Anti-abortion Incrementalism and Death Threats

Why have I not heard of Prairie Dog before? I was alerted to it by a tweet from the astroturf gang Focus on the Family (Canada branch plant). (But more on that in a minute.)

Kelly Malone attended a LifeTour event in Regina and reported on it under the title "Slippery Slopes."

This tour is the work of the Dominionist "We Need a Law" gang -- they of the underground gas line marker displays -- fronted by our old pal Mike Schouten.

Malone outlines the gang's "sneaky" strategy, aka incrementalism.

Rather than fighting for a “perfect law” that would ban all abortions, Schouten outlines three laws he thinks could realistically be passed: first, a ban on late-term abortions (which the presentation didn’t mention are uncommon and only performed when the woman’s life is at risk). Second: a law against sex-selective abortions.

And last but not least? A law for the so-called “pre-born” victims of crime that, conveniently, would enshrine fetal “rights” in law.

Here at DJ! we've written tons on the last two -- not much on the first, because as noted, it doesn't float Canadian boats as it does USian ones. For example, on sex-selective abortion and on "pre-born" victims of crime, aka the failed Bill C-484, and its newer incarnation, Molly's Law.

But back to Focus on the Family. In a blogpost titled "Smart", Mrozek links to the Prairie Dog post and calls it "a fair pro-choice look at a pro-life event." Then she quotes and lauds the first comment.

Hi Prairie Dog! Thanks for a well written article. I’m wondering what were the questionable scientific facts presented at this particular talk? Were you able to either confirm or deny them?

She neglects to remark on the other five (well, four if you discount the repeat) usual hectoring comments from fetus fetishists.

I too linked to Prairie Dog this morning and The Shocker focussed on one of the other more usual comments.

@fernhilldammit "there isn't a pro lifer who wants to see women die" um, there are a lot, the deaths are celebrated on creepy websites

— The Shocker (@fortyfs) October 16, 2015

We who watch the zygote zealots -- precisely because they are sneaky -- know this.

LieShite has many many articles about "heroic" women who declined abortion even in the face of life-threatening illness in order to serve Gawd and produce another orphan. Because, you see, in the fetus fetishist universe, abortion is NEVER necessary to save the life of the incubator woman.

Also, at LieShite, and no doubt other even creepier sites, there are regular celebrations -- really, there is no other word for it -- when ambulances are called to abortion clinics. This is from a search on the site for "ambulance."

The recent #ShoutYourAbortion campaign on Twitter proved it again. Women who participated were variously vilified and frequently threatened with death.

Here's a funny take on those "pro-life" reactions.

"Pro-lifers" frequently wish death on women who abort and people who support their right to do so. That they really think they don't is just another example of their quite terrifying delusion.

What's up with this?

This is odd.

The doctors who treat pregnant women are warning mothers-to-be against using “entertainment” ultrasounds solely to determine the sex of their fetuses.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, along with the Canadian Association of Radiologists, put out a new joint policy statement this week calling for an end to ultrasounds offered by non-medical clinics.

Here's the joint statement.

An excerpt:

Fetal ultrasound is a valuable tool in modern obstetrical care. This imaging technique is useful in assessing a fetus for anomalies, ensuring fetal health, and assessing fetal growth and development if performed by properly trained individuals in a carefully monitored and medically supervised environment. It is also an important technology in education and research. This imaging technology uses high-frequency, low-energy sound waves; it does not use ionizing radiation. The availability of ultrasound machines for purchase and use for non-clinical purposes has led to a proliferation of “entertainment” ultrasound units throughout Canada. With recent media coverage of nonmedical clinics performing gender determination in the first trimester, the SOGC and CAR find it necessary to update their previous policy statements on this issue and to issue a new joint policy statement.

The key phrases here are "for non-clinical purposes" and "entertainment." Health Canada and US FDA have warned against them for years -- in the FDA's case, since 2004. And at least one US state, Connecticut, has banned them.

But the issue has been safety concerns posed by multiple, longer-exposure ultrasounds.

What's odd here is the insertion of the sex-selection canard.

Here is the National Post offering a a piece with a totally misleading headline yet not a scrap of evidence that "sex-based abortions" are occurring in Canada, let alone that there's a "rise" in them. Here's the headline:

Rise in sex-based abortions prompts doctors to call for end to ultrasounds that only determine gender of fetus

It refers to an editorial in the Canadian Medical Journal from 2012. That editorial was occasioned by a study of gender ratios downloadable here free without subscription.

Researchers looked at Ontario birth records for the period 2002 to 2007, correlated to the woman's country of birth.

It includes a table with the actual numbers of male/female births to women of various origins and for each birth (first, second and third) in turn. An abortion provider I know took a good look at these numbers and found that there were only two statistically significant differences in gender ratios.

