What would be the point of an abortion debate?

About that debate that nobody wants and yet seems to be raging all the fucking time nonetheless...

I will have more to say about this (biiiig surprise, regular DJ! readers are thinking), but for now (I'm really busy) I just want to put a couple of points out there.

Here's a question no one seems to be asking: What would be the purpose of an abortion debate?

Rabid political partisans are obviously betting that it can score them some votes or at least some points.

Rabid anti-choicers want to roll history backwards and if not recriminalize abortion altogether (which even they admit is not on), then create some kinda law -- any kinda law -- on it.

The sneakier of those two groups take another tack. They want to debate the funding of abortion. This gang has an ally in Prime Minister ShitHead who said yesterday that abortion funding can't be part of the Maternal Health Initiative because it's extremely divisive. (Bulletin, Mr Harper: So is vaccination.)

Media outfits want an abortion debate because it's sure-fire click-bait -- have a look at any story about it and check the comment count. Some pundits want to sell books or freelance pieces. A few boyos want to exercise their middle-school debating skills and they'll do it purely for fun.

I call this aim the #AbortionDebateClub -- debating the fundamental human right to autonomy for FUN and PROFIT!!!!

Am I missing anything? Political points, legislation, funding, FUN. What other end could an abortion debate serve?

Here's my question for now. If legislation is the purpose, under what aegis?

Criminal Code of Canada? All recent Conservative private member's bills have been framed as amendments to the Criminal Code. Effectively this means criminalizing some types of abortion (medical bad, surgical OK?), some aspects of abortion (early OK, late [howlate?] bad?), some reasons (sex-selection VERY BAD) for abortion.

We need only look southward to see where partial criminalization leads. Once there is a law, people will inevitably try to screw around with it. The more forthright of the fetus fetishists admit that they will not stop until abortion is so ringed around with restrictions and regulations and paperwork that it becomes practically unobtainable.

How about the Constitution then? Section 2 of the Charter could have a few words added, no biggie.

2. Everyone (including the zygotal, embryonic, and fetal) has the following fundamental freedoms:

Easy peasy, yes?

Or maybe the Canada Health Act? Again, we could insert a couple of words.

An Act relating to cash contributions by Canada and relating to criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services, except abortion

My serious question again: What is the desired concrete outcome of an abortion debate?

Because if we can't agree on a purpose for a debate, it does seem to me to be simply "extremely divisive."

And totally pointless in a country where a lawless abortion regime has worked very well for more than a quarter of a century.


ADDED: Joyce Arthur offers a distinction between "backwards" and "forwards" abortion debates. What we should be talking about she says is access, funding for women in developing countries, and international advocacy for our successful #LawlessAbortion regime.

Fuck the Debate: Part Eleventy-One

Fetus fetishists wonder why we won't debate them.

Here's example number umpty-trillion.

Sun News tries a moronic gotcha on Justin Trudeau. Publishes story with this headline: "Justin Trudeau Would Not Stop Sex-Selective Abortion."

The anti-choice stenographers pick it up. Here's LifeShite with the headline: "Justin Trudeau: sex-selective abortion a 'right'; Liberals won't consider ban."

SUZY ALL CAPS does her obeisance under "Justin Trudeau Supports Sex-Selection Being Legal." (Plain text url for the usual reason: http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2014/05/video-justin-trudeau-supports-sex.html)

And the Focus on the Family gals at ProWomanProLies: "When gendercide become [sic] a Charter Right in Canada."

Here's the question (full transcript at the Sun link):

MARISSA SEMKIW: A woman comes to you. She says she's pregnant with a girl and she wants to terminate the life of the child because it's a girl. What would you say to her?

We all know that Justin Trudeau is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Someone with a bit more on the ball might have replied: "Hello? I am the leader of a political party, not a counsellor or an advice columnist. What the hell kind of BS question is that?"

He didn't. He waffled around, finally -- after persistent badgering -- settling on: “I will leave discussions like that between a woman and the health professionals that she encounters.”

This is just like the idiotic harassment pro-choice demonstrators endured at the hands of another SunLife light-weight, who asked if rape should be legalized to "make it safe".

I ask the well-meaning pundits who think pro-choice advocates should welcome the "renewed debate": what do you suggest we do when we run into such intellectual dishonesty and duplicity?

