Attention, those who choose to leave *anonymous* comments.

Recently at DAMMIT JANET! we've been receiving *anonymous* comments from people who choose not to create an account in their real or internet identity.

This means we can't contact you via email if we have a question about the observations you would like to share with us or other readers, in response to our blogposts.

Since we have the power to moderate our comments - which we choose to do as it's our blog & our rules - we like to know who and what we're dealing with.

Some of our regulars - k'in for example, who we've met in real life, and can contact through an email address - have experienced difficulties registering with Blogger and thus leave a signature when they comment.

In recent weeks we've received multiple comments from several "Anonymous" folks who regurgitate fetus lobby glurge or anti-choice propaganda, and then make a big show about dissassociating themselves from the puke they've written.

Thank you for your *concern* but enough is enough. Our regular readers leave comments that engage the mind and advance the discussion. We're familiar with the standard antichoice bullshit; you don't need to drag it here as though you're a 3 month old puppy bringing us the carcass of a dead rat.

We're not in the business of providing biscuits.

Once more, Mrozek misses the point.

It should come as no surprise that anti-choice scold Andrea Mrozek is also anti-science and anti-communication about human sexuality.

In her opinion piece, she inveighs against SEX: a Tell-All exhibition at the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology. She parrots the talking points stated by communications staff for Heritage and Culture Minister Moore and shrieeeks that the exhibit leaves out "true connection, intimacy and community".

Um, Andrea? The Museum's mandate "is to foster scientific and technological literacy throughout Canada," according to a statement from Moore's office.

In spite of all the metaphorical pearl-clutching expressed in Mrozek's piece, it appears that the scientific and technological aspects of human sexuality are very well displayed in the exhibit.

Given the very *special* fundamentalist religious *interests* she represents, one might assume that Mrozek would ferociously defend the gawd-given right of parents and communities to educate children with regard to sexual connection and intimacy. Why would she want the government to do that?

Oh. Wait.

Comically, Mrozek openly reveals her revulsions:

White plastic naked models of a life-size man and a woman recline, facing each other. Black light causes the models — and the white page I took notes on — to really pop. The instructions are to “locate 10 male and female erogenous zones by delicately touching each mannequin.” In case youth need help, the nipples of the woman are lit up with a purple hue.

Delicately touch each mannequin? Really? I call over a member of our research team, a medical doctor, to see if I’d understood correctly. Then we call over the public relations director of the museum. “Touching the mannequin” seems like a perverse dare for all of us. I furtively reach out to do what I’ve been told. Nothing happens. Perhaps my caress of the plastic model wasn’t delicate enough.

Right. Or perhaps anxiety-clenched fingers, sweaty with fear, aren't a "turn-on" for plastic mannequins. One wonders if Mrozek caressed the male or the female model. That's one "Tell-all" detail she clearly left out.

Added: What great inadvertent publicity for this exhibit! I expect there will be MASSIVE crowds that will turn out to see it, including adolescents under the age of 16 trying to sneak into the museum.

UPDATE: The local Radio-Canada investigation at the Museum on the provenance of the attacks against the exhibition confirms that 1) most are form letters and email messages and 2) most, if not all of them were sent by members of fundamentalist christian groups.

The basis for "Honour Killing" ...

has the exact same origin as the blathering of antichoice concern trolls.

Yesterday on Twitter I had to smack down "lettingsmokeout" who spouted pseudo high-minded crap about *Western civilization* defending human rights; eventually his tweets devolved to the point where it was apparent that the only right he defended was that of men controlling women's fertility and their capacity to breed.

There's "tedgurk" who seized upon the idea of appropriating one sentence from Madame Justice Bertha Wilson's complex judgement and cross-dressing it up as an excuse for Wankworth's M312.

The creepiness of male antichoice trolls - whether they slip themselves into the skin of a powerful woman to put their dicks words in her mouth or to flog the disingenous CON Attack Parrot©™ re-framing of issues to fit their fundamentalist religious ken - is boundless.

They manipulate the realities of women violated in many, many, many ways by patriarchy. They chose to ignore the pervasive social, political and religious forces that pressure women to behave in the ways that serve the needs of the men in their families, their husbands and their communities. Those who try to disobey their cultures' misogynist dictates are mutilated or killed.

So this CONvenient shrieeeking about the termination of pregnancies within specific ethnic communities, and using loaded words "missing women", "exterminated" and "snuffed out" is surely not happenstance.

Just imagine if these rightwing apologists for their own cultures' gynophobia were as MASSIVELY outraged over the thousands of Aboriginal "missing women" and girls, "exterminated" and "snuffed out" by the likes of Robert Pickton and his brethren of christofascist gynophobes. And directed their fury towards the cops who deliberately screwed up the original investigations with their racist, sexist behaviour.

Meanwhile, this.

Men who kill female family members tend to be treated more leniently by the courts if they are white, rather than non-white males perceived to have committed a so-called honour killing, a study suggests.

