Abortion in Canada: Good and Not Nearly Good Enough News

To its credit, Global News has been running several stories lately about abortion -- especially abortion access -- in Canada.

Yesterday, it had two.

First, a new poll on unrestricted abortion.

Canadian attitudes toward abortion appear to be shifting, according to a new Ipsos poll, as six in ten say abortion should be permitted whenever a woman decides she wants.

The Ipsos poll, given exclusively to Global News, found 57 per cent of Canadians endorse a women’s right to choose – up almost 10 points from 2015 and up from 36 per cent from when the question was asked in 1998.

Here's the graphic from the article:

When I tweeted that last night, Mike Schouten of We Need a Law, Any Old Law, Seriously, Give Us an Abortion Law to Fuck Around with as in the US, replied.

@fernhilldammit Likely b/c most Canadians haven't seen what abortion is. #stillworktodo pic.twitter.com/WKsmti6iAR

— Mike Schouten (@mike_schouten) February 24, 2016

Fetus fetishists like him seem NOT to get the message. Back in 2012, as antichoicers were trying to ignite the abortion "debate" yet again, various polls reported that Canadians did not want to reopen the debate, but when actually asked, the majority of us responded to the law of unintended consequences.

The National Post reported: "As debate heats up, Canadian support for unrestricted abortions skyrockets."

So, yes, please, Mike, keep trying to show us what abortion is.

The other story was about the plan by new Health Minister, Jane Philpott, to address abortion access.

Well, it seems, she doesn't have much of a plan beyond "checking" on the provinces.

Also, in the video clip at the link, at least, she can't seem to say the word "abortion."

Bulletin, Madam Minister: the purpose of the Canada Health Act, a federal law, is:

The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made.

The program criteria is:

In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters:
(a) public administration;
(b) comprehensiveness;
(c) universality;
(d) portability; and
(e) accessibility.

That's a pretty big stick you've got there, Madame Minister. We'd would like to see the most pro-choice government evah wield it around a bit.

This Should End the Debate. . . Aw, Fuck, Who Are We Trying to Kid?

The thing about the repro rights beat is that nothing is ever settled.

Well, it is, but the fetus freaks don't accept facts, evidence, studies, and so on and just keep stomping their feet and SHRIEEEEKING.

It's been said many times: post-abortion syndrome is a myth, a myth whose origin is possible to date even (it was coined by Vincent Rue in 1981).

And apparently I'm not the only one getting tired of covering this stuff. A headline at ThinkProgress today is "This Study Should End The Debate About Whether Women Regret Having Abortions."

Here's the link.

According to a new study that tracked hundreds of women who had abortions, more than 95 percent of participants reported that ending a pregnancy was the right decision for them. Feelings of relief outweighed any negative emotions, even three years after the procedure.

Researchers examined both women who had first-trimester abortions and women who had procedures after that point (which are often characterized as “late-term abortions”). When it came to women’s emotions following the abortion, or their opinions about whether or not it was the right choice, they didn’t find any meaningful difference between the two groups.

Seems pretty clear. Ninety-five percent of women were satisfied they did the right thing.

Of course, women and the circumstances in which they find themselves needing abortion vary widely and the study noted the variances.

Gee, look what they found.

External factors can influence the emotions that women experience after an abortion, according to the ANSIRH researchers. They found that women who ended a pregnancy that was planned — which typically occurs after they discover serious fetal health defects — reported more negative emotions, as did women who perceived more abortion stigma in their community. Women with more social support, meanwhile, reported fewer negative emotions.

The study was led by ANSIRH.

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health—ANSIRH—works to ensure that reproductive health care and policy are grounded in evidence. ANSIRH’s multi-disciplinary team includes clinicians, researchers and scholars in the fields of sociology, demography, anthropology, medicine, nursing, public health, and law.

ANSIRH is the mover behind the huge Turnaway study, following up on women who could not get abortions.

ThinkProgress tweeted a link to today's story and look at the response.

@thinkprogress lefties love to "end the arguement" with bullshit stats and surveys is. climate change, Obamacare or any liberal scheme

— Carlos Danger (@cobrayrpb) July 13, 2015

Demonstrating rather well, don't you think, the anti-choice/prolife attitude to facts, evidence, and science?

Sigh.


Past DJ! posts on post-abortion syndrome.

Link to the abstract of the study for them's as like to see for themselves. No, not you, prolifers.

On Those Who Missed Getting the Memo on Abortion Being Settled - Maybe*

I'm sticking this here because the comment box on the post before said, oh nooo, you're not running on in *this* spot.

The desired, concrete outcome of "This Is Eviltm" 'debate' on willful biological intervention in human pregnancy aka abortion, (and this is my cynical observation) is for one In-group to be privileged over others. 'Debate' is what happens when unilateral Commands aren't possible. Misinforming 'Debate' still allows stoking the sexual and Out-group fears in authoritarian followers (google: Bob Altemeyer Authoritarians) and bolsters a power base that too often unquestioningly supports against the defined Enemy Other.

