Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Bill: The E-Petition

In December last year, Canada's government acknowledged the power of the Intertoobz and started allowing e-petitions. They need to be sponsored by an MP and if they get 500 signatures, can be tabled in Parliament.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada yesterday initiated an e-petition against Bill C225 (full text of bill), "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)," with its glurgy nickname, "Cassie and Molly's Law."

Or as we call it: the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (WISC) bill.

English version

French version

PDF backgrounder on ARCC's reasons for opposing C225.

The main reason to oppose it is the usual: it is yet another backdoor attempt to restrict abortion, with the ultimate goal of putting pregnant people under the microscope of the law. Such laws elsewhere have had the effect of criminalizing pregnancy -- in the US, sending dozens of women, largely poor and people of colour, to prison for the crimes of miscarriage, attempted suicide, or substance abuse while pregnant.

It is also a "personhood" law, conferring on a fetus rights that WILL compete with those of the incubator, er, pregnant person.

And if you need further evidence of its intended narsty effects, ALL the fetus freak groups support it.

At ARCC, there is also a resources page listing other actions to take, like signing a paper petition, a sample letter to your MP, and a list of groups opposed to C225.

On March 22, fetus freaks started an e-petition in support of WISC. It currently has 4402 signatures, 31 from "other countries."

The ARCC petition now has 88 signatures, broken down by province/territory. There are none yet from any of the territories or from PEI.

Let's get on this, digital citizens. It's fast and easy. Please sign, then tweet, Facebook, and generally promote it on social media.

Here's the link again in plain text for easy copying:
https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-381



Previous DJ! posts on the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing bill:
Dead as a Door Nail

Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights

Vengeance Drives "Unborn Victims" Law

It's Baaaack: Unborn Victims Bill C484 Redux

Nope, This "Pre-born Victims Bill Won't Pass Either

Nope. This "Preborn" Victims Law Won't Pass Either

I'm loath to get into this one again, as it drives people cuckoo-bananas, but this is my beat and this story is part of it.

Just about a year ago, we reported on the fallout from a brutal murder of a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of her fetus.

That fallout was a petition titled "Molly Matters: Reconsider and Pass Bill C-484."

Ken Epp's private member's bill C-484, or "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," was hugely problematic, as it sought to redefine a fetus as a person for the purpose of adding another murder charge.

It was, simply, a "personhood law", and therefore unsupportable by reproductive rights proponents.

Personhood laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception.

Personhood laws criminalize abortion with no exception, and also ban many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and health care for pregnant women. Personhood laws also increase an already dangerous trend of criminalizing pregnancy, by mandating that women who terminate a pregnancy be arrested, prosecuted, and even imprisoned because of the supposed injury done to a separate “person”—namely, the fetus. So-called fetal homicide laws are already being used in many states to arrest and prosecute women who miscarry pregnancies or are otherwise seen as “harming” the fetus.

In short, "personhood laws" do nothing to protect women or fetuses, but DO create a premise to criminalize contraception, abortion, and pregnancy itself.

Yesterday, a new private member's bill attempting to accomplish the same end as C-484 was announced. Here's the press release.

Note that the murdered woman is referred to as "Cassie" only and her full name, Cassandra Kaake, is never mentioned.

I can't find the text of the bill online yet except for this anti-choice site.

Note the language. "Unborn" from C-484 has been replaced by "preborn."

1 This Act may be cited as the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law).


2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

Definition of preborn child

238.‍1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.

Beyond the language and the erasure of Ms Kaake, there are some other MASSIVE flags here.

First, the proponent of the bill is MP Cathay Waganall, who has a "perfect" anti-choice record according to Campaign Lie.

Next, the accompanying FAQ document, in trying to slither around anticipated pro-choice objections, gets into some weird territory.

Such as equating fetuses with animals and property, albeit NOT animals or property presently encased in a living person's uterus.

If the fetus is not a “human being” or “person,” then how can you create an offence for killing it?

Not being recognized as a human being under the Criminal Code does not mean that a preborn child does not deserve some protection under the law. The criminal law can be used to protect entities other than what is covered under the Criminal Code’s definition of ‘human being.’ For example, the Criminal Code has laws against animal cruelty and the unlawful killing and injury of animals (sections 444-446). It also has protections against the destruction of private property.

We at DJ! have no problem with legislation to protect pregnant women from assault, especially since it is reported that for 1 in 6 abused women, the abuse began during pregnancy.

But a vengeance-driven law focussed on the "preborn" promoted by fetus fetishists intended to be twisted to attack reproductive rights is not the way to do it.



ADDED: CBC story.

ADDED March 4/16: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's position paper (pdf). Hint: Nope.

Redefinitions

In case you missed it, here's the Tea Party gaffe du jour (video at link).

Senate Candidate and Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) told a local television station on Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin cited conversations with unnamed doctors for the bizarre claim.

Twitter went batzoid. In my opinion, Kaili Joy Gray won the Intertoobz with:

Pregnancy is just a woman's way of consenting retroactively.