One involved third births to women of Indian origin, and the other second births to women of Korean origin; in both groups there was a small disproportion of males.

Then, calculations were done to determine how many "extra" males were born.

There were 48,362 third births of females. If the usual ratio of 1.05 had applied, one would have expected 50,780 male births, when in fact there were 51,520.  It was as though 360 births that “should” have been female were male instead.  But this amounts to only 60 extra male births per year in Ontario, 360 out of the 6-year total of 766,688 births – at .05% not much of a demographic threat!

(These quotes come from private correspondence, but you can download the study and do the math yourself.)

As we have argued here many times, sex selection is a serious problem in societies where it is widely practiced. That one study shows only that it might have happened in Ontario with very little effect on the larger population.

In fact, there's good evidence that when the overall population is questioned on gender preference, girls win.

That's why we call sex-selective abortion a canard. Or in Mark Warawa's recent anti-abortion gambit, sheer, cynical posturing, aka Warawa's Wank.

And speaking of Warawa, NatPo's resident sob-sister Kelly McParland produces his usual disingenuous froth to claim that the joint statement vindicates Warawa's thwarted motion.

Which of course it doesn't. Warawa's Wank was simply yet another back-door attempt to reopen the abortion debate. And all sensible people recognized it as such immediately.

But the question remains. Why would the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and Canadian Association of Radiologist link multiple, non-medical ultrasounds -- long frowned on by reputable experts -- to very sketchy evidence that sex-selective abortion is actually occurring in Canada?

Why now? What's going on?

We ever-vigilant proponents and protectors of women's rights in Canada should keep our eyes peeled for future moves and spin by fetus fetishists.

UPDATE: Dominionist-run website, We Need a Law, is revved in anticipation of a new bill.

Protest against Gendercide: The Perfect Opportunity to Inculcate Misogyny in Children

The annual March for Lies is scheduled for this Thursday, May 9. It is always held on a weekday so that hundreds of Catholic schoolchildren can be bussed in for an educational day of indoctrination in misogyny.

Read what Amanda Watson, former Catholic student and participant, has to say about the event.

A year ago, when a young girl, no more than 16 years old, extended a sign to block my path that read, “Maybe if you kept your legs shut you wouldn’t need an abortion,” I decided to take myself home.

Awww, isn't that sweet? Encouraging witless young women to attack other women on a subject about which they know nothing.

But hey, when your agenda is race-baiting or gender-baiting, it is Standard Operating Procedure to get a member of the targetted group to lead the hate-filled chants.

Thus, female children are the perfect messengers, especially since the theme of this year's bunfest is 'gendercide'. Yep, aka Motion 408, or the aborted Warawa's Wank.

Watson notes that this year the counter-demonstrators plan to keep silent. There is no arguing with these poor brainwashed kids, so they will quietly stand in protest.

Even more, the rage and pain of pro-choicers should be respected as we watch a generation of children learn to slut-shame fellow women, particularly via the dozens of women at the front of the march, wearing oversized yellow sandwich boards with the shaming words, “I regret my abortion.”

The kids learn their lessons well. This is how last year's event ended for our reporter.

As I scuffed through the grass from Parliament Hill, eyes swelling with tears, I stared at my feet so I would miss the poster displays of mangled fetuses and hordes of chanting students, some waving malicious signs my way. A girl yelled “Slut!” in my direction and tears spilled down my cheeks, not for her, but for the machine that pits women against each other over our freedom to control our bodies.

The irony of using slut-shaming in the service of 'protecting girls' is totally lost on them of course.

All the usual suspects are are on board. Mark Warawa himself, who declined to use his first hard-won opportunity to speak about abortion in the House, will avail himself, funnily enough on March for Lies Day.

The day after the Speaker’s ruling, Warawa deflated expectations when he stood up to give a statement about a talent contest in his Langley, B.C. riding.

The timing wasn’t right, he said Monday.

“Timing is everything, and the time had moved on as far as me speaking on the issue of gendercide,” he said.

“I thought it was more appropriate to deal with something that was important at that day at that time…but I will continue to speak out on the issue of gendercide at appropriate times.“

Warawa will also speak on Parliament Hill Thursday at the pro-life event organized by the nonprofit Campaign Life Coalition.

Of course he will.

Timing is indeed everything. And it's never too early or too late to teach children to attack and judge others.

Catholic parents, I hope you're proud.

Watson's piece seems to have hit at nerve at Gender-Baiting Central, aka ProWomanProLife, wholly-owned and funded subsidiary of Focus on the Family.

A Coup for Parliament or a Recruiting Tool for CHP

As we know, Warwara's Wank ended with a further wank, this one about Free Speech.

The long-awaited Speaker's decision on his point of privilege over having his member's statement (S.O.30) snuffed by the CON Whip was announced yesterday at around 3 p.m.

Here's Kady O'Malley's story filed at 4:57 p.m.