University of Ottawa law professor Pascale Fournier and two researchers analyzed 54 cases where men were convicted of killing their wives or close female family members.At trial, the men all argued the killings had been committed in the heat of passion after they were provoked and lost control.

Under the Criminal Code, this "defence of provocation" can reduce a murder charge to one of manslaughter.Fournier said that when the men in the study were divided according to ethnicity, the courts differed in how often the defence of provocation was accepted. "It was more likely that it would be accepted by judges, by the courts, when the individual was a Western white male," she said.

Chris Little didn't use that "defence of provocation" since he claimed that his estranged ex-wife had been killed by someone else. Fortunately a jury rejected his preposterous fabrication.

And then, there's Richard Wills, another entitled, privileged, pallid "honour killer".

It's only fitting the Maurice Vellacott Award be bestowed upon those who defend Motion 312 by piously proclaiming that feminists are murdering female and gay "preborn children".

Woodworth's dog & pony show.

Yesterday, while Stevie's Contempt Party government fêted The Queen's Jubilee, Con MP Woodworth "went rogue".

Or at least, that's what we are meant to believe.

In which parallel universe would the MASSIVE micro-manager Harper allow a backbencher to break away from the official party line?

So, it's probably safe to assume that even if Woodworth and PMSHithead were both to claim plausible deniability regarding the K-W MP's initiative, somebody in the PMO∕Politburo had a little chat with the backbencher to map out the tactic and to rein him in if he started dancing outside those lines.

I'm listening to Radio-Canada's phone-in political program; all the callers see through this little ploy.

Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that Woodworth's project to consider the status and the wellbeing of the zygote, embryo and fetus were sincere. Why not strike a Royal Commission and consider it from that perspective, as well as examining what the quality of life should be for potential and actually born infants? But then, it would become apparent that the reformaTory imperative to control and punish women is a minority view that should not take precedence over the rational and heartfelt arguments that pro-choice organizations like the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Bar Association would present, as well as the perspectives multitudes of women's groups would express.

It's not happenstance that Woodworth is attacking women's right to choose through the Criminal Code. Ken Epp tried it in 2008 and Harper voted in support of his private member's bill C-484, as Hélène Buzetti reminded us.

The Harper government's agenda includes the criminalization of abortion. This is now clear, though the Cons lie about their intent. This is the first step in a campaign strategy based on the incremental erosion of women's access to contraception and the right for each woman to stop a pregnancy or to carry it to term.

Human zygote, embryo, fetus are potential human beings. During gestation, pregnant women give life. They are not passive breeders. The Cons want to use the Criminal Code to award nascent beings rights that will trump those of pregnant women.

We will not let them do this.

UPDATE: Parliamentary procedural information from Kady O'Malley, here.

Oh Snap! Alison at Creekside on Ari, abortion, and alternate universes

Go, go, go. Read Alison at Creekside: Ari, abortion, and alternate universes.

Lots of smackdown and linky goodness.

Oops! (updated)

That MASSIVE tinkling sound you're hearing is Blob Blogging Wingnut wetting HERself in excitement over a tactic that the anti-abortion group Faith2Action will exploit when it appears before the Ohio House Health Committee.

From here:

According to the AP [...] a pregnant woman will be "brought before the committee and an ultrasound image of her uterus will be projected onto a screen" with the heartbeat shown in color. Faith2Action president Janet Folger Porter says the intent is to show legislators who will be affected by the bill. If that's the case, aren't there sentient beings, like, say, the people that will have to raise it for the next eighteen years that could use actual words to testify?

What's next? Sperm testifying about how sad they are never to have made it to an egg?

The source for the above is New York Magazine, not The Onion.

If The Fetus©™ fetishists and catholic zealots BBW and John 'Sperm Holocaust' Pacheco had their way, all menstruating females would be forced to collect every single drop of their monthly flow and bring it to a government inspection station. No woman would escape the ideologically-motivated scrutiny of her reproductive apparatus, also known as the ovaries + the uterus.

Oh. Wait.

Update: my virtual roomie provided a link to pharyngula's post about those rightwingnutjobs and something jumped out at me.

Early ultrasound examinations will primarily detect the presence of the extraembryonic sac, not the embryo itself. It's too small. Around 5 weeks, you might be able to see a fuzzy small blob with a flutter that is the beating heart, but that's about it, and you do have to use transvaginal ultrasound to pick it up — that is, you have to insert the ultrasound probe deep into the vagina.

Got that? In order to get the maximum blobby F/X, the ultrasound probes would have to be inserted deep in the pregnant women's respective vaginas. No sacrifice too great for BABEEZ! it would seem. Betcha most of those male RepubliCon Ohio legislators will get their rocks off on that. In fact, that's probably why they've allowed this histrionic display.

The difference between propaganda and facts.

Lies-Site chose to play the persecution card. Tim Mak chose to use petulant and disingenous words. The McGill Tribune chose to present an editorial that contained facts and rational arguments. The commenters - all of them visibly anti-choice, one of whom spammed posted 5 times - chose to play the persecution card and use petulant and disingenous words as well.