Seriously: What the fuck should we do?

"New" New Democrats: Ambition over Principles

You gotta wonder: WTF is up with the NDP?

There's this recent genius move from Niki Ashton, a motion for the House to "formally affirm" a woman's right to choose abortion.

Unlike the Woodworth gambit — which was ultimately defeated despite garnering the support of just over half the government caucus, including a half-dozen senior cabinet ministers — Ashton's motion could easily be interpreted as a criticism of current government policy, which would make even the most stridently pro-choice Conservative MP pause before giving a thumbs-up.

Such an outcome would almost certainly provide a major boost to the morale of the anti-abortion movement, which, despite taking centre stage briefly during the Woodworth and Warawa debates, has had little to no success in forcing the issue back onto the floor of the House of Commons.

That flagging political relevancy was apparent during last week's March for Life. According to police estimates, the annual Hill rally attracted just over 8,000 activists in 2014, which would put it at as little as half the RCMP estimate for the previous year, when Warawa's gender selection motion was still in play. Even the 23,000 claimed by march organizers was lower than their 2013 estimate of 25,000.

After formally affirming for years that abortion is a settled matter not open for debate, the NDP decides to take a swipe at the Liberals, kinda overlooking what ammo such a move serves up to fetus fetishists.

Well, we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time the NDP has seen an opportunity to poke the Liberals by turning women's rights into a political football.

A couple of days later, the NDP brain-trust got a grip and decided to nix opening the abortion debate in favour of whinging about CBC funding cuts.

OK, then.

But here's Chantal Hébert's take (bold mine).

On the heels of Trudeau’s announcement that future Liberal candidates will have to toe the party’s pro-choice line on abortion, the NDP is seizing the House with a motion to force MPs to pronounce on abortion rights.

Since Trudeau is actually shoring up the pro-choice line in Parliament and not threatening to drive a tank through it, the only rationale for the NDP move is to sow embarrassment and division in the Liberal caucus.

A handful of its existing members are anything but pro-choice.

Not since Gilles Duceppe ended up having to take yes for an answer to his challenge to the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation has an opposition party come up with as bad of a good idea.

The NDP has argued for years that the debate over abortion rights was closed, maintaining with admirable consistency that Parliament should not interfere in the reproductive choices of Canadian women.

On that basis, the party has mercilessly attacked the prime minister for not preventing his backbenchers from putting forward motions dealing directly or indirectly with abortion.

Its critics have repeatedly accused Stephen Harper of having the hidden agenda to restrict the reproductive choice of women.

But it is hard to square the notion that Conservative MPs should not be allowed to put their long-held convictions on abortion to the test in the House while New Democrats would be free to do so to score points on the issue.

The fate of the NDP motion — the text of which includes language pertaining to the government’s existing policy on maternal health in developing countries that could make it hard for pro-choice government MPs to support — is uncertain.

The vote might yet deliver anti-abortion advocates a rare victory on Harper’s watch in the House of Commons.

But whatever the result, it speaks volume about the current mindset of the NDP.

Dealing first with substance, the party’s eagerness to score easy points in an empty goal stands in sharp contrast with its gingerly-approach to more current social policy debates such as the one involving assisted suicide and euthanasia.

And here's her conclusion.

At this juncture, all is apparently fair in the NDP/Liberal war — including turning the issue of women’s reproductive choices into ammunition in the House of Commons.

This might be as good a time as any to remind both parties — but in particular the NDP — that if supremacy in the Caviar Left strongholds of downtown Toronto won elections, Harper would not be prime minister.

And here's where I bitch again about the fucking uselessness of the Fucking Useless Opposition®. They're arguing over the keys to Stornaway while the country goes up in flames.

Sowing embarrassment, scoring points, potting empty-netters. This is NOT why I -- and, I submit, millions of others -- voted NDP.

We voted for your principles, NOT your ambition.

And for this former NDP-voter, both federally and provincially, the party's rank and rancid ambition now outweighs any sentimental attachment I might have to principled social-justice warriors (ahem) like Dan Heap.

I'm done with the NDP.

Hey, Boko Haram Is Just Acting on "Conscience Issues" Too

Justin Trudeau's decree that all future (not, note, sitting shoo-in MPs) Liberal candidates must be prochoice has twisted up some Conservative knickers.