(By the way, here's a real sciencey paper on rape related pregnancy, a brief history of politicians' use of this canard, and a history of the BAD (biased, agenda-driven) science behind it.)

While Akin issued a statement later saying he'd 'misspoken', he did not retract the claim.

Why would he? He believes it. He was also co-sponsor -- with VP candidate Paul Ryan -- of the attempt to redefine 'forcible rape'.

Akin belongs to a church called the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and hold a Masters in Divinity from its college.

A 2001 PCA report on the prospect of women serving in combat positions in the military, titled "Man's Duty to Protect Woman," states, "woman is the weaker sex and part of her weakness is the vulnerability attendant to her greatest privilege-that God has made her the 'Mother of all the living.' Men are to guard and protect her as she carries in her womb, gives birth to, and nurses her children." 

Yes, that was written in 2001, not 1001.

In its lengthy position papers on abortion, the PCA has made clear that what it claims are biblical prohibitions on abortion should take precedence over any other law, because of its views on the separation of church and state.

But there's more. Not only is he a proud Dominionist, he's linked to a batshitcrazier branch of it -- Christian Supremacists.

So what? you're thinking. The US is full of religious nuts.

Thing is, we got 'em here too. Maybe not as many, but in prominent and influential positions.

Look what Dave at the Galloping Beaver wrote in 2008.

And they're still at it. In fact, one of the Astroturf groups backing Woodworth's Wank is a project of one of these gangs.

Here's their avowed 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.

Think Woodworth's Wank is merely a typical mealy-mouthed Canadian effort to have a civilized 'discussion'?

Think again. Not only is Woody's Wank authored by a member of an older theocracy, it is enthusiastically supported by exactly the same kind of nutters as Todd Akin.

In the US, Dominionists want to redefine 'rape'. In Canada, Dominionists just want to redefine 'person'.

BONUS: Amy Davidson at the New Yorker. Excellent deconstruction.

Unicorns and Fetuses

I've just discovered Lynn Beisner*, by way of Steph Herold.

Why the Christian Right Is Wrong about Abortion

I learned a dirty little secret in Bible college: It is easier to prove the existence of unicorns by using the Bible than it is to establish the personhood of a fetus. In fact, it is so hard to make a case against abortion using Christian scripture that for decades most Evangelicals did not even try. Instead, their leaders were silent on the issue or told their followers that abortion was part of the larger feminist agenda to destroy families.

So what changed?

A deal was made.

We know from those who were present at the birth of the Christian Right that it was actually a series of horse-trades by powerful men in conservative religious groups. Each group came with its own non-negotiable agenda and problems with the agendas of others. Catholics demanded that any alliance they joined must back the Pope’s edict against abortion, but Evangelicals were resistant since there was not enough in the Bible about fetuses to support a ban on abortion. Evangelicals, on the other hand, needed an unfettered capitalist market to perpetuate their dominance, and that ran afoul of the Catholic Church’s teachings about economic and social justice. Catholics agreed to down-play the issue of social justice (which is why Nuns on the Bus is such a problem), and Evangelicals agreed to take an anti-abortion stance despite the lack of Biblical support for it.

She goes on to say that many Evangelical Christians lack in 'biblical literacy' (not too surprising when one considers their regular literacy) and don't know that there is so little support in the bible for fetal personhood.

She thinks they can be persuaded to abandon the personhood movement and are, in fact, looking for an 'escape clause'.

The one problem that I can foresee is that the Biblical teaching about personhood does not come in one easily quotable package. But if gay rights leaders could find a way of countering the passages in the Bible which are explicitly anti-homosexual, we can counter the incredibly weak and nebulous Biblical arguments against reproductive rights. It is up to the witty writers of our movement to craft succinct and even humorous arguments that will go viral across social media.

I don't know if we have enough fundies in Canada to make this tactic worthwhile. I've always been told that a basic difference between USian and Canadian fetus fascists is that theirs are predominantly Evangelical while ours are Catholic.

But I know a witty writer who's got the feminist, Christian, socialist chops to pull it off.

Go read the whole thing.



*Lynn Beisner is a pseudonym. Read about her life in 'I wish my mother had aborted me'.

UPDATE: Luna turns in her homework and a dandy read it is too.

Dishonesty

Woodworth's Wank has been insultingly dishonest from the get-go.

As JJ said:

Pro-#M312: if you'd just come out from the start & said what u really wanted (#personhood), I could have respected that. But u had to lie

— JJ (@jjhippie) August 16, 2012

.@fernhilldammit Exactly. Had they been honest, I'd have disagreed but would have respected their democratic right to pursue that end #M312

— JJ (@jjhippie) August 16, 2012

But no. Woody thought he was sooooo clever. Faffing about with talk of a '400-year old law' that needed 'modernizing' with input from experts.

If they were serious about imprecise, antiquated language, there is a simple fix as JJ has pointed out repeatedly on Twitter. In sec. 223 of the Criminal Code change 'human being' to 'person'. There. Problem solved.


But no. Because while SHRIEEEKING (as usual for Fetus Fascists) that their cute little ploy had nothing zip zero nada rien to do with abortion, it is about if not personhood then about gestational limits to abortion.

