new bill is not atall atall about abortion, why are all Canada's most famous fetus fetishists joining this group, starting with Faytene Krystow as administrator?'

I did not mention in my comment that I had noted Canada's maddest homophobe and fetus fetishist, Bill Whatcott, was also a member.

Sometime yesterday or last night, as reported by Bene Diction Blogs On's Rick Hiebert and BeneD, the group disappeared.

When I last looked before it hit the black hole, there were almost 300 members and lots of comments on the wall.

Well, now it's back, whittled down to only 99 members and three comments.

Oooh, and Faytene is no longer administrator. Just Bruinooge is listed as 'creator'. I bet he likes that. ;) Faytene is not even a member.

The members list has been purged. No more Bill and no other notable fetus fetishist that I recognize anyway.

Did they twig? Did I help? My bad?

Bruinooge's Bill Divides the Right

In DJ!'s ongoing effort to divide the right, Bruinooge's private member's bill, C-510, or the Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill (OK, it's not as good as Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, but we're working on it) may be a boon.

Let's have a look at what the so-conned are saying.

First, LifeShite appears to think that if they keep asking the same question, they'll get an answer they like.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, refused today to say whether the PM would allow a free vote in his party on the recently-tabled private members bill from Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge that seeks to protect women from coercive abortions.

Asked by LifeSiteNews (LSN) whether there would be a free vote, Soudas responded that “the government's policy is that we will not initiate or support legislation that reopens the debate on abortion.”

“That's been the consistent policy of this government and this Prime Minister since he took the position and since he was leader of the opposition,” he added. “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Asked again, Soudas reiterated, “Like I said, the government will not be supporting this piece of legislation because we do not support reopening the debate on abortion.”

LSN asked “So that means no [free vote]?” and Soudas said again: “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Over at Catholic Insight, famous frothing fetus fetishist, Alphonse de Valk, has really got his panties in a twist:

We already know that under Marxist/atheist Gilles Duceppe the Bloc Quebecois is unfit to govern. The New Democratic Party has long since earned the title The New Death Party because of its 45-year-long commitment to killing babies. The Green Party is all in favour of reducing the earth’s population one way or another. The Liberal party under agnostics Ignatieff, Rae and Dion is set to kill as many babies as possible, preferably in Africa and Asia, while carrying on the Trudeau tradition at home. That party still has three or four MP’s who think otherwise but they are locked into the wrong party.

That leaves the Conservatives whose pro-life members must get ready to rise up against Stephen Harper.

Oooh, rise up! Against Stephen Harper! Yay!

No Apologies got the same answer from different spokesthingy, with an added kicker (emphasis mine):

The Prime Minister’s Office was quick, however, to squelch any thought Bruinooge’s bill might be acceptable. “The government will not support the bill,” Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall said in an interview. “Our Conservative government will not initiate or support any legislation that opens the abortion debate.”

(snip)

MacDougall said the government would demonstrate its opposition at the time of any vote by having cabinet ministers vote against it.

Obviously, the only choice (snerk) left for rabid fetus fetishists is the Christian Heritage Party and they've got ambitions!

Christian Heritage Party leader eyes Tory votes
The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is hoping be to the Tories what the Green party has been to the Grits.

CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk believes the Greens on the left have siphoned votes from the Liberals in the last couple of federal elections — and his party intends to mirror that success on the right against the Conservatives.

To get the ball rolling on the monumental task, Hnatiuk is on a Western tour that stops in Kamloops on Saturday, April 17.

Hey, they got nowhere to go but up -- from 0.19% of the popular vote last two times out.

And who wouldn't want to vote for a party whose (albeit unofficial) colour is -- wait for it -- PUCE? (I just looked 'puce' up to be sure. Yup, means 'flea-coloured'.)


ADDED BONUS: Go read pale at A Creative Revolution.

MORE BONUS: Online poll. Link supplied by Roddy himself at the FB page. You know what to do.

Don't Cry For Me Canada - the Truth is ...

Truthiness, in the prefered, half-baked manner so typical of Con job ReformaTories has re-surfaced with Roxanne's Law - the latest anti-abortion cheval de bataille of Winnipeg MP Bruinooge. Our own fern hill debunked the Lying Lies that the usual suspects have spun in support of their project here, including Rod "Kidneys!" Bruinooge's version of the circumstances that led to Fernando's death.

One of the Bill C-510 rabid supporters is Faytene Kryskow.


Yikes. I should have guessed that gal fancied herself as a potential Lie-Là Rose.


In the unlikely eventuality that Bruinooge's Bill passes, KrystKow wants everyone to know that she would be thrilled to go undercover to fabricate discover evidence of wrong-doing.

Bene Diction Blogs On has been closely following KrystKow's career. Check out BDBO's related entries in the sidebar for more eye-opening information about the not-so-fabulous Faytene and her acolytes.

She is one media-savvy gal, when she's in control of the message that is. These days the chameleon has transformed herself into a devout (and low-rent) version of the go-go girl look worn by Kate Hudson in Nine.