Specifically over the matter of sacrosanct "conscience issues."

Here's the At Issue Panel. The abortion discussion starts around the 7:30 mark. Coyne does his thing. Then Chantal rips him a new one, starting around 8:40. Coyne is left blubbering "but not all anti-choicers" bububububub. Mansbridge does his patented mincy mouth. Watch.



Coyne followed this up in the National Post, as did Jen Gerson and today the august NatPo editorial board weighed in. Apart from fetus fetishists, the National Post and these two of its columnists seem to be the only entities in Canada who want to reopen the abortion debate.

Most Canadians are bored to tears by it, but others are mortally offended by the notion that women's rights are mere "conscience issues" for a bunch of boyos to recreate their middle-school debating club over.

This tweet sums it up brilliantly.

Why is your religious belief sacred and inviolable, whereas my bodily autonomy is up for debate all the time? http://t.co/Y1WlFGqtEa — Lauren DH (@roseneath_rd) May 10, 2014

I await the defenders of "conscience issues" and religious beliefs backing of Boko Haram's kidnapping of 300 Nigerian girls. After all, they're just acting out of sincere religious beliefs, right?


UPDATE: Andrew Coyne who thinks its edgy or something to follow me just offered a correction on Twitter. The editorial board of the Toronto Star also takes issue with Trudeau, but does not advocate for the reopening of the abortion debate.

No Point

In perennially NON-breaking news, Canadians feel much the same about abortion as they have for years.

Which is basically: All's swell. Now can we please all STFU about it?

Only 23% of us know there are no legal restrictions on abortion at any time. That's actually an improvement. In 2010, just 21% of Canadians knew there are no restrictions.

And, still and forever, a tiny number of nutbars want to ban abortion altogether, nationally just 5%. But the regions are interesting. Atlantic Canada comes in as least banny at 1%, followed by Quebec at 2%, BC at 3%, and Saskitoba at 4%. Alberta is most prohibitionist at 10% with Ontario following at 7%.

There's a 'not sure' option to this question and, oddly, Atlantic Canada is least sure at 12%. Nationally, 6% are unsure.

The funding question -- always the best one for fetus fetishists -- remains evenly split with 43% in favour of always funding and 42% for funding only in medical emergencies. Those who want it completely defunded are again in the teensy minority -- 7%, beaten in this case by the 'not sures' at 8%. (Note for the Defund crowd Ontario Chapter: in this province, 9% want it defunded.)

Where Canadians are most united is in the 'Oh Shit Do We Have to Debate This Agaaaaain?' whine category.

Fifty-nine percent of us say there's no point (that was actually the phrase), while 30% are in the 'long overdue' crowd, with 11% not sure.

Again, the regions are interesting. BC is the most sick and tired of it at 67%, while surprisingly Quebec ranks highest in 'long overdue' at 35%.

And that's what DJ! and others have been saying: Fuck the debate. There is no point.

Official Radical Handmaids' Drinking Game

Get ready for September 21, when Woodworth's Wank, aka The Debate on When the State Takes over Your Uterus, gets its second hour of debate.

I want to add under 'take a sip' -- 'womb'.

Further suggestions and cocktail recipes welcome.

Image source.

Link to larger version.

Juxtapose!

What the whistler whistles.

[September 5, 2012] Woodworth maintains that M-312 is not about abortion but fact-finding, and that Parliament should act on whatever evidence was presented by medical and scientific experts.

What the dogs hear.

September 10, 2012 – Motion 312 is recognized by many as having direct implications for the status quo on abortion in Canada.

Just so we're clear.

Open Letter to Pro- and Anti-M312 MPs

I've been having stupid conversations on Twitter about Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312.

I've been asking for days now 'which expert witnesses would pro M312 people like MPs to hear from?'

No takers, unsurprisingly.

Just now in a spat about 'bias' in science and 'irrelevant scientific facts', I asked who then would decide which facts were relevant. MPs?

Like Maurice Vellacott?

Got this answer.

@fernhilldammit @jjhippie @libertylover555The special committee that would be formed under #m312, who would hear all Cdns. #prolife

— Promac (@DVCMAC) July 6, 2012

I'm trying to correct the dunderhead about 'all Canadians' not being qualified experts in the 'modern' science Woodwank is supposedly trying to bring to bear.