From the McGill Tribune:

... a presentation by Jose Ruba, a co-founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, titled "Echoes of the Holocaust." [...] will attempt to draw parallels between abortion and the Holocaust, by arguing that "dehumanization and denial of personhood has justified some of the greatest affronts to human dignity that the world has seen."

The presentation refers to abortion as a "mass human rights violation" and includes graphic imagery such as photos of dead bodies at concentration camps followed by photos of supposedly aborted foetuses.

... The comparison of abortion to the Holocaust is not only horribly offensive and inaccurate, it is deliberately designed to be inflammatory. This event is not intended to foster debate - it is designed to be provocative and to distract from meaningful discussion of abortive rights. Last October, when Choose Life was applying for interim club status, the Tribune editorialized that SSMU Council should approve their application.

We still stand behind that decision. Although many who opposed the club have adopted an "I told you so" attitude in light of Choose Life's recent actions, they miss the point of our original argument: you cannot preemptively censor a club based on what you believe they might do. Choose Life could have fulfilled their mandate by hosting informative events that presented the pro-life position without sensationalizing the issue or attempting to induce guilt among pro-choice believers.

A pro-life belief is not, in itself, oppressive. Even though Choose Life had the potential to behave inappropriately, it was necessary to give the club some rope, and see if they used it to hang themselves.

The Tribune believes that every woman deserves the right to safe and legal abortions. The legality of abortion is not something that we think should be up for debate - the decision to have an abortion is a personal one, and is not a decision that most women take lightly.

Once again, anti-choicers demonstrated their obsessive fixation with The Fetus©™, their inappropriate and arrogant exploitation of the Shoah, and their rage against women who have the power to choose to give life.

Pro-choicers demonstrated their support for a legal medical procedure, their anger with lying liars and their respect for women who have the power to choose to give life or not.

Jill Stank: Now Without the Shrieeek?

At first I was puzzled. The byline attribution was hers, but where was the screeching, the fabrications, the hyperbole, the vile and odious propaganda? It seemed deceptively mild, for the operator of a blogsite that JJ at unrepentant old hippie has dubbed "Nurse Stanek’s Psych Ward" and other appropriate epithets.

Ah-ha. It appears she craves credibility. So she cranked down the religious rightwingnutter zealotry in order to pass herself off as a sane opinionator for Opposing Views.

But try as she might, she still couldn't resist a number of jabs and thrusts at pro-choicers. The mask slipped, and the habitual hostilities were expressed.

If you'd prefer to read a more balanced review of Irene Vilar's memoirs 'Impossible Motherhood', one can be found here.

As press on the book has begun to leak out, Vilar - a literary agent and editor - says she has already sensed "an inkling of hatred."

Vilar has scheduled only closed-door interviews and will not do a book tour. At the urging of her husband, they have made sure all public property records do not reflect her name, so she cannot be targeted at their home. "I am worried about my safety and the hate mail," she told ABCNews.com in a telephone interview as her home-schooled children were at work on a painting project.

Vilar's book sounds excruciatingly painful. Not every woman who has endured a love-hate relationship with her body is capable of rising above the forces that have tormented her and in addition, write about these life experiences with the lucidity and compassion that others may find comforting and inspiring.

Oh! Looky here, Nurse Stanek. I blogged about Vilar's forthcoming book. Cue the shrieeeking!

ADDED: LifeShite adds its SHRIEEKINESS.

But dig the title: 'Hispanic Author's New Book Reveals Terrible Addiction, She's Had 16 Abortions'. WTF does her ethnicity have to do with it? Hispanic = catlick = even WORSSSSSE!

I sense a new totally made-up syndrome is in the works: Abortion Addiction!!11!!!!!11!!

More fun with headlines

Further to deBeauxOs's post on headlines and spin, I found a case of spin-doctoring in religious reporting on the partial failure of a new law throwing up more barriers to abortion in Oklahoma.

First, the Baptists. Under the headline 'Judge nixes Okla. ultrasound law', the piece laments:

An Oklahoma judge has invalidated on procedural grounds a state ultrasound law described by a national pro-life organization as the best in the country.
. . .
Sonogram machines have been important tools in pro-life pregnancy care centers' attempts to educate pregnant women about their unborn children. Such centers have reported dramatic upswings in clients choosing to give birth after viewing ultrasound images of their babies.

Yabbut, the Catlicks are celebrating, with this headline: 'Judge upholds law requiring doctors to tell women abortion ends life'.

A federal judge in South Dakota ruled Aug. 20 that a 2005 South Dakota law requiring doctors to inform patients that abortion kills a human being is constitutional.

(Note small ooopsie in the state. 'Twas Oklahoma, ye ijits.)

Depending on one's agenda -- on the one hand, forcing those dirty sluts to give birth; on the other, SHRIEEEEKING about the sanctity of life -- the judge's ruling was either a FAIL! or a WIN!

Go figure.

Me, I just love it when the anti-choicers eat their own. And each other.