Human zygote abortion as the topic for inciting Fear is incidental to authoritarian stoking. It's simply an emotional appeal that has the highest profile at this moment in time for this society. Miscegenation, LGBT, minorities based on sex, colour, creed, poverty aid, have been, can and are all slotted into the same framing.

Over and over such Tribal Fear topics are a test of control of society by the powerful using the powerless as political voodoo dolls. How many pins can you stick in a subject before someone that affects your pocketbook starts feeling pain? Everyone in recorded history *knows* this, which is why, slowly, over the eons, societal agreements, aka Laws of the Land have been developed to offset ,or at least momentarily balk, the human desire to scapegoat the ‘uncivilized’ Other out-group.

Human abortion as a hot button for Othering still works because there is empowering benefit to the groups doing the Othering. In Canada at the moment, such groups have lost State empowerment to exploit abortion Fear, but they're still monetarily benefiting as ‘private’ organizations and obviously hoping to re-up the political benefit because of the free media influence piped in from fellow travellers in the U.S. (and I wouldn’t doubt substantial monies piped in from the US efforts. The usual American suspects are quite openly exporting anti-abortion influence to other countries – which makes me laugh when Harper waves his hands hepwesswy about how he can’t do nothin’ but birthin’ them babies.)

"Respecting" aka uncritically coddling, historically privileged religious In-Group *feelings* (and honestly, I don’t give a crap about so-called ‘secular’ arguments against abortion when they’re the same atrociously awful arguments with the rosary filed off plus religious people helping to found the ‘athiest’ groups) is being asked to enable them to maintain their societal image privilege without cost or scrutiny. Handy for them. Not so handy for anyone challenging them.

Of *course* religious leaders don’t want to give up social status of pseudo-legislators and have to come down and live in parity with the rest of Canada’s civilians, who they helpfully label as murdering savages at every turn.

But let’s presume for a moment that we all go ’’’oh golly gosh, these religious folks with their feelings and faux-facts, their divinely revealed morality is superior and we now ban abortion after 20 weeks’’’. Is that going to satisfy them? History and present examples say FUCK NO. A complete ban on abortion? FUCK NO. Because this isn’t about abortion. Complete ban on medical contraceptives? FUCK NO. Because this isn’t about contraceptionwhichreallyisabortionreally. Enforced investigation into miscarriages? FUCK NO. Because this isn’t about induced miscarriages. Pregnant humans imprisoned to force pregnancy to term? FUCK NO because, really, it's about NO FUCK (until we, your moral overlords tell you it's ok...sorta...if you don't enjoy it too much...and we can punish you for it at whim...but don't look behind the curtain).

'Debating' abortion as Badddd, has so far been about control over human beings by an In-group, exploiting the primal biology of our species to set up Group-Betrayal Guilt. Whatever accessions given unaccountable In-Groups, recorded history sez the leaders thereof will *always* demand MORE. It doesn’t matter how irrational and inconsistent the demands are because that's not a bug, it's a feature. The more irrational the demand, the better, because acceding to such signifies the level of control achieved over large groups. Once fearful followers surrender the standard of evidenced truth, they are more and more unquestioningly vulnerable to obeying any demand made by an authority. And if the leaders grant *some* of the fearful followers *some* authority over what are now the even less empowered, obedience becomes invested with privilege and divides what opposition might arise.

“Pro-aborts” are not standing against just the invasion of uterus owners’ autonomy. They are standing against irrational demands upon a population, fought on a specific battleground of under-empowered women’s bodies. Gender-identified women, especially Not-White women (and for disempowered Bingo, those who are also disabled *and* sexually queer ) are factually and universally the least empowered and least prioritized members of human societies. Their bodies, their legal enfranchisement, are historically the testing ground for ‘stealth’ *and ‘dirty bomb’ social control.

If anyone wanting to ‘debate’ the human species' biological event called abortion has motives that, once stripped of hand wringing and pseudo-lie-nce, don’t rapidly curve around to authoritarian strangers' objectification and control of women’s bodies and their collateral existence to benefit a privileged, unaccountable few, that would be a new one on me.

/*edited for not noticing my edit to the title didn't take first time

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?

A Modest Proposal: Subvert (Harper's) Democracy

I think it's fair to say that PMSHithead has hit some stormy seas lately. The details hardly matter; what matters is that the pundit class seems to have woken up to the little matter of Canadians' widespread loathing for the man, his lies, and his puppets. Even some of his puppets are tiring of his hand up their butts.