We know how successful that will be. . .

And now we come to the Open Letters part.

Dear MPs who would like to debate when women's rights become abrogated for those of the fetus:

Do some homework over the summer. Come prepared with names of experts you would like to hear from.

Such lists wouldn't be binding of course, just examples.

We at DJ! will help. Do NOT choose experts from these BAD (biased, agenda-driven) Science outfits or your whole 'this has NOTHING to do with abortion' meme will be revealed for the BS it is.

You're welcome.


Dear MPs who see this ploy as a total waste of time intended solely to reopen the settled matter of abortion:

Please acquaint yourselves with the above practitioners of BAD Science to better howl down the fetus fetishists.

You're welcome too.

Bloviatin' on the CBC

Yesterday morning on the Sunday Edition, Michael Enright bloviated on the Abortion Debate (starting at 3:23, running to 7:25).

I made some notes:

Parliament is a house of debate, highest temple of debate in the country

Parliament should be able to debate on any subject

Bertha Wilson

Abortion is the most divisive, radioactive in US politics, we don't want this here

Parliament should debate any and all ideas

Limiting debate would reduce the power of Parliament, democracy itself

I was yelling at him throughout. Well, except at the very end about reducing the power of Parliament when I snorted tea out my nose.

M. Enright has drunk the KoolAid. Let's straighten him out, shall we?

Alternatively, there's a place for comments -- which are public after all -- here.

Damn. I just commented there, but didn't copy it first and now it's in 'pre-moderation' limbo. I'll come back with it, if/when it is approved.

h/t Niles

ADDED: CBC allowed my comment.

Really, Michael?

Parliament should be able to debate everything? Including Woodworth's disingenuous attempt to muddy the distinction between biological human and legal person with the sole purpose of recriminalizing abortion?

Parliament should debate the curtailing of some people's rights?

Because that's what this is about. Endowing fetuses with rights deprives women, aka incubators in this view, of their rights to autonomy.

This is known as a zero-sum game.

Let's have Parliament debate the rights of bloviating, entitled old CBC hacks to sully my morning with ill-considered baloney, shall we?

They See Dead Fetuses

So, maybe this Debate about the Debate hasn't been a total waste of time. There have been some illuminating moments.

Like this one into the pretzelly mind of SUZYALLCAPSLOCK.

A-yup. We in Culture of Death® want to kill fetuses. We want fetuses DEAD DEAD DEAD.

It's aaalll about the fetuses.

No thought of the woman. Let alone 'for' the woman. The woman whose sole thought is 'Make this go away.'

This is why we won't debate them.

They are insane.

Just say 'no', Canada

So, last night on Twitter, SUZYALLCAPSLOCK, as @roseblue, was squatting on the #M312 (Woodworth's Wank) hashtag in a prolonged fit of echolalia, obsessively repeating her mantra: 'It is *so* human. It's a fact.' Over and over and over again.

I got a little annoyed and decided to post links to Canadian Cynic's scathing take-down of her endorsement this past January of a USian hit list for abortion providers. SHE thinks we should have one here too. I thought that maybe people on the fence on M312 ('what's the harm in discussing when life begins?') might be interested in the sort of person who is fanatically in favour of it. And, in particular, what a lying, eliminationist nutbar SHE is.

By the way, I think desperation is setting in to the pro-M312 camp as they realize the truth of what Chantal Hébert said on May 11. They are going to lose. Big. Time.

A defeat this time — at the hands of the most socially-conservative friendly majority government in decades — would be a crushing blow to the anti-abortion cause.

It could be construed as its biggest setback since the Supreme Court ruling.

Given the active opposition of the prime minister to the motion, it would likely put the issue to rest at least in Parliament and, if not for all time, at least for the rest of his term in office.

This morning it dawned on me that today is the *third* anniversary of the assassination of Dr George Tiller. A man who had been targetted and hit-listed by the very group behind the new hit list SHE endorses. His murderer was, in fact, aided by a member of Operation ReScum.

What do we call that again? Oh yeah. Terrorism enabling.

While we in Canada have our insane fetus fetishists, overall we are not nearly as nutz as the US.