KrystKow's ancestral genes swam in the same pool as Luba Goy. Faytene is destined to age without the brilliant comic's well-earned crinkly laughter lines and her famed ability to laugh at herself.

'Coerced Abortion': A Whole New Branch of Lying Lies

Having run into what seemed to me totally bogus numbers on the frequency of 'coerced abortion', I just spent a fascinating couple of hours discovering an entirely new (to me) branch of lying lies fetus fetishists tell -- many blogposts to come.

But for now, let's deal with Lie Number One. It's right there in the preamble to Rod Bruinooge's private member's bill, C-510, or Roxanne's Law.

Whereas Roxanne Fernando was a Winnipeg woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her to abort their unborn child and subsequently murdered her for refusing to do so;

That's just a great big porky pie.

At the sentencing of her murderers, the lawyer for one of the convicted men rejected that motive.

Fernando had learned she was pregnant with Plourde's child weeks before her death, court heard in the teen's case. In the youth's case the court heard her murder was planned because she refused to have an abortion, but Plourde's lawyer told the court today that the pregnancy had nothing to do with the offence.

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Because killing someone who had refused herself to kill a defenceless bay-bee is just so much worse, isn't it? And defence counsel has a duty to mitigate the gravity of his client's crime, right? And the prosecution has just as much interest in making the crime sound most heinous, yes?

Oh. Wait.

In a brief summary of the facts of the murder presented in court Thursday, Crown attorney Mark Cantor said Plourde and the youth hatched a plot to kill Fernando if she wouldn't agree to break off pursuing a relationship with Plourde.

The abortion-refusal motive seems to have gone bye-bye.

So why was Roxanne killed?

Let's hear from the murderer himself:

“I didn’t want to be part of her life, but she didn’t take no for an answer,” Plourde told Winnipeg police homicide detectives in a February 2007 videotaped confession. “She was crazy about me. She had an obsession with me. I just couldn’t take it. Like, I’m 19. I can’t handle a 24-year-old.”

Plourde said he was facing additional pressure after learning Fernando was pregnant, a claim he initially thought was a ruse to keep them together following a brief romance that began while working together at McDonald’s.

“In my fears, she’ll come back in nine months with a kid or something,” he said. “I don’t understand why she liked me because I didn’t like her. I’m just a young punk. I showed no interest in her.”

During last year’s sentencing for a youth co-accused, Crown attorney Brent Davidson told court Plourde pressured Fernando to have an abortion. Fernando initially agreed, but later had a “change of heart.” Plourde admitted to police the pair discussed an abortion, but denied telling Fernando what to do.

Young murderous punk, yes. Evil abortion-coercer, maybe not.

But, hey, it's great optics. A law named after a victim is good P.R. Nemmind that it's -- at best -- a streeeeetch of the truth.

Roxanne's Law has a website and the inevitable Facebook group

All the usual fetus fetishists are at FB, including Faytene Kryskow as administrator (who knew there is a wikichristian?). Faytene is famous among zygot zealots for collecting signatures on a MASSIVE petition to revoke Dr Morgentaler's Order of Canada. She also seems to have something of a love-hate relationship with the media.

I've joined the group to ask some questions. *evil smiley*

h/t for the links

UPPITY DATE: Faytene deleted my question. Awwww, shucks. No truth allowed there, I guess.

"Bring in the wedges, boys, and drive them hard."

Yet another revolting quote from the odious Mr 'Kicking Abortion's Ass', The Fetus©™ fetishizing, christofascist John "Sperm Holocaust" Pacheco.

The story of Roxanne Fernando (the woman whose beating and murder - claimed by Rod Bruinooge to have inspired his private member's bill) is one that's familiar to feminists who led the fight to reform institutions and laws in order to protect battered women and their children from violent domestic partners.

And now the abortion criminalizers are playing this "opportunity", also known as the circumstances that led to the brutal slaying of Fernando, to re-introduce another bill to limit choice.

Notice how Harper's Con jobs never demand better laws to defend the right to safety and the right to life for women like Joan Paget and Gail Saltel as well as their children? Strange how ReformaTories do not vigorously support shelters for the hundreds of Canadian women and children whose kidneys as well as their lives are not valued by rightwing, patriarcal religious zealots.


Un grand merci to JJ, who provided the link to the FD thread and to the venal 'Paycheck' comment, typical of a certain kind of rightwing religious zealot male.

Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along. . . Still

Oy. Here we go again.

Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge introduced a new bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, aimed at protecting pregnant women against abortion intimidation.

Yes. That Rod Bruinooge (isn't Open Parliament nifty?), chair of the secretive pro-lie parliamentary caucus and staunch defender of kidneys fetuses.

"The bottom line is that people like myself are not going to stop until, at the very least, unborn children have more value than a Canadian kidney."

Also, don't forget, brother of the MASSIVE Morgentaler poll fraudster.

As Joyce Arthur says at the Winnipeg Free Press link above,

"They're trying to intimidate and scare abortion providers," she said. "Providers could find themselves facing prosecution for coercing abortion."