Here's Chantal Hébert:

That Harper is more isolated and less in control today than a year ago is not in doubt. Consistently mediocre poll results; heightened caucus unrest; public cabinet squabbles; a poorly handled Senate scandal and what has turned out to be a bad hire for the top party job indicate as much.

A more interesting question is whether, after a decade at the helm, the Conservative leader is inexorably becoming detached/distracted from the business of running the party and the country.

Evidence that the government is adrift is accumulating and the responsibility for that can be traced right back to the top.

More often than not over the past eighteen months the messes that the prime minister has had to mop up have been of his own making. The Soudas episode is just one case in point.

Here's Lawrence Martin, writing under the title, "Harper machine in is in disarry":

Few expected this. The bet would have been that the Prime Minister would have gone to the wall to protect Dimitri Soudas, as he has many other loyalists after acts of folly.

But just four months after having been appointed, the Conservative Party’s executive director is out the door. He joins a lengthening list. In recent months, Stephen Harper has also lost his chief of staff, his finance minister and a Supreme Court nominee, plus several senators as a result of the expenses scandal.

Here's Susan Delacourt from last July on Harper's enemies:

“Creepy” was one of the words used this week to describe the existence of those enemy lists inserted into the briefing binders of new ministers in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government.

Here’s something potentially creepier, however. What if the government kept its list of friends and enemies on a huge, computer database, with names, addresses and personal information about millions of Canadians? And what if you had no right at all to see how you were listed?

Such a database exists. Up to now, it’s been called the Constituent Information Management System, CIMS for short, though the Conservative party is reportedly in the midst of building a better machine, called C-Vote.

And yes, CIMS does organize the political universe into friendly and not-so-friendly people. If you’ve been a friend to the Conservative cause over the years, volunteering, donating or even writing nice things about Conservatives in letters to the newspaper, a yellow, smiley face appears beside your name in the database.

If, however, you have put up lawn signs for rival parties, slammed the door or hung up the phone on the Conservatives, your name appears in CIMS with a frowning red face.

Friend: smiley face. Enemy: frowning face. It’s as simple as that.

And here is my hero and as far as I and many other are concerned, the only one who truly gets what a sick basturd the PM is. Meet Michael Harris:

Someone described Stephen Harper as a Sphinx without a riddle.
...
In Calgary, I ran into Bill Phipps, the former moderator of the United Church. Phipps, a lawyer, churchman and social activist, ran against Harper in 2002 as the NDP’s candidate in the riding of Calgary Southwest. Harper refused to debate Phipps and won in a landslide.

“I went over to congratulate him at his headquarters and he wouldn’t shake my hand. He told me he despised me! I couldn’t figure out how he could despise me, since he didn’t know me.”
...
The Fair Elections Act is almost like one of the dark novels of Evelyn Waugh. How absurd is it that the party that cheated in the In-and-Out scandal is now redesigning the voting process? What are they trying to fix — the system or the next election?
...
Have you noticed how everything to do with government in Canada these days is either secret, under investigation, or in court?

As Bob Rae put it, “Harper can be nasty, cynical, and has a deep authoritarian streak. If there is something these guys don’t like, they must pass a law to stop it. He destroys the freedom people should have to express themselves.”

Be advised. That will soon include elections.

(Read every word he writes. His work can be found at iPolitics and The Tyee and you can follow him at @HarrisAuthor.)

Given all this, it's not surprising to see this yesterday.

Fascinating: Harper says he's running #2015, but today CPC is calling Cdns to ask; "Wd you vote for *Harper?" Note NOT CPC! Harper #cdnpoli

— Red Mitten (@2010redmittens) April 2, 2014

The CONs are polling to see how viable their fading, out-of-touch psychopath leader is for the next election.

Here's what I propose. Whether you are friend or foe, more especially if you are foe, voice your solid, unqualified support for Harper.

In polls. Phone polls, online polls, whenever you are asked by professionals your opinion of Harper, show him some love.

In other words, lie your ass off. (As a point of pride, I always lie to pollsters anyway.)

He wants to suppress our democracy. Let's subvert his.

Let's fuck up his beloved CIMS database.

And the beauty of this is that even if his operatives get wind of the effort, they won't believe it. They will believe their own poll numbers if they are moving in the direction they believe they should. They will not believe that a few determined Canadians would or could subvert the process.

Further beauty: It may panic the FUCKING USELESS OPPOSITION®. "Whoa", they may think, "Maybe we'd better rethink our age-old game of slamming other Opposition Parties rather than cooperating to preserve what little of Canada is left."

(To this end, I have a new Twitter policy. I am unfollowing all Opposition members, professional or amateur, who prefer to denigrate other Opposition parties over rallying to defeat the vandals currently in office.)

Of course, this won't work with über-partisans. And it may confuse your less political friends and relations.