And we are not nutz because, well, we're Canadian, but also because abortion is a settled matter here.

Settled. As in, been there, done that.

No abortion doctors or clinics have been attacked here for years and years.

Let's keep it that way. Don't let the terrorism enablers have a platform for their hate and insanity.

Fuck the debate.

Finally. Fetushist Speaks the Truth

After ignoring my straightforward question on Twitter on why we need Woodworth's Wank, then side-stepping with non sequiturs about the 'law reflecting truth', SUZYALLCAPSLOCK comes clean.

The sole purpose of M312 is to recriminalize abortion.

OK? We're clear on that?

(SUZY has me blocked which, I've just found out, disallows me from linking to her statuses and embedding her tweets. Yay! Full and fair exchange of ideas! Thus, screenshot. [I have more.])

BONUS: The galloping idiocy this whole schmozzle is generating is too much for smartypantses to resist. Yay! JJ, the unrepentant is back on the beat.

Would You Debate Nelson Muntz?

On Twittter, JJ, The Unrepentant Hippie and I are discussing @BerthaWilsonMtn.

@fernhilldammit I wonder if @BerthaWilsonMtn will brainlessly mimic hashtag #fetuswhipped #M312 Hahahahaha #BrainDamage

— JJ (@jjhippie) May 26, 2012

He (? let's assume it's a he) mimics what Sane People tweet about Woodworth's Wank (M312) and changes the link.

Hahahaha. Knee-slapping funny, if you are an eight-year-old boy.

We shouldn't be surprised. The whole 'Bertha Wilson Motion' thing is a typical repurposing of clever pro-choice messages by imagination-challenged fetus fetishists.

He's got a particular fascination with deBeauxOs and moi. Here he claims the entire anti-M312 argument is based on one scathingly tongue-in-cheek tweet by dBO, which he had already taken issue with.

There's a screenshot of her tweet which I grabbed.

This week’s LOL Award (Lack of Logic or Laugh out Loud…your choice) goes to this nice little anonymous lady(deBeauxOs) that speaks tough, well, because she is anonymous…and because, you know, when you are trying to influence government and you don’t have a shred of logic…you post “intelligent” comments that really advance your argument…and demonstrate your ability to debate issues and influence public opinion.

For those who are unaware, necrophilia is sexual attraction to corpses.

It takes an amazing sick mind, and probably a supporter of the NDP, to even suggest that there is any similarity between necrophilia and this.

In the meantime, this is what is actually lobbying government.

Oh, sorry…deBeauxOs doesn’t actually lobby government..you have to be a REAL person to do that.

The account is just an anonymous RoboDrone.

No wonder they are afraid to debate.  We would be too if this is the best we could muster.

LOL.

All that's missing is an armpit fart and a Ha! Ha!.

Go leave him some love. Since April 11 the blog has garnered only eleven comments total.

Successful Lawless Abortion

Amdist all the yammering about Woodworth's Wank (aka M312, or #M312 on Twitter), the question that still hasn't been answered is 'WHY?'

Why do we need to reexamine this issue?

As JJ points out, things ain't broke.

I don't think #fetushists get how hard it would be to justify a new law after 24 years of outrageously successful #LawlessAbortion #m312

— JJ (@jjhippie) May 26, 2012

(Doncha just love #LawlessAbortion? Make it trend!)

The only non-glurgey hemi-demi-semi-quasi reason the Wankers can come up with is that the law is based on an old definition of 'human being', which in this context -- the Criminal Code, mind -- equals 'person'.

Old. That's all they got.

Let's help them here. Some old laws are bad. But they're bad not because they're old but because there have been scientific or social developments. Or they're bad because they are inefficient, slow, cumbersome, expensive, etc.

Have there been scientific developments in 400 years? Of course.

Do they affect human reproduction? Yep. It's much safer. A little understanding of germ theory goes a long way in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality.

But apart from some technological tinkering, reproduction is still pretty much egg meets sperm and we're off! Until it stops or is stopped.

Biology, aka sex and reproduction, pace Dean Del Mastrobato, hasn't changed in 400 years.

Have there been social developments? Yep. But none -- such as women's rights, LGBT rights -- that works to the Wankers' advantage here.

So, is this 'old' law bad because it's slow or expensive or wasteful or just plain stoopid?