If backbench MPs want to the right to speak freely in the House, they're going to have to start standing up to be counted -- even if it means ignoring the speaking lists prepared by the party whip to compete against their caucus colleagues for the attention of the speaker. 

That, it seems, is the gist of House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer's much-anticipated ruling on the point of privilege raised by Conservative MP Mark Warawa after his pre-Question Period speaking slot was abruptly yanked by his party's whip due to his choice of subject -- specifically, his similarly scuttled attempt to bring a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion before the House.

Although he ultimately found that no prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, Scheer made it clear that, as far as he and his predecessors are concerned, the speaker has never ceded the right to choose which member should be recognized -- not just during the fifteen minute block designated for members' statements, but, in theory, during QP as well. He just hasn't yet been put in a position where he would have to do so, as -- again, at least as yet --  no members have ever attempted to circumvent the whip-created list.

So, fans of the Westminster parliamentary system parsed that all to hell, gleefully anticipating little bobble-heads bobbing up and down trying to catch the eye of the venerable 33-year-old Speaker.

The more cynical of course wondered just how much eye-catching Opposition members might have to mount. Clown-costumes wouldn't be out of place, after all.

Other cynics wondered if this really meant anything at all.

Funny, though, not much attention at all was paid to this story filed by John Ivison at 11:13 yesterday morning, about 4 hours before the decision.

John Ivison: Ruling on alleged breach of Warawa’s privilege to speak freely could head off Tory rebellion

But there are rumblings in caucus that Mr. Scheer may make a significant additional ruling by pointing to the Westminster example, where it is a long established convention that the Speaker has the right to recognize members from either side of the House when they stand during Question Time. In the British House of Commons, a number of MPs bob up and down at any given time, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, and it is up to the chair to recognize them. The inference would be that if more than one MP stands up during members’ statements and Question Period, they could be recognized by the Speaker, whether they are on the whips’ list or not.

If Mr. Scheer leans towards the Westminster model, it could have profound implications in both the short and long term governance of the House. It would also suggest he will not find Mr. Warawa’s privilege was breached, since he could have been recognized by the speaker if he’d only stood up to speak at members’ statements.

In the short-term, it could head off a rebellion in the Conservative caucus that threatens to culminate in some Tories voting alongside the Liberals. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has introduced a motion to allocate members’ statements in alphabetical order which will reach the House on Wednesday and, absent some kind of significant reform, a number of Tory MPs may be tempted to signal their displeasure.

So, at least four hours in advance, senator-in-waiting Ivison was tipped to the outcome.

And indeed, the Speaker's ruling does have the salubrious effect of quelling the now pretty-well defunct Backbenchers Spring.

As the Church Lady would say: How conveeeenient.

Political shenangigans in the Speaker's Office!?!1???

Say it ain't so.

Now of course the question is which of the intrepid backbenchers will get up on their hind legs and attempt to speak to an unapproved topic -- like abortion, for example?

@fernhilldammit It's actually pretty close in structure to the UK model. We'll see if he actually sticks to it.

— E (@freezingkiwi) April 23, 2013

(I've bet @freezingkiwi that his kiwis will really freeze before that happens.)

Will only the nutbars avail themselves of this privilege ignominious display? Will more sensible, team-playing BBers keep shtum and/or clap their flippers as they read the usual 'job-killing carbon tax' talking points ad nauseum?

I wondered if Speaker Scheer had offered any protection -- kinda like whistle-blower protection -- for retribution from vengeful whips and leaders.

According to Mark Jarvis, author of Democratizing the Constitution:

@fernhilldammit @thomashall17 nothing.

— mark d. jarvis (@markdjarvis) April 24, 2013

Retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Thomas Hall, went further.

@fernhilldammit @markdjarvis Yep!The pwr to sign nomination papers needs to be removed from party leaders and returned to riding assocs.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 24, 2013

It's down to party constitutions. And ipso fatso, only future Christian Heritage Party candidates will partake.

ADDED: For all of you breathless with anticipation as to what Free Speech Warrior and Defender of Girls, Mark Warawa, would say in his totally unfettered S.O. 31 today -- behold! (I swear you can't make this shit up.)

UPDATE (April 26/13): How successful was Speaker Scheer in quelling the Backbench Revolt? Perfectly. Not one BBer voted for the Liberal motion to choose MPs to make member's statements by alphabetical order.

Brave Mark Warawa ^NOT

Been away from the fray for a bit, so to catch up.

Warawa's Wank is toast.

Conservative MP Mark Warawa is dropping his bid for a vote on his motion to condemn sex-selective abortion, an issue that caused several MPs to split with the rest of the party's caucus in recent weeks.

Warawa told reporters on his way into the House of Commons that he is tabling a bill tomorrow that deals with sex offenders who serve house arrest in the same neighbourhoods as their victims, revictimizing them when they encounter each other in the community.