You'll have to explain that you are engaged in a campaign of disinformation, feeding bullshit to the bad guys, in order to encourage them to continue in -- indeed double down on -- their blithe democracy- and environment-destroying ways only to wake up on election morning with a Kim-Campbell result.

I can't think of anything else for ordinary Canadians to do. Petitions, letter-writing, rallies, demonstrations, fah! They don't give a shit.

What we can deliver is false confidence.

Then, when they least expect it, a totally gratifying knee to the nads.

I leave the last word to co-blogger deBeauxOs, speaking of Harper.

@SusanFelucifer @fernhilldammit His violence is ideological, not personal. He will eliminate his enemies if we are a threat to his projects.

— deBeauxOs (@deBeauxOs1) April 1, 2014

We will not appear to threaten his projects; we will subvert his most important one -- getting reelected.

#DefundAbortion Report 2: MASSIVE Win for Sane Majority!

The Twitter air war between defunders and defenders started slowly with fetus fetishists using their supplied talking points from Campaign Lie.

FACT: Canadian taxpayers fund at least $80 million every year for the killing of children in the womb

FACT: There is a severe shortage of family doctors, nurses and funding for elder care and for treatment of autistic children across Canada

FACT: Abortion is an elective procedure that is not medically necessary

FACT: Over 96% of abortions are performed for convenience as a back-up birth control method

Are you ok with that?

Basically, we are buying birth control for slutty sluts with money desperately needed elsewhere for your parents and special needs children.

Conclusion: We must get abortion out of the healthcare system.

The defenders countered in classic hi-jack style, using the format and hashtag of the opposition.

#DefundAbortion = Make women pay, sometimes with their lives. https://t.co/mkjbX5S8kT

— U of C Freethinkers (@uofcfreethinker) October 3, 2013

This is my fave and probably went zooming rightover the heads of the defunders.

#DefundAbortion because churches are sick of all their tax dollars going towards it

— chris p cream (@chris_p_cream) October 3, 2013

Later, defenders got into counter-arguments.

Some defunders thought they were cleverly co-opting the language of the sane people and referred to abortion as 'choice' with the gotcha -- 'Well, it' my choice NOT to fund your choice.'

I tried this out to some success.

Do you have children? By choice? We all paid for your pre-natal care, their birth, their healthcare.

If we shld #DefundAbortion bc pregncy is not illness, then we shouldnt fund your babybirthing either. See? Stupid argument #DefendAbortion

— ray bb (@evamaud) October 3, 2013

When they tried 'the money is needed elsewhere' gambit, defenders replied with: yabbut, what about costs of surgical care for botched back-alley abortions, costs of birthing extra babies, subsequent healthcare, education for them?

That was greeted with crickets.

To the abortion is a conscience issue, I shouldn't have to pay for it trope, defenders responded with lessons on how taxation works.

Again, crickets.

If defunders didn't ignore defenders completely, they put up the typical and tedious last-ditch retort, shrieking 'abortion is murder' and quoting bible verses.

Throughout, the many defenders were witty, reasonable, and relentless.

Of the warring hashtags, #DefendAbortion was trending higher than #DefundAbortion all afternoon, joined later by #DefendChoice, which also trended higher than Defund.

This is particularly remarkable because the defenders usually used BOTH tags (to get their ripostes in the faces of fetus fetishists), while defunders used only their own tag.

So, even with a boost from defenders, the Twitter War was clearly won by the sane people.

Later, defunders posted pix and media reports of the on-the-ground effort, cleverly billed in advance as 'mini-rallies'.

Alissa Golob, the main organizer, called this one 'awesome'.

Organizers said as many as 13 people took part in the one-hour demonstration.

Others were less awesomely attended. Someone posted a photo of an event at Cheri DiNovo's office in Toronto where the protesters (5) outnumbered the stacked printed signs.

On Twitter, @HisFeministMama reported her one-woman counter demonstration there.



Here's her blogpost about the experience. Go read. This was awesome.

From most accounts, the 'mini-ralllies' would have been better labelled 'micro-rallies'.

Except at the Manitoba legislature (bold mine).

A pro-life protest against health-care funding for abortions in Manitoba drew more than their own supporters to a demonstration at the provincial legislature today.

Pro-choice supporters from the women’s rights and labour movement used social media to counter the planned event, and all together more than 200 people spent a noisy lunch-hour chanting slogans at each other over the polarizing debate.

Pro-choice numbers were easily three times the number of the supporters at the pro-life event.

And finally, I want to report on and laud a media report that demonstrates some sensitivity to pro-choice's complaint about media treatment of the abortion issue.

From a brief report by CBC also reporting on the Manitoba event.

Anti-abortionists assembled on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislative Building on Thursday for a planned protest only to be outnumbered but pro-choice activists.

'Anti-abortionists'. Not 'pro-lifers'.

But best was the following sentence -- I repeat, in a very short piece.