I haven't seen any arguments along those lines.

Nope. That's it. That's all they got.

Old.

And maybe it hasn't been changed in 400 years because it's straightforward and practical. You know -- successful.

Debate These Liars?

Not only is Maurice Vellacott -- like all fetus fetishists -- an opportunistic creep, he is also a lying liar.

From his press release:

Scientific research is revealing an ever-younger age at which children in the womb feel pain. Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into fetal pain. He has testified that a child in the womb could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier.” (“Pro-Lifers Welcome First Fetal Pain Abortion Ban Lawsuit,” LifeNews.com, Sept. 1, 2011)

Note tenses: present, present, past.

I'd never heard of the fellow despite having been on the Bad Science of Fetal Pain beat for quite a while.

So I googled 'Steven Zielinski fetal pain' and got this featuring a flock of fetus fetishist sites with nary a credible source in sight.

Next, Google Scholar.

On the first page, I see only three citations -- all from the mid 1980s.

And that 'has testified'? Look. 1986.

Next, google for 'Steven Zielinksi'. Lots of them. Only one I could find is a doctor from Oregon.

Dr. Steven Zielinski specializes in internal medicine and legal medicine in Umatilla, Oregon.

'Legal medicine'? New jargon for 'whoring for the Fetus Lobby'?

That look like a 'leading researcher into fetal pain' to you? Making important discoveries in the present tense? Or the present century?

Now, consult a real scientist. P.Z. Myers explains fetal brain development.

Past sins by MV on that sciency-facty stuff here.

Why We Won't Debate (Part Umpty-Three)

Because they lie. They distort. They dissemble. They move goalposts.

And they cheat.

That CBC 'unscientific' poll is running now at about 64% in favour of reopening the abortion debate.

Yeah. Right.

As opposed to a scientific poll from May 2010.

In the lead up to the G-8 and G-20 summits to be held in Muskoka and Toronto, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s maternal-health plan for under-privileged countries and his refusal to include access and funding of abortions in the plan has once again raised the issue of abortion in Canada. By passing a unanimous motion calling on the Prime Minister to end its ambiguity on the subject, the members of the National Assembly of Quebec have brought attention to the fact that since 1988 Canada has been without a law that regulates abortion.

A new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global Television has revealed that only one in three (34%) Canadians believe that the federal government should ‘reopen the issue of abortion’. In fact, nearly one half (46%) think that the federal government should just ‘leave things as they are’, and two in ten (17%) ‘don’t care one way or the other’, while 3% don’t know.

And they believe their own bullshit.

Here's SUZY, with a small correction by me. Plain text because SHE plays silly buggers with linkies.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2012/05/canadian-pro-life-movement-will-not-die.html

There's one thing people forget about pro-lifers: what they lack in numbers they make up for in determination dishonesty.

Remember the Great Canadian Wish List contest in 2007? How is it that in a country where legal abortion garners the support of the large majority of Canadians, pro-lifers were able to win that contest, even though they are outnumbered?

Oh yeah, we remember the dumbass Great Canadian Wish List. Fetus fetishists freeped the hell out of it and BRAGGED about doing so.

We at DJ! say: Keep it up.

In the Excited States, the constant yammering necessary to the War on Women is backfiring. USians who view abortion as morally wrong number below 50% for the first time.

And as commenter Mercedes says here, there may be another unintended consequence.

The latter [reopening the abortion debate], however, is something that can become a boon for women.  A generation of youth who hadn't been exposed to the nuances and implications of the anti-abortion agenda before has been swayed somewhat by emotional arguments during the years of non-debate, while the public (not saying the ARCC [Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada] of course, but the public at large) had been largely afraid to speak about reproductive rights.  It's no longer a question of whether we people are comfortable talking about reproductive rights, and this new generation can be shown why "personhood" can impact IVF or contraception as well as how the agenda could negatively affect women in ways that Canadians have largely not experienced for some time. This is what started to turn the debate around in the US, and it's an opportunity to turn the debate around here while there has not yet been major legislative onslaughts (although there have been pushes against funding, which is probably where the focus will turn after M-312).

It's important to not simply counter this motion, but to keep countering the rhetoric that is certain to persist afterward.

And not just the rhetoric. The persistent and pervasive dishonesty of anti-choicers.