Another brave stand. Warawa demands: Do you stand with the sex offenders or with chastised MPs?

Fetus fetishists are not amused.

In a press release Wednesday, Campaign Life Coalition said they were “very disappointed” that the political pressure used against Warawa’s motion left him where it did.

“We thank Mark Warawa for raising the issue of lethal discrimination against women and girls through sex-selective abortion in Canada,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, CLC’s National Organizer. “It is a shame that this motion was killed.”

We Need a Law (Like a Hole in the Head) puts on a virtuoso display of wooing support (emphasis mine).

“The completely unfounded fear that somehow an expression of Parliament condemning this practice might in some way send women to the back alleys of Canadian cities with coat hangers speaks to the low level of intellect of most Canadian politicians. By their actions, they are avoiding, and in fact tacitly accepting, the very serious global problem of gendercide,” continued Schouten."

Meanwhile, at SUZYALLCAPS' Magisterium of Fetal Gore Porn, not one word about M408. All Gosnell-wanking, all the time.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/search?q=gosnell

Meanwhile, some are still desperately trying to spin this petulant foot-stomping revolt as some kinda democratic reawakening, even dubbing it The Backbench Spring.

After Question Period today, Conservative MPs Michael Chong and Pierre Lemieux stood in the House and expressed their support for Mark Warawa’s question of privilege. Their statements are below.

This makes eight Conservative backbenchers who have spoke up in this regard: Warawa, Chong, Lemieux, Leon Benoit, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback, Stephen Woodworth and John Williamson. Rod Bruinooge, as well, seemed at least open to the idea of change.

The involvement of Mr. Chong, who has pushed for QP reform, would seem to undermine the idea that this is merely a pro-life cause masquerading as a push for parliamentary reform—he voted for Motion 312, but said at the time that he was not in favour of banning abortion and Campaign Life Coalition considers him “not supportable.”

While clear-eyed Alison calls any Backbenchers' Spring officially over.

Mosey over to her place for a fun singalong.

The CON game continues. They'd rather be re-elected than stand up for what they supposedly believe in.

We hope so-cons are taking note.

All abortion is selective

From The New Yorker:

The abortion laws passed last week in North Dakota are troubling first and foremost because they restrict women’s freedom to control their own bodies. More insidiously, they criminalize selective abortion, which means that a woman cannot choose to terminate a pregnancy because she knows the fetus has a genetic abnormality, or to select for other characteristics, such as gender. The very use of the world “selective” here indicates how right the pro-choice movement has been to emphasize “choice.” All abortion is selective, and whether a woman has selected not to have a baby at all or has selected not to have a particular baby is not a matter the state should parse. No one should be forced to have a child she doesn’t wish to have.

Excellent point.

All abortion is selective. Women have their own reasons. Not now. Not this man. Not this fetal defect. Not these circumstances. Not at all.

They select to abort a particular pregnancy. Their reasons are personal and private.

None of anyone else's business.

The fetus fetishists are being over-clever again with Warawa's Wank.

'We're not trying to ban abortion,' they say. 'We're just condemning one reason for it. Sex selection.'

Condemn one reason, and you're your way to condemning them all.

Remember Ken Epp's 'Unborn Victims of Crime' bill, C484, that sought extra charges against attackers of pregnant women by counting the fetus as a 'person'? In opposition to that, the rallying cry was 'One body. One person. One count.'

It's time to go on the offensive on M408 too.

No to M408. All abortion is selective.

M408 is NOT a Free Speech Hill to Die On

As regular readers here know, we don't give a flying fuck about whether Warawa's Wank is voteable or not. As long as it's got the CONtard knickers in knots, it's all good with us.

But for interested parties, there was this today on Twitter.

WARNING: My next series of tweets will deal w/ Mark Warawa's motion & his so-called qstn of priv. & why journos & pundits are overreacting.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

That would be Thomas Hall who describes himself as 'retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Constitution nerd, and word nut dans les deux langues officielles'.

He made good on his threat with a series of tweets.

Warawa's motion on sex-selective abortion will get 1 hour of debate in HoC. So he does get to speak on it despite what some have said.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Having private mbrs' motions voted on at all is releatively new, so there was no *right* for MPs to move motions & force vote in HoC.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Journos like A. Coyne who said that Warawa's motion was clearly in order to be votable are wrong. W/ respect to Lib of Parl analyst who...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...advised Subcmtee of MPs who decide on votability, the analyst gave wrong advice. Motion violated criterion no. 1. Subcmtee had equal ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...representation from each party & worked by consensus. No way PMO cld have made Subcmtee decide motion non-votable.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

PMO *may* have influenced full cmtee on Procedure to reject Warawa's appeal of Subcmtee decision since majority on cmtee are Conservatives.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

More likely is that majority on cmtee just didn't want to deal w/ abortion in any shape or form--policy for all 3 parties!