Abortion is a legal, approved medical procedure in Canada and has been since 1988.

Beauty, eh?

That sentence, or one like it, should appear in every single report on abortion in Canada.

Legal, approved, medical, and settled for 25 years.

Or as we at DJ! might put it: 'Abortion is a done deal in Canada. Get the fuck over it.'

Final thoughts:
I think some eyes were opened by this exercise. Some people, both neutral on or largely ignorant of the issue, were surprised at the very existence of this tiny minority of extremists. All of whom were totally anti-choice/anti-women, NOT as they tried desperately to spin it, merely concerned citizens.

And some of the same people and others were shocked by this blatant neo-liberal attack on Canadian healthcare.

They recognized the unholy alliance of neo-libs manipulating idiots in the drive to privatize.

All in all, I'd say, this was a MASSIVE win for the sane people.

Canadians are not stupid. Fetus fetishists would be well-advised to stop treating us as if we were.


Part I of DJ!'s takeaway.

M408 is NOT a Free Speech Hill to Die On

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

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

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

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

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Then Emmett MacFarlane got into it to disagree with Hall.

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

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

@emmmacfarlane See parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati…

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

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

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

And here's another.

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

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

it is NOT about free speech.

M408 Blowed Up Real Good

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

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

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

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

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

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

A sop to the base, in short.

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

And it appears that other zygote zealots were gobsmacked too.

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

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

And what do we have here?

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

— Paul Tuns (@ptuns) March 28, 2013

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

I'm calling it: SPECTACULAR FAIL.

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.

In Canada, Pro-Choice Is Winning

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

Amanda Marcotte responds.

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

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

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

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

That's often true, but not necessarily.

In Canada, we did it differently.

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

Immediately legislatures around the country started enacted restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, bring it, fetus fetishists.

We watched Big Sis fuck up.

We won't.

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

The Actual Lame Abortion Analogy Hall of Fame (With BONUS Parrot-in-a-cage)

November 8, 2012: I started this blogpost back in April. But today I am INSPIRED! By this piece of batshit lunacy by none other than Stephen Woodworth, he of Woodworth's Wank, aka M312 or The Motion to Reopen the Abortion Debate That Was Thumped in Parliament Six Weeks Ago But That Certain Fetus Fetishists Won't Shut the Fuck Up About.

Now, back to April, 2012:

In the comments here, Ruaidhr said:

I've never been able to figure out why people can't understand how irrelevant "when life begins" is to the discussion.


You could implant Mahatma Ghandi in me, and it wouldn't take away my right to say "get him out of there!"

Which, of course, is a variant on Ye Olde 'What If [insert esteemed person's name]'s Mother Had Aborted Him' schtick. (It's almost invariably a 'Him', BTW.) Ruaidhr is original though. I've never seen Gandhi implanted before, only aborted.

Commenter Godel Noodle gives one of the standard rejoinders to that one. HIs specific is 'horrible abortion doctor', but Hitler, Stalin, Stephen Harper, etc., can also be inserted depending on audience.

Sensing we had a newbie to the Abortion Debate®, I sent GN to the Lame Abortion Analogies Hall of Fame.

But, gotcha! It isn't actually LAAHF. GN thought such a thing would be a grande idée.

I got googling. But to give GN a taste of the wished-for hell a-coming', I linked to JJ's Way Back Machine for Justice for Unborn TV Sets.

Here we have cars and eagle's nests. (And to answer any newbie's question at this point: No. There is nowhere they won't go.)

Unwanted automobile passengers is a standard. Another fave is body functions or body parts.

This one involves a party, unconsciousness, and surprise at being connected to someone who is using your kidney for nine months.

There are many variants on that one, Thomson's Violinist being the classic.

More on kidneys, specifically selling them, from deBeauxOs and JJ.

Slavery is often conjured up but as Ms Magazine observes, it works better for pro-choice.

The problem here is that the slavery analogy only makes sense if you believe having an abortion is somehow equivalent to owning a human being. (It isn’t.)
. . .
The slavery analogy makes much more sense as an argument for choice, not against it. Slavery is about losing one’s freedom and personal autonomy over one’s body and life. As Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, so eloquently put it: “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”

Then there's the Hitler-holocaust SHRIEEEEEK and its associated genocide SHRIEEEEEK.

Big Nurse Stanek magicks population control, China's one-child policy, eco-Nazis, death panels, and what-not.

And then there's the ever-popular unpopular house guest analogy.

They all rely on migraine-inducing pretzel logic and wildly absurd 'what-ifs'. They all FAIL.

Now here's someone who knows a thing or two about both analogies and pregnancy.