The ploy itself is a lie. And the ensuing 'campaign' has been a laff riot.

Why Lifesite would choose to publish this less-than-encouraging data at the height of the battle of words & wits over Motion 312 is a mystery.  But then again, why not: it’s in line with the haphazard and utterly clueless way the rest of the M312 campaign has been run, a confused and riotous crusade of Twitterspam, fetusmobiles, inconsistencies, transparent lies and general dumbness.  For an initiative thought by some to be the last kick at the anti-abortion can for a long, long time, the ineptitude of its handling has been breathtaking to behold.

And fun to watch.  Did I mention fun to watch?

They could have salvaged some cred by -- as I relentlessly asked -- offering up some examples of experts MPs should hear from should M312 pass.

Fumbled that ball too.

While JJ finds it fun to watch -- and it has been -- I'm getting really bored. (Betcha regular DJ! readers hit that wall months ago.)

It's soon over. The second and final hour of 'debate' is on September 21, with the vote on September 26.

How big will the FAIL WHALE be? According to ARCC, there are 108 anti-choice MPs. Those among that number with any political sense or ambition in Stevie Spiteful's caucus are booking dental appointments for September 26 as we speak.

How many will be left? I'm thinking Woody will be lucky to get 70 yeas.

What do you think?

Personhood: 'Against Science & Scripture'

Yay! I got an answer to my question: 'What experts would pro-Wankers propose MPs listen to on prebornchildology if M312 passes?

This morning I noticed that SUZY said:

‪@j_tick‬ ‪@fernhilldammit‬ Scott Gilbert. I think he'd come up to Canada to give his information. ‪#M312‬

Note lack of helpful link for a quite common name.

I googled and hit this as most likely, but alas it has no linkie either.

Biologist Scott Gilbert, an expert in human development, tells us that there are at least four distinct moments that can be thought of as the beginning of human life. Each can be said to be biologically accurate.

Googled some more and found this.

Professor Gilbert received his B.A. in both biology and religion from Wesleyan University (1971), and he earned his Ph.D. in biology from the pediatric genetics laboratory of Dr. Barbara Migeon at the Johns Hopkins University (1976). His M.A. in the history of science, also from The Johns Hopkins University, was done under the supervision of Dr. Donna Haraway.

Seems likely, eh? Real credentials in appropriate fields even.

More google and then this article by the good professsor from last year on the occasion of the thundering defeat of the personhood initiative in the Mississippi election.

In 2007, the Legionaries of Christ, one of the most conservative Catholic orders, asked me to speak about the question Mississippi voters confronted this week: When does personhood begin? I was surprised at the invitation because, as an embryologist and historian of biology, I had written that there was no scientific consensus on this issue.

He then lists the various points at which religious and non-religious people have speculated 'life' begins.

Sounding good for the fetus fetishists, eh?

Oh-oh.

The conclusion.

Still other biologists contend that only birth itself makes us physically distinct individuals, independent of maternal physiology. The anatomy of our heart, lungs, and blood vessels changes at our first breath.

This, interestingly, is where the Bible claims personhood originates. Genesis 9:6 says that one who murders a man must himself be destroyed. But Exodus 21:22 says a man who causes a woman to miscarry is not to be put to death, but rather should pay a fine. In the Bible, personhood is a birthright.

The advocates of "zygote rights" - who plan to pursue measures in several other states following their Mississippi defeat - are going against both science and Scripture. It is a dangerous thing to equate a fertilized egg with an adult human. It not only makes the zygote like the person; it makes the person like the zygote. As less than half of normal human conceptions make it to term, most zygotes don't become babies. Zygotes can be cheap, and human life never should be.

Weeks after I started asking about experts, Chief Fetus Fetishist comes up with ONE.

And -- surprise! -- he's NOT on HER side.



UPDATE: Apparently that was a (weird) fetus fascist joke.

Suzanne Fortin ‏@Roseblue

@fernhilldammit Haha. I knew you'd fall for that. #M312 #cdnpoli

I don't geddit. He has exactly the right sort of credentials to speak to the subject.

MORE UPDATE: I still don't geddit.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2012/08/why-does-this-poor-choicer-think-scott.html

But SHE does admit that when life begins is merely an opinion, NOT as SHE has been screeching on Twitter a Fact.

The article also does not give Scott Gilbert's opinion on when life begins. And it is his opinion that will matter when he testifies in Parliament (assuming he would come to Canada for this purpose.)

SHE says he's staunchly 'pro-abortion' so I think we know his opinion.

Today in M312 News

I started the conversation here. I reported on the first reply from the author of Woodworth's Wank, aka M312, here and what I thought would be the end of it here.

But no. There's more. From today's email:

I`m sorry that you find an honest attempt to initiate an evidence based dialogue about the important implications of a law which deems to be non-human children who are in all likelihood as humans as you and I to be insulting. Rest assured that I do not consider scientifically descriptive evidence of the development of a child to be a "circus", regardless of what might occur elsewhere.   I simply believe we all have a grave and clear duty of conscientious objection when faced by a law like subsection 223(1) which constitutes an assault on the principle of universal human rights.