Yo! Margaret! (Somerville)

Margaret Somerville is a pearl-clutching dissembler and distorter. (But you knew that.)

In yet another screed railing against Canada's lawlessness on abortion, first she offers the Baby Seals Gambit, with a bit of a new pretzelly brain twist.

Legal protection does not require giving rights to an unborn child, or recognizing him or her as a person, or even that the child is human. We use the Criminal Code to protect from cruelty kittens and puppies and baby seals, which have none of these attributes. Surely, we have at least similar obligations to unborn children.

Legal protection does ^NOT entail rights? Huh? What does it entail then?

Next, the Fetal Pain BS.

There is an increasing recognition and, at the least, resulting deep concern that past a certain point in gestation abortion is a cause of severe pain for the fetus. There is quality evidence (U.K. research) suggesting the beginnings of pain perception in the fetus at 16 weeks gestation and most researchers agree that is a reality at 20 weeks.

BLAAAAT. Nope.

Real scientists agree that the fetal brain is simply not developed enough until about 28 weeks' gestation.

A more recent and very interesting study suggests that fetuses cannot differentiate between pain and touch until perhaps as late as 35 to 37 weeks. Very shortly before birth, in other words.

Next, the Conflation of 'Human Being' and 'Legal Person' Shuffle.

Then the No Restrictions/Regulations SHRIEEEEK.

(I can't believe I'm going to quote a CON to refute that one.)

Gordon O'Connor giving the government's response to Woodworth's Wank last week.

This does not mean, however, that abortion is unregulated in Canada. Abortion is regulated through provincial governments' responsibility for the delivery of health care services in conjunction with the medical profession. All provincial and territorial colleges of physicians and surgeons have declared that abortion is a medically necessary procedure, and delivery of this medical service is regulated accordingly.

Hey, Margaret, I can keep this up as long as you can. But why can't I get paid to do it?

Wolf at the Door, Blades at Our Backs.

Re: the dust-up between Progressive Bloggers and what became Real Canadian Progressives.

I must have read this from Montreal Simon at the time but didn't keep up with the comments -- all 39 of them.

Tonight I read this great analogy from DJ!'s own Niles.

Mr Simon, no one blames you for wanting harmony inside the cave when the wolf is at the door. Trouble is, some inside the cave started talking about amputating part of a woman's personhood to throw out to the wolf because it wasn't like actually throwing out all of her to be eaten.



Except, those in the cave, especially the women, had seen that happen to other women in caves further south, only to watch more and more womanly person parts get tossed out the door to the wolf and many women could remember their aunts and grandmothers getting tossed out bodily and bloodily to the wolf.

Meanwhile, the cave owners decided such talk of expendable parts was ok for the cave population's intellectual entertainment, never mind what the parable forewarned and anyway, it wasn't as if the hunters would be affected. The women could just stick around the cave more and learn to deal with their restrictions.



So, when those who were looking at amputation said to themselves, 'we can face the wolf but we can't face the wolf *and* the sharp knives at our backs, it's time to find a new cave, no matter how risky it is' and the response was in essence 'typical selfish wussies for not wanting to hear the logic of how amputation will keep the wolf happy for an hour or so' fresh air sounded like a really good idea.



That said, I never came to your site from PB. I got here via links and blogrolls from many of the now ex-cavers and I found some of them off your links after I found I enjoyed your stuff and trusted your opinions (btw: 'allo to the M. Sebastien). I -coff- first saw the aggregator during all this spelunking. Guess I'm really behind the times, eh?

We say again: Women's rights always seem to be negotiable, optional frills.

No more.

Woodworth's Wank: The ARPA Connection

As we reported yesterday, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) is behind the new player in the Undebate, We Need a Law (that link is to its Myths page; go read).

Also yesterday -- the day of WNAL's launch -- the legal counsel for ARPA, André Schutten opined at LifeShite on the usual blacks, women, and Jews weren't considered human either BS.

Now, since ARPA has been of great assistance to DJ! in ferreting shit out in the past, we decided to look some more.

And we found stuff!

There is a cool page at the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada where one can find out who is lobbying whom.

A search for ARPA revealed this.