Having sat through too many evangelical sermons in my younger life, I’ve developed a strong resistance to arguments that draw on analogy. Most of the sermons I endured as a teenager and young adult were heavy-laden with analogies; now I can’t help seeing them as a recourse for lazy-mindedness (not always deliberate) and tendentiousness (usually deliberate). They’re useful for when you want others to believe something for which you don’t have concrete evidence, or which may contain many different truths that are unendingly complex, and the analogy helps you to focus on a single one.
. . .
Pregnancy is not much like organ donation; and it is certainly nothing even potentially akin to being a slave-owner or a (female supremacist) Nazi. (Seriously: those two last ones are central arguments of the anti-abortion movement’s desire to enshrine fetal rights. Anti-abortion advocates imagine that pro-choice women see fetuses as “subhuman”; therefore, much like Nazis and slave owners, they allow them to be eliminated at will. That leap of (ana)logic leads directly into the abyss of manipulativeness and dishonesty.) I’ve always seen the abortion-is-murder analogy as a shocking distortion of the reality of an unwanted pregnancy and the maternal-fetal relationship.

Actually in my googles, I found one that does work. Oddly, it's pro-choice.

Let's return to the tendentiousness that Woody rolled out in
M312, Fixed-Wing Technology and Ballooning. (See? There really is nowhere they won't go.)

Here's the last patronizing sentence:

Now do you understand the relationship between Motion 312 and abortion?

Indeed, we do, Woody. And did right from the start, despite your relentless duplicitousness.


BONUS! I found the elusive parrot-in-a-cage analogy. It was in the comments, now sadly memory-holed, at SUZYALLCAPSLOCK's place, but preserved for eternity by Canadian Cynic.

EXTRA BONUS: JJ explains the fetus = polaroid picture analogy I mention in the comments. Definitely one for the Hall of Fame!

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.

STILL

Today's the day for the first hour of debate on 'The When Does the State Take Over Our Uteruses Motion'.

Yesterday, the Radical Handmaids took the 'Fuck the Debate' message to Parliament Hill.

And there's been a call for an online ruckus.

Námo Mandos kicks off DJ!'s contribution with 'Comic relief apéritif'.

Here at DJ! we've been on Woodworth's Wank for months, since the very beginning, in fact.

We've been outraged, derisive, logical. We've exhorted, cajoled, and cheer-led (izzat a word?).

We've taken various varieties of crap for our stand, including some that -- happily -- led to the creation of a brand-spanking new aggregator and home for real Canadian Progressive Voices.

Throughout though, I suspect this is what we were all feeling.

Niles certainly is/was.

Coz here's the really really really depressing thing. Women's rights are ALWAYS up for negotiation.

ALWAYS considered a frill, an afterthought, a wait-til-everyone-else-is-served deal.

EVERYWHERE. Just ask Mona Eltahawy.

STILL.

And here's another really depressing thing. The fucking Liberals still don't get it.

They consider reproductive rights a matter of conscience, not human rights, and therefore will NOT whip the vote.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said he’s personally opposed to reopening the abortion debate but Rae said he won’t compel Liberal MPs to toe that line because the issue is a matter of individual conscience.

“If there are individuals in my caucus who feel strongly for moral reasons one way or the other, we’re not going to whip the vote,” Rae said.

Pro-tip, Bob: This kinda thing is why your asses are NOT sitting in Official Opposition seats.

Image source

Nancy Ruth to Stephen Woodworth: STFU

Senator Nancy ('Shut the fuck up'*) Ruth has signed the petition opposing Woodworth's Wank. And she commented.

there are only a few Conservatives that think like woodworth. Most of us, including the PM, do not want any debate on rights for the fetus or abortion. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. keep up the good work.

More than 10,000 people have signed.

And discussions are happening in odd places. Earlier today, DJ! recorded a Wedding Bells forum as a referring URL. I checked it out. Indeed, a few people were talking about M312 and one participant had linked to a post here.

Thinking 'this is a good audience', I joined, introduced myself, and left a link to ARCC's Motion 312 Action Alert page. There were a couple of replies, nothing unpleasant. But just now when I tried to return, I got a 404 disappeared message.

As Senator Ruth would say: WTF?

* Why we call her STFU.


PS: Yes, I'm working on a blogpost on the latest ugliness from the sex-selective abortion file. Having written on the topic a few times, I'm finding this eruption particularly disheartening. It's happening in Canada and exposes a virulent combination of misogyny and racism. Go look at the comments here. If you have the stomach.

Image source.

The Smartest Guy in the Room

As anyone who has tried 'debating' Stephen Woodworth will tell you, he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. (Well, considering the rooms he hangs out in, it may well be [terrifyingly] correct.)

I went a couple of rounds with him tonight and you be the judge.

Round 1:

Stephen Woodworth ‏ @WoodworthMP

Bahais are persecuted in Iran simply because of their religious faith.Why does simple belief seem threatening to some?