My staff apologizes for the typographical error which you so importantly noted.

Typical Con, eh? Superiority, condescension, snark, and blame shifting. Some crappy sentence structure to boot.

I am leaving the conversation here.

In other M312-related news, there's a new arrow in the fetus fetishists' quiver. Yet another website pressing the 'personhood' gambit.

But like the zygote zealots yipping on Twitter and blogs, this gang didn't get the memo about M312 NOT being about abortion atall atall.

Look what adorns its Contact your MP page.

The usual headless, featureless incubator with the All Important Fetus.


And look who holds the copyright. A gang called Life Issues Institute. Surprise! It's USian!

We don't want this BS in Canada. Contact your MP and tell her or him that.

FFS, Stop Lying

Over at SUZYALLCAPSLOCK's Fetal Pr0n Gore Fest, the top three categories/tags are prolife, abortion, and fetal rights. So maybe it's just a twitch when SHE tags nearly all HER tweets about Woodworth's Wank, aka M312, aka The When Does a Blob of Tissue's Rights Outweigh the Incubator's Rights Motion with #fetalrights.

Right? Just an automatic typing twitch. SHE's feeling revved and types #fetalrights because it feels gooooood.

Because M312 is NOT about abortion.

Right?

Let's look into fetal rights.

Much opposition to legal abortion in the West is based on a concern for fetal rights. Similarly many pro-choice groups oppose fetal rights, even when they do not impinge directly on the abortion issue, because they perceive this as a slippery slope strategy to restricting abortions.

Oh dear. 'Fetal rights' and 'abortion' together right there. Also. 'Slippery slope'.

Last night, SHE tweeted:

SHE has me blocked like most of the gutless yobs who are whining for the Debate, but block anyone who comes back with facts or uncomfortable questions. Also, being blocked is a ginormous pain in the butt. I can't retweet, can't embed, can't expand the conversation, i.e. see the context...

I replied:

@roseblue: Examples of countries 'recognizing' #fetalrights without affecting abortion, please? #M312

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) July 27, 2012

I've repeated it at least three times since and it's been retweeted a few times too.

There's been no reply.

So, again I do the fetus fetishists' research for them. Back to wiki.
I found four countries that have enshrined fetal rights in law: some US states, Iran, Ireland, and Germany. The case in Germany is a bit twisty.

In 1993, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held that the constitution guaranteed a right to life from conception, but that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester, providing that women agreed to undergo special counselling designed to discourage termination and "protect unborn life".[citation needed] The intermediate decision was the result of an attempt to join East Germany's abortion law to that of West Germany after reunification in 1990.

Ireland is no surprise. The case in Iran is also a bit twisty.

And we know how fetal rights play out in the US. In the ipso facto criminalization of pregnancy.

Under the heading 'Behavioral intervention', wiki says:

No U.S. state has enacted a law which criminalizes specific behavior during pregnancy, but, nonetheless, it has been estimated that at least 200 American women have been criminally prosecuted or arrested under existing child abuse statutes for allegedly bringing about harm in-utero through their conduct during pregnancy. Reasons for pressing charges included use of illicit drugs, consumption of alcohol, and failure to comply with a doctor's order of bedrest or caesarean section. Drug addicts have been accused of "supplying drugs to a minor" through unintentional chemical subjection via the umbilical cord. Others have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the "deadly weapon" in question being an illegal drug. Minnesota, Wisconsin and South Dakota allow women who continue to use substances while pregnant to be civilly committed. Some states require that medical providers report any infant who is born with a physical dependency, or who tests positive for residual traces of alcohol or drugs, to child welfare authorities.

Giving fetuses rights takes rights away from women. Moreover, fetal rights creates a new class of people -- pregnant people.

Every pregnant person would be subject to an entirely different regime of law.

The fetus fetishists know this. Are okey-dokey with it.

But continue to lie that Woodworth's Wank is NOT about abortion and women's rights.

It bloody well is.

Wanted: Prebornchildologists

I got a reply to my email (bold mine; underlining his).

Good Morning Ms. Hill

The Motion sets out instructions to the Committee, which will then direct the study.  You will see that the Motion poses medical and legal questions.  My expectation is that, the Committee would hear from experts in medical fields who might describe the development of a child before birth, including cellular biology, fetology, anatomy, genetics, neurology, neo-natal medicine, surgical medicine, etc.  I’m not in a position to propose witnesses at this time, but hope the Committee will seek my input when it is appropriate. There have been significant advances in these fields in the last thirty years, not to mention the last 400 years. Rather than suppressing or avoiding modern information about a key human rights issue.  I hope Members of Parliament will embrace it.  If Motion 312 passes, the only result will be to better inform Canadians. 

Thank you for your keen interest.  I hope you will agree with me that every human being should be recognized as such in Canadian law.

Sincerely
Stephen Woodworth
Member of Parliament
Kitchener Centre

Here is my reply.

Mr Woodworth,
Thank you for your prompt reply.

Unfortunately, it does not answer my question.