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Now regardg Warawa's qstn of privilege, complaint, that he didn't get to make statement in HoC during Mbrs' Statemts. I think parties ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...shldn't try to control what their mbrs say during that period, but ppl overreacted to O'Connor, CPC whip, comparing HoC to hockey game.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Frankly, not being allowed 2 speak during Mbrs' Statemts trivial compared to other control of party mbrs. No MP has right to make statmt.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

@emmmacfarlane No MP has right to make a statemt b/c there's no not enough time allowed for it. Never has been. So selection has to be made.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Then Emmett MacFarlane got into it to disagree with Hall.

@emmmacfarlane W/ respect, you're confusing Private Mbrs Business w/ Govt Business. Under latter, HoC can express opinion on all kinds...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Hall provided a link to the records of the subcommittee meeting. Scroll down.

@emmmacfarlane See parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati…

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

In short, in the opinion of the retired House of Commons procedural clerk, the subcommittee was correct and Warawa and Coyne and MacFarlane are all just wanking.

Others are weighing in too. As deBeauxOs blogged earlier today, some are taking issue with the newly minted free-speech spin.

And here's another.

Warawa's Wank is about abortion. It is sexist and racist.

It is about targetting pregnant women from 'certain' communities and vilifying them for allowing themselves to be 'coerced' into abortion.

it is NOT about free speech.

M408 Blowed Up Real Good

The Iron Fist of PMSHithead comes crashing down on Warawa's Wank.

Conservative MP Mark Warawa has lost his appeal to bring a motion condemning sex-selective abortion to the House of Commons for debate.

The procedure and House affairs committee upheld a decision by its subcommittee that Warawa's motion, M-408, isn't eligible to be debated by MPs, despite the advice of a non-partisan Library of Parliament analyst that the motion was in order.

Warawa has five days to appeal to the House of Commons. He said Monday that he has the backing he needs to bring the appeal, with the support of five MPs from two recognized parties. That appeal will lead to a secret ballot over whether the motion can be brought for debate.

Warawa said he's "very disappointed" but was going to take a few days before deciding whether to appeal. He can also introduce another private member's bill or motion instead of appealing the decision.

I never doubted that it was voteable. It was just a non-binding motion, after all, a shiny thing for the fetus fetishists in the CONtempt Party to amuse themselves with when they weren't being called upon to smear the Opposition.

A sop to the base, in short.

Who could have foreseen that the rigid control of the PMO would cause such a delightful ruckus?

And it appears that other zygote zealots were gobsmacked too.

Under the heading Parliament complicit with sex-selective abortions, Campaign Lie SHRIEEEKS.

"The decision to crush M-408 is proof that Harper will go to any extreme to distance himself from any reference to abortion, even if that means compromising on democracy," said Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition.

And what do we have here?

Yesterday CPC phoned for donation. Me: "Fuck off." Caller: So you don't want to support the CPC right now? Me: "Fuck off."

— Paul Tuns (@ptuns) March 28, 2013

Ooh. Very bad language from Paul Tuns, editor in chief of The Interim, 'Canada's Life and Family Newspaper'.

I'm calling it: SPECTACULAR FAIL.

The Blue Army Chorus Revolts

The kerfuffle over Warawa's Wank is becoming even more FUN!

Another CON backbencher has been designated attack dog on this and calls the malcontents 'rogues'.

The Conservatives admit they have “rogues” within their party as one MP said his colleagues “must suffer the consequences” for their anti-abortion stance amid the most open show of rebellion under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to date.

He does have a point. All CON candidates campaigned knowing Harper's frequently repeated vow 'not to reopen the abortion debate'.

Yet they happily campaigned under the CON banner.

The NatPo quotes our pal Stephen Woodworth, he of Woodworth's Wank fame, and the noted anti-choice wordsmith does not disappoint.

“It may be that’s what’s at play here, that this abortionism philosophy has led the sub-committee members to put abortion above the independence of private members, above the right of Parliament to comment on an important issue, above the right of members to be able to vote on such an issue,” Kitchener MP Stephen Woodworth said Tuesday.

Abortionism?????

Noun
abortionism (uncountable)
1. The advocacy or practice of abortion.

Usage notes
This term appears to be used principally in pejorative fashion by opponents of abortion.

For a longer nuttier explication of the term see Abortionism: American's New Established State Religion.

And for those who may have forgotten Woody's previous feat of wordsmithy, here again is his deathless M312, Fixed-Wing Technology and Ballooning.

The title of this blogpost comes from the NatPo story, quoting Bob Rae.

[Rae] agreed with Conservative backbenchers that there should be more freedom for MPs to speak their minds and to vote free of party discipline. It’s no surprise they’re finally rebelling against Harper’s iron control, Rae said.