Arthur maintains the bill steps on the toes of a successful system that's already in place and undermines the good work pregnancy support groups do. Counsellors at clinics are on the front-lines educating people on the rights of the woman, outlining the choices they have and how the decision to see the pregnancy to term is theirs and theirs alone.

"It's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist," Arthur said. "Typically, women who are coerced into having an abortion are already caught at the counselling stage."

The geniuses at Freak Dominion are sneering at it as 'incrementalism', which is exactly what it is of course, and are predicting that it will go nowhere.

Especially since the ever-truthful Stevie Peevie is on record saying that his government would not support any private member's bill to do with abortion.

In other news of that non-debate we're having about abortion, remember the ReformaTories demanded new legislation at their grassrootsy convention to replace C-484, aka Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill?

How's that coming along?

Not so well.

More than 18 months after he pledged to crack down on those who assault pregnant women, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has yet to keep his promise and won’t say when he will.

Speaking to reporters, Nicholson dismissed suggestions he has shelved his plans. However, he refused repeatedly to say when he will table a bill or even whether he will act within the coming year.

(snip)

Opposition critics Dominic Leblanc and Joe Comartin say it is a “cynical” ploy to satisfy Conservative supporters by promising legislation while at the same time avoiding a potentially explosive debate over a bill some say could restrict abortions.

Cynical? Say it ain't so!

But, hey, it seems to be working. The moronic fetus fetishists keep voting for them. And the rest of us will keep them in minority -- or, hopefully, miniscule opposition -- forever. Because we know Stephen Harper cannot be trusted.

Waiting period.

Updated to provide context: Arizona state legislature passed last October a series of measures restricting access to abortions.

New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

Remember our blogposts about obligatory ultra-sounds in the state of Oklahama for women who had consulted a physician regarding the possibility of terminating a pregnancy?

Consider the following:

If you've been paying attention to the erosion of reproductive rights over the last several years, it's the kind of headline that makes you think, "Man I hope that's from The Onion" for a split second before it sinks in that of course it is. For now. Riffing on state laws that require clinics to perform ultrasounds on pregnant women before an abortion, The Onion News Network offers a brilliant satire of anti-choice arguments in favor of assuming women who want to terminate a pregnancy are ignorant or delusional. They're just giving women "all the information they need to be sure they're making the right decision," of course - certainly not making unreasonable demands or using inflammatory language to manipulate emotions or anything.

It's all humour and lampoonry until someone loses a kidney.

Remember Rod Bruinooge? If he and that other ReformaTory MP Vellacott ever join forces on a gynophobic crusade to stop women from exercising reproductive choices, it will get right ugly.

Complaints.

Fetus fetishists complain. Oh how they like to complain.

Over at Canadian Cynic CC connects the dots between the sanctimonious bleating about the lack of mainstream media coverage for the Forced Pregnancy March and blogging reformaTories who don't like demonstrations by brown-skinned people drawing attention to the whole scale murders of civilians in Sri Lanka.

Meanwhile Blob Blogging Wingnut parrots MP Bruinooge's prevarications against those who are suppressing zygote zealots and stopping them from speaking out. Rod (Ask Me About The MASSIVE Poll!) Bruinooge conflates a bunch of things which he claims is proof that abortion-criminalizers' free speech rights are being disrespected.

For example, this:

"And although there are close to 100,000 abortions every year in Canada, we actually know very little about the practice. For example, we don’t know the gestational age of the unborn child in over 60% of the cases because abortion providers aren’t required to report this information. Nor are they required to report health complications or the reasons women obtain abortions. Stifling free speech allows the whole secrecy surrounding the practice of abortion to thrive."

Demanding reporting mechanisms for medical interventions is not free speech. What Bruinooge wants is access to patient health information files which are confidential not 'secretive'. If Bruinooge had an embarassing health emergency, for example if a rogue magic bullet got stuck up his rectum and he needed medical assistance, he would certainly be happy that nobody (except, he would hope, discreet health care providers) had access to his patient file.

F*ck the Debate!: Part Umpty-One

A small sample of reactions to Rod Bruinooge's idiotic gambit to re-open the so-called debate on abortion.

From the Winnipeg Sun: 'bad idea'.

From the The Star:

To reopen this debate would demonstrate an all-time low in the Harper government's misogynist agenda. They have already set back women's rights by 30 years.

And from the Winnipeg Free Press:

According to a Winnipeg Free Press online poll, as of late Monday afternoon 78 per cent of respondents said the federal government should not reopen the abortion debate, while 21 per cent believed it should. More than 2,600 people took part in the non-scientific poll.

And a selection of emails sent to the Free Press, including this one:

I don't think this qualifies as an issue that MPs get to decide for Canadians. This should have been made clear at election time. I wouldn't have voted for Rod had he mentioned his stand on the issue. This will help me in future elections. I will question the candidate more thoroughly and I will advocate for making MPs accountable on these types of ideological issues. Very disappointed. Rod is out of touch!

Bad idea, all-time low, out of touch. Yup.

h/t for the last link to Beijing York in the comments at UOP