I am baffled by the assertion that you are 'not in a position to propose witnesses' yet imply that you have important 'input' to offer.

In preparation for your motion, did you not research potential witnesses? You list some fields, but no individuals or even institutions. Are the needed experts available? Willing? Canadian?

You say there have been 'significant advances'. How do you know that? What source persuaded you that this is an issue of vital importance?

It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for your position. Either you are refusing to reveal the experts you have identified. Or, you have not done the research and are proposing to waste everyone's time and Parliament's resources on a whim.

Is there another reason Canadians and their MPs are not to be told which experts might be invited before we and they decide whether to host this party?

Thank you.

Here's the relevant section of M312 in all its semantically twisted glory.

that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

(i)            what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

(ii)            is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

(iii)            what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

(iv)            what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

The only people who could answer these bogus questions are prebornchildologists.

Invitation to the M312 Bun-Fest

I just sent this email to: mike @ weneedalaw.ca, contact @ whenamihuman.com, stephen.woodworth @ parl.gc.ca

Good morning,
I am a prochoice blogger, resolutely opposed to M312. I blog here.

I have been asking at my blog and on twitter a simple question for M312 supporters: If M312 passes and a committee is formed to hear testimony intended to 'modernize' the definition of personhood, which experts would you like MPs to hear from?

There have been no replies.

Presumably, in your research and activism on this subject, you have identified, at least provisionally, a list of such experts.

Since Canadians will be paying for this exercise, I think we are entitled to a glimpse at the proposed guest list.

After all, how can MPs be asked to vote for a discussion without some idea of the sort of information they will be seeking? Science? Law? Medicine?

I await your answers.

Thank you.

fern hill

Will there be any replies?

Me, I don't think so.


UPDATE: Zoom! Auto-reply.

Thank you so much for contacting us! This site is run by volunteers (not Mr. Woodworth or his staff), and we will get back to you as soon as we can. For all media inquiries, please contact Mr. Woodworth directly at stephen.woodworth@parl.gc.ca. Sincerely, the When Am I Human Team.

UPDATE 2: More auto-reply.

Good morning Ms. Hill,

On behalf of Stephen Woodworth, Member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, I would like to acknowledge receipt of and thank you for your email.

Please be assured that your correspondence will be brought to Mr. Woodworth's direct attention.

Sincerely,

He's got me blocked on Twitter. We'll see how much direct attention I get.

The Science of Personhood

Because I was getting no action on my oft-posed question to supporters of Woodworth's Wank, aka M312, I decided to help them out.

I went looking for the sort of experts fetus fetishists would want to hear from and found this *science* page at Personhood Canada. (BTW, it is a project of Alliance for Life Ontario, the gang behind the Merkin anti-abortion ads currently showing on CTV.)

I was doing my debunking thing, when I hit the bit from the 40+ year-old pamphlet from New Zealand and got that déjà vu all over again feeling.

Yup, I had LMAO'd at it more than two years ago. But, despite the strong evidence that it hasn't changed -- why leave in that lame-o reference if they actually had anything better? -- I'm going to do it again in the current context of M312. (Also. I had already found a buncha links.)

Here's the page, unaltered, except broken up.

There is no question about when human life begins.

In the widely used medical textbook, The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states on page 2 that “The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ....” On page 18 this theme is repeated: “Human development begins at fertilization ....”

From a website at University of New South Wales, the first text listed is indeed Moore, Persaud, et al., but not surprisingly, the 2011 edition, which is not the edition cited. Does the newer edition not contain the key words -- 'baby' and 'new human being' -- so ardently desired by the fetus fetishists? Dunno, do we?

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” and discoverer of the cause of Down’s Syndrome, stated, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

‪Jérôme Lejeune‬ is who they say he is and if he said that, big surprise. He was Catholic and tight with the Polish Poop.

Afterward, Dr. Lejeune regularly traveled to Rome to meet with the Pope, to attend meetings of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and to participate in other events, such as the 1987 Synod of Bishops. The Holy Father wanted to name Jérôme Lejeune as the president of a new pontifical academy that was dear to his heart: the Pontifical Academy for Life[1]. Dr. Lejeune painstakingly drafted its bylaws and the oath of the Servants of Life that each member of the Academy must take. He wanted the Academy, founded on February 11, 1994, to be a true center of contemplation and action to expand the culture of life.

But the doc died before he could get things really rolling. He's up for sainthood though.

Now the howler from New Zealand, from a pamphlet intended for new parents, mind.

"The unborn baby is alive from the first moment of conception of a single egg and a single sperm." N.Z. Health Department: Pamphlet No 83 Your New Baby (Government Printer) 1969.

Next one is kind of interesting.

"Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor of the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Googling the good doctor nets one a bunch of links to fetus fetishist sites citing that very quote. And searching the University of Tennessee's site gets one bupkis. Total fabrication?

Then they trot out poor conflicted Bernard Nathanson, the Abby Johnson of his day. (Blogpost coming on Ms Johnson.) Note helpful paraphrase in square brackets.

Former abortionist and founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, said "It is atrocious for anyone now to maintain that a fetus [unborn child] is simply a lump of meat, or something insignificant or an unprotectable life."