“I think they’re annoyed and tired of the harness. I think they’re tired of having to respond to everything by acting like the Blue Army Chorus and I think they want to be able to speak their minds,” he said.

As I said: FUN!

MPs' Rights? Yeah, Right

This is adorable. (bold mine)

Backbench MPs are turning up the pressure in frustration over the Prime Minister's Office stifling debate in the House of Commons.
MPs who oppose abortion and want to see legislated limits for it are pushing back against caucus discipline, particularly in light of an all-party committee shutting down debate last week on a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion.

But they aren't the only ones upset with heavy-handed tactics on the part of the Conservative leadership. That frustration boiled over Tuesday in the House of Commons, leading several MPs to raise public complaints about a party that has so far maintained strict control over what its members can say.

"There has been predominantly informal discussion about what is, or what is not, our rights, and MPs have to decide what's wrong and what's right, and what our rights are," said one Conservative MP, who requested anonymity.

A bunch of white male fetus-fetishizing MPs, plus Elizabeth 'Nuance R Us' May, whinging about their rights as MPs under the most micro-controlling Prime Sinister ever.

And the issue? Right. Recriminalizing abortion. Stripping rights away from half the population.

Norm Spector pointed out:

#CPC MPs complaining about party discipline ran under a leader they thot was lying 2 Cdns or are hypocrites. In either case, shame on them

— Norman Spector (@nspector4) March 26, 2013

Me, I'm going with lying, hypocritical scumbags.


ADDED: Aaron Wherry with what was said and what it means. 'Here's the rot.'

Manifestos! Lots of Manifestos!

The decision to deem Warawa's Wank non-voteable is producing some foot-stomping, manifesto-issuing fun.

Fetus fetishists are turning against PMSHithead BIG TIME.

First, it was the Fetal Gore Tour Gang with its 'Against Stephen Harper: A Pro-Life Manifesto'. About what you'd expect but with a handy list of Harper's evil anti-life deeds.

Then SUZYALLCAPSLOCK got into it with her own screed. Same title, note.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2013/03/against-stephen-harper-pro-life.html

Against Stephen Harper: A Pro-Life Manifesto

The problem is that there are a lot of pro-lifers in the Conservative party who support their leader, for whatever reason.

They figure: well, we won't get fetal rights, we might as well get a balanced budget (another illusion) and other conservative policies.

Here's my advice: If your MP carries the ball on pro-life issues, vote for him. [sic]

Otherwise, stop voting Conservative.

Yes, I realize we could get an NDP government.

But you have to understand: sometimes it needs to get worse before it can get better.

If you don't punish your politicians, they won't listen.

If they don't listen to you, you're screwed.

We have to punish those conservative politicians who think they can take our vote then not give us ANYTHING in return.

When we stop volunteering for Conservative campaigns, when we stop giving, when we stop voting, they will pay attention.

Master Chess Player PMSH seems to have stepped in it this time.

And everyone can play.

If M408 is found to be voteable, opponents can squeal 'HIDDEN AGENDA!' If non-voteable, everybody can squeal 'DEMOCRACY SCREWED!'

And now, so-conned citizens -- the whopping 5-6% of Canadians who want to ban abortion altogether -- are maybe finally getting the message: PMSHithead doesn't give a rat's ass about your issues.

Democracy at Risk!!!!!

The decision to deem Warawa's Wank non-voteable is becoming even more fun.

The parliamentary expert had no problem with either the jurisdiction or possible repetitiveness of M408, aka the Gotcha Motion That Proves Pro-Choicers to Be Enthusiastic Murderers of Pre-Born Women. Those were the flimsy excuses the committee cited: that abortion/health is a provincial matter and the subject had been voted on recently (Woodworth's Wank).

Natch, Warawa shrieked about democracy, independence of MPs, yadayada.

(When any fool with more than one functioning neuron could see the Iron Fist of PMSHithead clamping down on any whiff of the dreaded abortion debate.)

Today, it seems Warawa is getting some support.

Here is where Mr. Warawa might get the support of those who otherwise oppose his views on abortion. Regardless of how one feels about his motion, regardless of how uncomfortable it might make the leadership of Mr. Warawa’s party, every MP and everyone who is represented by an MP should be concerned if Mr. Warawa is being prevented from putting a motion before the House simply because some people oppose its sentiment or would rather it not be brought forward. Never mind the very fraught matter of abortion, this now threatens to become a question about the nature of parliamentary democracy and the independence of MPs.

This is delicious. If M408 is found to be voteable, opponents can squeal 'HIDDEN AGENDA!' If non-voteable, everybody can squeal 'DEMOCRACY SCREWED!'

In short, PMSHithead is between a rock and a hard place.

Good spot for him, isn't it?

For interested watchers -- popcorn!



By the way, this is the committee that will hear Warawa's appeal.


Image source.