On February 3, March 3, and March 27, 2012, ARPA's Executive Director, Mark Penninga, lobbied CON MPs Rod Bruinooge, Mark Warawa (three times), Rob Clarke, and Brad Trost, plus Senator Gerry St. Germain and Liberal MP John McKay.

Bruinooge, Trost, and McKay are well-known fetus fetishists. Campaign Lie rates Clarke as unknown. It doesn't rate Senators, so St. Germain's views are unknown.

So who is this Mark Warawa who merited three visits -- once seemingly just for him? Campaign Lie is still evaluating his status on fetus fetishism.

I think they can upgrade him now.

MP Woodworth Bill 312 was debated today. Motion is to look at scientific evidence re when does unborn child become Human. I will vote yes

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) April 26, 2012

So, over three occasions, ARPA lobbied three known FFs, three unknown and seems to have influenced at least one on this project -- if, indeed, that was the purpose of Penninga's trip.

An odd use of time, wouldn't you think?

Lobbying back-benchers, a senator, and a Liberal.

The search result returned only those 7 reports from this year.
I wondered how to search further back and found nothing useful. For comparison purposes, I searched for 'Canadian Medical Association'. Woo. Found 337 reports going back to July 2008.

Makes ARPA look like pikers in the lobbying department with only 7 reports.

What are they up to? Stay tuned.

Brought to You by Dominionists: 'We Need a Law'

[ADDED May 27/12: Attention, visitors from NatPo, check this out.]


There's a new player in the UnDebate, or, Woodworth's Wank.

Tada! Unleashed today, We Need a Law (Like a Hole in the Head). Its tagline is 'preborn human rights'.

Here's its glurge-filled media release.

The site was created on January 18, so this has been in the works for a while.

The front man is Mike Schouten of Surrey, BC. An interesting career fetus fetishist/Dominionist.

He ran as a Christian Heritage Party candidate in the last federal election.

I didn't know this. The CHP called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

The federal Christian Heritage Party is calling for a national moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries to curb increasing radical Islamist power in Canada.

Mike Schouten, CHP candidate for South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, admits his party's stance on this issue will likely result in charges of racism. But he says it's about protecting Canadian values as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"This issue, because of the climate of political correctness, is not allowed to be talked about," Schouten noted.

Shocker! He didn't win.

On January 26 this year, it was reported that he parted company with CHP (emphasis mine).

Cloverdale’s Mike Schouten has parted ways with the Christian Heritage Party, handing in his party membership earlier this month.

As the CHP’s candidate for South Surrey - White Rock - Cloverdale in the 2010 federal election, Schouten came in sixth out of nine, with 429 votes.

He told Black Press he did a lot of soul-searching after the campaign, wondering if his “gifts and talents were well used in a political setting.”
. . .
Schouten says his parting with the CHP is amicable. He left because he has another opportunity to concentrate more on the pro-life cause that is his primary concern than he did within the CHP.

His letter to the editor, “Gay lobbyists forcing ideology on youth,” (Cloverdale Reporter, June 3, 2010), which lamented the “hijacking of local anti-bullying campaigns by homosexual advocates,” and referred to homosexuality as a “completely unnatural lifestyle,” drew criticism from other readers.

And he's a fairly regular commenter at ProWoman, ProLie.

More googling. And we find some more stuff.

Schouten (plus, one presumes, relatives Jody and Doug) are aaaallll over the Association for Reformed Political Action.

Regular readers here will remember ARPA, yes? It's where we found that little nugget of info about Tim Hudak pledging to defund abortion.

Here's a sample contribution from Schouten at the ARPA site.

It’s time Canadians stood up to the bullying of the homosexual community. Their militant efforts to force all of us to not only tolerate but to accept and even celebrate their choice to practise a completely unnatural lifestyle needs to be stopped!

Aaaaand now, the REVEAL

Mike Schouten, from Cloverdale BC, was also able to share with the ARPA reps about an exciting new campaign that he plans to lead, under the direction of ARPA Canada, starting May 1st.

So that's who is behind We Need a Law Like a Hole in the head.

ARPA's mission.

The mission of ARPA Canada is to educate, equip, and encourage Reformed Christians to political action and to shine the light of God’s Word to Canada’s municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

A bunch of racist, homophobic, misogynist gord-botherers who want to take over all levels of government.

We clear on that?

Okey-dokey, then.