From Wiki:

Nathanson grew up Jewish and for more than ten years after he became pro-life he described himself as a "Jewish atheist". In 1996 he converted to Catholicism through the efforts of an Opus Dei priest, Rev. C. John McCloskey.

And he was married four times. Some issues there.

The most breathtaking piece of chutzpah is citing Dr Evil Incarnate, Alan Guttmacher.

In 1933, abortion advocate and former medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, wrote, “We of today know that man is born of sexual union... and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells, the ovum and the sperm. This all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time when it was not part of the common knowledge.” And in 1961 Dr. Guttmacher wrote, “Fertilization, then has taken place; a baby has been conceived.” If a man who has dedicated his life to promotiong contraception and abortion can acknowledge the scientific facts of when life begins, why can’t we?

Dr Guttmacher also said:

"No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."

The page ends with some links to videos of THE MIRACLE of mammalian fetal development.

So, some of these people are dead and others are, er, difficult to locate. The dates are not terribly recent, which is the supposed point of this whole Wank -- to modernize an OLD law.

But that's all they got, people.

Bupkis.

We Will NOT Go Back

We have a date, April 26, 2012, for a one-hour debate on Stephen Woodwank's Motion 312 on the ever-popular topic of 'When Do Women Lose Their Right to Autonomy'?

The Fetus Fetishists are stoked. More on that in a bit, but first some history, or 'just how long has this been in the works?'

Woodwank, who represents Kitchener-Waterloo, put out a media release on his little notion on December, 21, 2011.

But way back on May 22, 2011 (just after the federal election), the Ontario Knights of Columbus vowed to find and work with an MP to 'introduce a Parliamentary Bill seeking the restoration of full legal protection for the lives of the unborn.' Woodwank is a Knight of Columbus.

On October 23, CTV had a story about an Ontario anti-choice group -- located in Guelph(!) -- launching a campaign called 'We Want the Debate'. It was to be a four-month campaign. Website here.

Four months would take them to mid-February, just around Woodwank's press conference. (I don't know what came of the campaign; I've seen no coverage of it.)

Coincidences? Sure, why not?




Woodwank is now promoting a site called Not Yet Born where you can download and print and harass your neighbours and co-workers with glurge like this.




Nope. No loaded language there, is there?

More reactions from the Fetus Lobby. Faytene of 4 My Canada, a fundy nutbar group, is pumped.

Campaign Lie's got a special-edition website called I Am a Human Being which demonstrates yet again their staunch but mistaken faith that images of miraculous fetal development will change hearts and minds.

When Canada de-criminalized abortion in 1969, technology did not exist to let the world see inside the womb. To a certain extent, abortion advocates in that era of scientific ignorance who honestly believed the unborn was merely a “blob of tissue” might be excused. But thanks to modern microscopic imaging and video technology, we can now see the newly created human being inside the womb.

Pro-tip: Such images have little effect.

In addition to cheerleading and waving around the same old pix, some fetus fanciers are doing happy dances to thoughts of the pro-choicers driven insane by finally having to debate their AWESOME science and logic.

Here's Mrozek.

Should be good–I’m sure a number of pro-choicers will be lighting their hair on fire with the contrived sort of fake anguish that only MPs in the House of Commons can muster.

And sob-brother Kelly McParland.

It’s diabolical. An arrow straight at the deliberate self-deceptions used to justify abortion. Abortion supporters will be up in arms.

In fact, even PMSHithead acknowledges that the debate is 'not the priority of the Canadian people'. (There he goes again, telling us what we think, but twice a day even a broken government clock. . . )

As we've argued countless times here at DJ!, there are a bunch of excellent reasons NOT to reopen the debate.

First, of course, is that the state has no business in the uteri of the nation.

Also. The Fetus Lobby lies, moves goalposts, and just generally argues in bad faith.

And. Most people are sick to death of hearing about it.

But mainly, because WE WON.

The game's afoot nonetheless and here's what could happen. One hour of debate in April, with a bunch of self-selected MPs flapping their gums. Then another hour sometime later and a vote. Simple majority wins and Woodwank gets his loaded committee to hear testimony from a bunch of fetus fetishists and whichever sane people think this is worth their time. Then a report to the House.

After that? Dunno.

First line of resistance is the MPs' debate in April. I'd like pro-choice MPs to stand up and say: 'I refuse to waste the House's time on a settled matter,' and sit down, leaving the floor to a parade of pious, prattling Attack Parrots®. Let Canadians get a load of that.

Ditto for the future debate. Then I want this sucker defeated.

Here's where we have a bit of work to do. Do you know if your MP is anti- or pro-choice? Find out here. Whichever way they roll, let them know you are NOT pleased with time and energy wasted on a settled matter.

Yesterday on Twitter, a few pundits (Kady O'Malley for one) deigned to admonish us pro-choicers as alarmist, over-reacting, yadayada. We were told to consult the numbers. This motion will never pass, they said. Don't worry your purty little heads.