Dark Deeds! Pulled Strings! Conspiracy!

Aaaand the temper tantrums and dark allegations on the demise of Warawa's Wank begin.

The question was brought up unexpectedly at the Sub-Committee on Private Members’ Business on the day the government is set to release its budget for 2013, meaning newsrooms across the country are locked up.

The sub-committee vote, believed to be at the instigation of the Prime Minister’s Office, was unanimous.

Oo. 'Unexpectedly'! And during the budget lock-up!

Fun, isn't it, when fetus fetishists -- themselves masters of sneaky, back-door tactics -- get a little payback.

Also. They're lying. I asked Kady O'Malley whether it was unexpected.

@fernhilldammit Well, I can't speak to the 'ominous'-ness of it all, bu the meeting was skedded two weeks ago.

— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2013

Indeed, she posted an alert this morning in her Orders of the Day and, in fact, covered it with the ensuring report here.

And here's Warawa himself alleging that democracy itself is in serious peril and vowing -- vowing I tell you! -- to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

Well, no. But it may get very interesting.

From Kady's report:

In any case, Warawa has the right to appeal the decision of the subcommittee -- which, I'm told, he will all but certainly do -- by making the case for reconsideration before the full procedure and house affairs committee within five days of the subcommittee report being tabled thither.

If he fails to persuade the committee to overturn the ruling, Warawa can put the question to the House of Commons as a whole -- provided, that is, that he has the support of at least five MPs -- by filing a motion with the speaker, who will then proceed to call for a vote, which is conducted via secret ballot over the next two days.

Secret ballot! Wot fun!

Warawa Wankless!

It was unanimous.

As predicted in countless private members' business-related posts passim and, most recently, in today's OotD, Conservative MP Mark Warawa's non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion has been deemed non-votable by unanimous vote of the subcommittee charged with overseeing private members`business.

Why?

Ostensibly, because it's provincial jurisdiction and the House already voted on abortion. @just_a_josh @kady what was the rationale given?

— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2013

Warawa can appeal.

Oh look.

Members of PMB Sub-Committee broke rules today deeming #M408 unvoteable. Were they forced and by who? An appeal process has begun.

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) March 21, 2013

Stay tuned. We all love a good conspiracy theory, don't we?

UPDATE: Tantrums have begun.

Misogynists United

What would unite Russia, the Vatican, Iran and other conservative Muslim states in common cause?

Those uppity women.

An "unholy alliance" of Iran, Russia, the Vatican and others is threatening to derail a U.N. declaration urging an end to violence against women and girls by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights, some U.N. diplomats said Wednesday.

Delegates to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women are racing to reach a consensus deal on a final document by Friday and some diplomats say the future of the commission - a global policy-making body created in 1946 for the advancement of women - is at risk if they fail to broker a compromise.

"There's this sort of unholy alliance ... coming together to oppose language on sexual health, reproductive rights and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights," one senior U.N. diplomat said. "It's tough going, but progress is being made."

So, of course, Canada's own staunch defender of preborn women, Mark Warawa, would be totally down with the draft declaration, yes?

A draft declaration urges member states to take a number of measures, including the elimination of any impunity in violence against women, by prosecuting and punishing perpetrators; allowing women and girls to have control over their sexuality and access to health care; doing away with harmful practices such as female genital mutilation; providing services to victims of violence such as emergency contraception and safe abortion where permitted by law.

From now on, we should ask all backers of Warawa's Wank if they also support the UN's efforts to actually protect women.

Just Like Thanksgiving. . .

. . . Canadians can celebrate two Blogging for Choice Days.

On January 22, the US Supreme Court landmark judgement Roe v. Wade is 40 years old.

Much weakened recently -- 2012 was second only to 2011 in the number of new state restrictions on abortion -- but it's still in effect.

Here are some nifty infographics to decorate your blog-post.

Then, on January 28, we celebrate 25 years of lawlessness in Canada.

But all is not rosy here either. We've still got major access issues and the perennial wanking of fetus fetishists. The current one, Warawa's Wank is slated to have some debate in March.

Mark your calendars and shine your party shoes.

The best part? No frigging turkey.

In Canada, Pro-Choice Is Winning

If you've been wondering about fetus fetishists crowing about winning and pro-choice losing lately, this TIME magazine cover story is what it's about.

Amanda Marcotte responds.

There's much to like about Kate Pickert's Time cover story (hidden behind a paywall) on abortion rights 40 years after Roe v. Wade. Unlike the majority of big media stories on this issue, this one actually portrays abortion patients accurately, particularly pointing out how most of them are grown adults with children at home and notes the wide range of feminist activism—from fighting for women's economic rights to promoting contraception access—that actually results in lower abortion rates. Pickert even mentions the phrase "reproductive justice," a framework that takes a more holistic approach to improving people's reproductive lives and one that appeals strongly to younger activists, especially activists of color.