Fern Hill ‏ @fernhilldammit

@WoodworthMP Because it's not simple belief if the holders of it want to impose their laws on others. Like the Vatican Taliban.

Stephen Woodworth ‏ @WoodworthMP

@fernhilldammit I don't think Bahais want to impose anything on anyone.

Fern Hill ‏ @fernhilldammit

@WoodworthMP Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Who *does* impose religious values, Mr. Knight of Columbus? #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything

I don't know if I knocked him out, but that was the end of that.

Round 2:

Stephen Woodworth ‏ @WoodworthMP

It is a simple truth that no law is legitimate that claims any human being is not human.Not for any ideology.Not for any policy.

This, by the way, is his only 'reason' for reopening the abortion debate.

Fern Hill ‏ @fernhilldammit
@WoodworthMP Hasn't that Tautology 101 course I ordered for you arrived yet?

And that was the end of that one.

You know, for all that we say Fuck the Debate, maybe we should welcome it. Be a lot like shooting fish in a barrel.

But we're not cruel that way, are we?

Voices for Choice

Throughout history, women have strived for equality, gaining rights, freedoms, voices, and choices. Why should we go back in time?

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is pleased to present the winning video in our recent video contest (Fall 2011). Congratulations to winner Steph Caskenette of Kitchener Ontario!

All drawings and animation done by Steph Caskenette.
Music: Jolie Micro Girl by French Lab (www.incompetech.com), licensed under Creative Commons "Attribution 3.0

We will not go back.

Fuck the Debate.

NatPo: We declare this debate OPEN!

Today, we have entries 12 and 13 in NatPo's ongoing campaign to 'Open the Abortion Debate' since Chief Fetus Lobbyist Stephen Woodworth's opening salvo on Dec. 21 last year.

First up, a straight report on yesterday's poll on sex-selective abortion.

Next, Chris Selley on Canada's abortion hypocrisy. He compares 'sex selection' (very very bad) with 'family balancing' (good) and points out that they are the same fucking thing. Except that we get to wag fingers at Deepak and Sanjana as culturally backward, as opposed to applaud Dick and Jane as technologically advanced.

Read the comments. The racists, sexists, prudes, and misogynists are STOKED.

And this is why we say again: Fuck the Debate. Nothing good can come of it.

Hidden Agenda Watch

To keep up with DJ!'s mission of eternal vigiliance, aka 'Fuck the Debate', here's the latest addition to the Contempt Party abortion recriminalization crew: Jeff Watson*. That's four: Trost, Woodworth, Ambrose, and now Watson chimes in on the effort to 'reopen the debate'.

“My layman’s read of the public mood, if you will, around life issues [is] I think most people mistakenly believe that there’s already restrictions on abortion, and so this issue is already settled,” he explained.

Watson said that when he informs people that there are, in fact, no restrictions, “they’re quite alarmed and feel something should be done about it.”

Waaaah. Something should be done about it!!!

But, despite the 'strong, stable majority' -- hey! the abbreviation would be SSM, let's use that! -- LifeShite gripes:

Since winning a majority in the May election, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has remained adamant that they will support the status quo on abortion, and has re-emphasized the point in the media whenever one of its caucus members raises the issue.

Under Harper in recent years, pro-life MPs have struggled to bring forward any discussion on abortion, even around broadly supported initiatives such as a ban on abortion coercion and or protections for unborn victims of crime, in part because abortion supporters frame them as backdoor efforts to re-criminalize abortion.

Um. Yeah. Because that's what they fucking are.

Oh, but look. We sane people are 'old-fashioned'.

“My gut feeling is that groups who support free access to the procedure of abortion won’t have the broader discussion. They’re content to frame every discussion as being about the re-criminalization of abortion,” Watson observed. “They want to frame it in old terms. … I expect a very strong resistance by groups that favour full access to the procedure of abortion. I expect them to be full-out name-calling and everything else that characterizes groups like that.”

“I think we’re mature enough as a society, I think we need to be mature enough as a Parliament, to deal with these questions head on,” he added.

Again with the characterization of prochoice being insensitive and immature name-callers.

See what they're doing here? The Fetus Lobby® is trying to paint itself as the serious ones, the mature ones, the *gag* 'modern' ones.

And they are absolutely wrong. Read the comments on two recent stories about the lack of abortion services in PEI, here and here.

The overwhelming majority of Canadians DO think this is a settled matter and do NOT want the so-called debate reopened.

The overwhelming majority of Canadians are sane, modern, mature, and sensitive. They, unlike the Fetus Lobby®, understand and respect a woman's right to autonomy. And do NOT want to go backwards as a society.


* We checked out Watson's rating at Campaign Lie . Yup. Anti-choice all the way, babeeee.

Rating Comments: Has not responded to CLC's 2011 questionnaire, but in 2006 he said he would support measures to introduce and pass a law to protect every unborn child from the time of conception (fertilization) onward.