Right. Remember Epp's fetal rights PMB? That passed second fucking reading because we weren't bothering our purdy little heads soon enough and hard enough. Only an election call stopped it. Not us. Nor the MPs.

Not the fucking pundits.

We will NOT get caught with our panties down again.

UPDATE: More Strategery. Like the idea of adopting an anti-choice MP.

Absotively ^NOT about abortion

Aaaaand. . . . we're off!

David Akin's got the goods.

MP Stephen Woodworth calls for another look at Canada’s 400 Year Old Law

A recent poll disclosed that 80% of Canadians believe that Canadian law protects the fundamental human rights of children before birth in the later stages of gestation.

In fact, the opposite is true. Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children before the moment of complete birth. This results from an unusual Canadian statute which defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.

This law was first formulated prior to the seventeenth century, when an early version of it was recorded in Coke’s Institutes of Law. In those times, medical science and principles of human rights were not sufficiently advanced to challenge such a law.

The important question is whether this 400 year old Canadian law is supported by 21st century medical science and principles of human rights. Perhaps Canadians should at least examine this question. MP Stephen Woodworth proposes that Parliament has a responsibility to lead that examination.

I checked him out with the Fetus Lobby.

Surprise! He's a fetus fetishist.

If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? Yes.

If elected, would you support all legislative or policy proposals that would result in a meaningful increase of respect and protection for unborn human life? Yes.

Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) No.

Rating: Pro-life, pro-family

He's a lawyer, former Catholic school trustee.

And gets two thumbs up on his pertinent voting record. Solidly anti-choice, including his vote for the Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill, aka Roxanne's Law.

Now, don't worry your purty little heads, ladies. This has noting, zip, zero, nada to do with abortion. Not atall atall.

ADDED: Globe story.

ADDED: The Fetus Lobby has begun to weigh in.

Mrozek and our pals at ARPA where I found the interesting information about Tim Hudak's intention to defund abortion in Ontario.

Yet to hear from: LifeShite and SUZY ALLCAPSLOCK.

ADDED: There's SUZY.

The definition of insanity

Here they go again (emphasis mine of course).

Colorado voters in 2008 trounced* an amendment that would have defined a fertilized human egg as a person, but supporters of the "personhood" ballot issue are angling for a rematch in 2010.

This time, though, they're avoiding the word "fertilization" in the amendment's language, saying that the term confused voters, who may have visualized chicken eggs.
. . .
The amendment would say that "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

So what is "the beginning of the biological development of that human being"?

That would be up to courts to decide, said Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado.

Denver Post

Oooweee, the good people of Colorado -- at least in the comments to that article -- are some pissed. Not only are the fetus fetishists about to waste ANOTHER thump of time and money, they insult the very voters they hope to woo.

Way to go, fetus fetishists. Keep up the good work.

*Trounced = 3 to 1 against.

North Dakota: Grown-Ups in Charge

There are several 'personhood' initiatives at various stages in various US state legislatures. Fetus fetishists want to use a religious -- as opposed to accepted medical -- definition of pregnancy and to create rights for a two-celled blastocyte.

While the measure passed the House in North Dakota, the Senate is obviously saner.

Senators voted 29-16 Friday to reject legislation that sought to define as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens." The "personhood" status would include a developing embryo from the moment of conception, whether inside or outside the womb.

Hmmm. 29 to 16. Pretty convincing majority of normal people, eh?

Yeah, well, we know they will never give up. Blob Blogging Wingnut said of the 'personhood' initiatives:

It's only a matter of time before the equality of all human beings is recognized. Get used to it.

Um. No. YOU get used to having grown-ups in charge.

The heading says it all. . .

Contraception foes share bizarre theories, intimate lives at House hearing.

Okey-dokey. Remember the failed ballot initiative in Colorado that would have amended the state constitution to define 'person' as a freshly fertilized egg?

The wingnuts behind the 'personhood' movement have not just abortion in their sights but all kinds of contraception they consider -- without an iota of evidence -- to be abortifacients.

Well, it seems the smarter people down there had a notion to end-run any debate about contraception causing abortion by redefining 'contraception'.

During a hearing Monday on the Birth Control Protection Act, five anti-contraception witnesses spoke out as state House Health and Human Services Committee Chairman Jim Reisberg (D-Greeley) tried in vain to keep the hearing room focused on the bill at hand.

Eventually and apologetically, Reisburg succumbed to the committee members’ subtle urging to shut down rambling filibusters and indelicate public disclosures about their personal sexual histories.

Among the witnesses were a teenage girl (?) who pushed the notion that the urine of women on the pill was causing all kinds environmental damage and disease, and a fundy doctor for whom pregnancy begins at conception.

But what stood out was his off-kilter phrasing of a pre-implantation zygote in terms more reminiscent of a fund-raising plea for a homeless shelter: “All that this new human life needs is a place to live and food to eat.”

Then there was a member of the tinfoil chapeau crew, who

claimed that pharmaceutical lobbyists conspired with lawmakers to set the “arbitrary date of implantation” as the definition of pregnancy as a defensive tactic to avoid lawsuits for causing abortions in the years before the landmark Roe v. Wade case decriminalized the procedure.