Too bad, then, that Pickert portrays the increasing restrictions on abortion access as the result of the failings of the pro-choice movement, a narrative which inevitably leads to blaming pro-choicers for being "hard line," "tone deaf," and lacking "nuance."

She tries to pass the whole deal off as 'business as usual'.

Two-steps-forward-one-step-back is the ugly reality of progressive politics.

That's often true, but not necessarily.

In Canada, we did it differently.

Merkin feminists won the right to abortion on January 22, 1973 with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

Immediately legislatures around the country started enacted restrictions.

In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion. . . Congress in 1976 passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).

Merkin feminists have been fighting -- and largely losing -- rearguard skirmishes ever since.

Canadians watched in horror as the huge victory got nibbled to death by ducks.

We were like the younger sister. We got to watch Big Sis make terrible mistakes. And like the smart younger sister, we learned. We vowed to ourselves the political equivalent of 'blue eyeshadow is NEVER a good idea'.

It took 15 more years in Canada, until January 28, 1988, to achieve our victory, R. v. Morgentaler.

But because we watched and learned, we were ready for the ducks. Every time -- every fucking time -- the fetus fetishists show signs of screwing around with our rights, we act.

Recently, with Ken Epp's Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, we were a little slow off the mark.

So when Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312 surfaced, we were ready.

And we are ready for its sequel, Warawa's Wank, aka Motion 408.

As a matter of fact, the more the so-called debate heats up here in Canada, the more support we gain.

So, bring it, fetus fetishists.

We watched Big Sis fuck up.

We won't.

ADDED: Joyce Arthur's excellent Rabble piece on The Benefits of Decriminalizing Abortion.

M408: Sheer Cynical Posturing

At Rabble today, Joyce Arthur has a terrific article on the newest fetus fetishist gambit, Motion 408, to condemn sex selective abortion.

She makes a bunch of excellent points, including this unintentional revelation of what they really think of those murderous sluts poor coerced women.

Warawa wants Parliament to "condemn this worst form of discrimination against females," which he calls "gender violence -- gendercide."

But women are the ones having sex-selection abortions, which means Warawa is accusing women of violence and gendercide -- and courtesy of MP Stella Ambler -- "atrocities." Ending discrimination against women does not start with making nasty accusations against them. Yes, sex selection can be a sexist act, but it's nonsensical to protect women from discrimination by restricting their rights. In India, laws against sex-selection abortion cause women to resort to unsafe and illegal abortion to avoid having a girl, and some may even face abuse and violence from their families if they bear a girl.

Arthur included this dandy link to facts on gender preference in the US.

Highlights:
• In adoption, parents request girls far more often than boys.

• There is no evidence that females are aborted at a higher rate. In fact, the birth ratio of girls has increased since the legalization of abortion.

• Parents using currently available sex selection techniques prefer girls by quite a margin.

I doubt Canadians and Americans are much different in this regard, but I went looking for Canadian studies or polls.

A study published in January this year asked a slightly different question in skewed way. Researchers wanted to find out if men preferred boys and women girls. The dodgy part is that answers had to be 'male' or 'female'. No option for 'doesn't matter' was offered.

Surprise! Men wanted boys, women wanted girls.

The question is why do men and women have these preferences? The researchers hypothesize that men favour boys for much the same reason that women favour girls—because human beings often project their own dreams on their children and those dreams often come with stereotypical ideas of what it means to be male or female.

 
The piece ends with:


Moreover, the study suggests that affluent democratic societies encourage women to favour daughters more than those societies where opportunities for women are circumscribed by discrimination and inequality.  Seen in that light, women preferring daughters over sons is a sign of progress.

Makes total sense, eh? When girls have the same opportunities as boys, there's little downside to letting nature take its course.

Another recent study on sex-selection in Canada in 'certain' communities indicates that *if* it is happening, it is on a very small scale.

The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women.

Dr. [Prabhat Jha, chair in disease control at the University of Toronto and director of the Centre for Global Health Research at St. Michael’s Hospital] said in an e-mail if sex-selective abortion is at play, it is a very small problem and other “important but subtle biases,” such as migration of Indian women about to give birth to a son, could help explain the trend.

Note that the study was conducted with data only from Indian-born women living in Canada.

A reasonable conclusion would be that as newcomers to Canada come to believe that their daughters have (most of) the benefits that sons do, the preference will die out.

In the meantime, other Canadians' desire for girls will balance things out.

Sex selection is not a societal issue in Canada. It is a problem in 'certain' communities that are well aware of it and are working to eliminate it.

Kindly put, Warawa's motion is a solution in search of a problem. More realistically, it's another attack on women's rights masquerading cynically as a concern for gender discrimination.

BONUS: If you can tolerate nearly 8 minutes of StunNews, have a look at the spin we're up against.