(I'd never heard that one before.)

There was one sad and confused woman I'll spare you from. Then Pete and Marguerite (emphasis mine).

Natural family-planning advocates Pete and Marguerite Gormley went into deep detail about their fertility issues and how contraception could have destroyed their marriage. Marguerite Gormley, who counts Archbishop Charles J. Chaput as her hero on Facebook, told the committee, “I had been duped into believing that the pill was helping me [for painful menstrual cycles] for close to 10 years. … Being on birth control never triggered those discussions in our marriage,” she said blaming the convenience of the pill for the delay in starting her family.

Pete Gormley claimed, without any substantiation, that family-planning classes taught him that birth control is not healthy for women and doesn’t constitute medicine. “I never once even considered looking into it and learning what the drug was doing to my wife’s body and potentially to her fertility,” said Gormley, a pharmaceutical chemist by trade and the father of four boys.

Listen, smart Coloradoans or whatever you call yourselves, if this is what you're up against and you LOSE, you deserve it.

Protecting the Innocent in North Dakota, Part 2

Well. Who knew Protecting the Innocent in North Dakota would turn into a series?

Today, we find out that the legislative body that voted to confer constitutional rights on fertilized human eggs is also fighting for the rights of smokers and bar owners.

Bars should remain as one of North Dakota's last outposts of public smoking, the state House has decided, although one lawmaker believes a citizen initiative will reach the smoke-free goal lawmakers avoided.

Representatives voted 59-33 on Thursday to defeat legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joyce Kingsbury, R-Grafton, that would have prohibited lighting up in bars and motels.

Dern tootin'! Smokers have rights! Business owners have rights! North Dakota ain't no dad-blamed nanny state!

Oh. Wait.

"Why should we become even more of a nanny government and tell business owners that are providing a legal product, in a legal establishment, with their own investment, how they should run their business?" said Rep. Craig Headland, R-Montpelier. "I believe it's time to draw the line."

Let's try that again:

"But it's totally fine to become a nanny government and tell women who are living their lives, in their own bodies, with their own livelihoods, how they should run their lives." said Rep. Craig Headcase, R-Montpelier. "Just who the hell do these broads think they are -- bar owners?"

Protecting the Innocent

More news from North Dakota.

Protection -- indeed, constitutional rights -- for two-celled 'persons'. No protection for fully grown human whistleblowers.

A proposal to beef up North Dakota's whistleblower protection law for state workers has failed in the North Dakota Senate.

The bill was in response to problems at North Dakota's workers compensation agency that resulted in the firing of four employees.

It sought to give North Dakota's labor commissioner power to order the reinstatement of state employees who were fired for reporting possible wrongdoing in their agencies.

It kept employee complaints confidential and gave North Dakota's state auditor authority to check out allegations of wrongdoing.

Senators voted 25-21 on Thursday to defeat the bill. Republicans opposed the measure and Democrats supported it.

It looks like North Dakota wants to vie with Kansas for the 'Most Benighted State' title.

Personhood for All, Courtesy ALL

It's the latest thing in the anti-choice movement: Personhood for All!!!!

Five USian states have introduced bills to give a fertilized human egg constitutional rights. Two more states are working on such bills. And in North Dakota today, the bill passed in the House.

The fetus fetishists are revved, despite the fact that such an initiative in Colorado last fall got trounced.

Here is Kay Steiger of RH RealityCheck reporting on The Personhood Conference held in January just after the zygote zealots' annual March for Life bunfest.

On Friday, dozens of pro-life activists gathered at the Personhood Conference in Washington, D.C. On Thursday, the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, they had marched with the tens of thousands of anti-choice activists, but today these activists were talking about personhood, a new plan of attack for the anti-choice movement. These activists are frustrated and tired of incrementalist approaches to abortion. "It's not working," announced Shaun Kenney of the American Life League. "It's failing."

The Personhood Conference, organized by the American Life League (ALL), enlisted speakers from a variety of segments of the pro-life movement, including a rising star, Kristi Burton. Burton is a 21-year-old woman who spearheaded the campaign for a state constitutional amendment in Colorado that sought to define life as beginning at fertilization. Burton says the Colorado personhood movement projects a "positive message," unites pro-lifers, and doesn't personally attack pro-choice activists.

(The American Life League is, of course, the gang of nutters that brought us 'The Pill Kills' campaign, so that makes sense.)

Feeeel the momentum. Personhood has its own website, run by Christian ministers 'who are missionaries to preborn children'. I am not making this up. Read their About Us page.

Personhood USA is committed to:
-Protecting every child by love and by law.

-Moving churches and the culture to make the dehumanization and murdering of pre-born children unthinkable.

-Build coalitions and organizations or local, State, National and International pro-life individuals and organizations that will work together on personhood legislation/ amendments.

-Honor the Lord Jesus Christ with our lives and actions

They really think this boat will float? Really?

I'm calling it: The forced-pregnancy movement has now jumped the shark.

This is going to be fun.

UPPITY-DATE: JJ, in the comments to another post, offers Pandagon's take.