No hidden agenda there. It's right out in the open.

ADDED: Dave at the Galloping Beaver is paying attention. He says the LifeShite story is older, from the December 26 Windsor Star, playing now to keep the faux 'debate' current. He also points out that the religious, anti-science Contempt Party members have been sitting on their hands in quest of the Strong Stable Majority (aka SSM). Now they have it and they're going to call in their markers. The Hidden Agenda decloaks.

Citizens Demand Respect

Glen Pearson offers a thoughtful blogpost titled: 'The New Democracy'.

Those who watched the Republican rivals in their leadership debate this week were treated to quite a scene – eight rivals squaring off against one another in hopes of the politics’ ultimate prize. Whatever your political leanings, it was an impressive sight as they spread out across the entire platform.

Sadly, it might be a rare occurrence in the new age of Canadian politics. Last May’s federal election introduced citizens to a new kind of political strategy – opting out of debates. It occurred extensively and was practiced primarily by those running for the Conservative party. This isn’t a partisan shot; it was just a reality that was confronting Canadians for the first time.

Somehow the Conservatives figured on two growing realities. The first was that citizens were increasingly tuning out of politics, and the second was the split vote on the left provided them an obvious advantage in any kind of electoral contest. In both cases they turned out to be right. And now we hear of reports that the Ontario Progressive Conservative candidates are refusing to attend debates in the run-up to the provincial election. What’s going on out there?

Pearson attributes the phenom to candidates' ambition and public inertia. Ambitious pols don't want to fuck up. Public inertia is a reaction to relentless talking points and bullshit. We're starting to believe that none of it matters. Not one of these assholes is going to be accountable to us after the election, so why should they show us any respect even to try to get our votes?

Pearson concludes:

If Jesse Jackson was right when he said, “Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of our democracy,” then any jurisdiction where people refuse to participate in public debates is cheapened. When any party adopts the motto “Silence is Golden” in a campaign, the result is political and social deafness. It might be the new democracy, but it’s demeaning to us all.

In the May federal election, CBC's Janyce McGregor got saddled with maintaining a list of no-shows. It started with a short report that other reporters added to. Members of the public piled on and it got very looooong indeed.

Just now on Twitter I proposed that we help out whoever ends up being the Ontario election's McGregor, by reporting on #NoShows.

I found a few quite easily:

Hudork was a no-show in own riding's all-candidates debate.

In Lambton-Kent-Meddlesex, only three candidates turned up at an all-candidates debate on post-secondary education.

[Lib] Van Bommel made note of [PC Monte] McNaughton's absence in her closing remarks, noting her disappointment that he could not be there to answer questions or defend the Conservative's record on education.

"More importantly, he was not here to listen to the views or concerns of the people of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex," Van Bommel said.

She notes that McNaughton also did not attend an earlier all-candidates meeting regarding agriculture held earlier in the week in Glencoe.

Same in Ottawa.

An all-candidates debate expecting high-profile faces yielded a mere pair of hopefuls for the upcoming Ontario provincial election.

The debate, hosted by the Municipal Taxpayer Advocacy Group, attracted only Liberal Madeleine Meilleur and NDP Anil Naidoo.

But the two candidates are not even going head-to-head in the Oct. 6 provincial election. Meilleur is the incumbent in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier and Naidoo is hoping to steal the seat in Ottawa-Centre from Meilleur's Liberal counterpart Yasir Naqvi.

No Progressive Conservative candidate appeared before the disappointed crowd.

The event held at Ottawa City Hall was advertised as an arena for known names such as Randall Denley, Jack MacLaren and Bob Chiarelli.

The Cons got away with this in the federal election, but then they were the governing party.

If Hudork and gang -- or any of them -- think they can hide from us and we'll vote for them anyway, let's show them they've got another think coming.

Pearson tagged his post with 'political absence'. I'd call it political abstinence and like sexual abstinence, let's show the pols it will NOT continue to work.

Keep an eye on local reporting. If you go to meetings, note no-shows.

If you're on twitter use #NoShow and #VoteOn. If you're not, leave links here and I'll twitterize them.

PILE ON: Dr. Dawg! Who else?

Image source

Theme of the Day: Beauty Salons

Do your days have themes? Mine do sometimes. OK, maybe not themes, maybe more like minor sub-plots. Or something. One day, I saw three fat people eating red licorice at various points on my perambulations. Weird.

Today's theme is Beauty Salons. (Seriously, that's what they're still called in the Yellow Pages in this year of grace [and beauty] 2011.)

This afternoon I was stopped on the street by a stylish and clearly frustrated young woman asking for directions. She had a smart phone in her hand that wasn't working for her. She asked me if I knew where a specific salon was. Nope. I didn't say, but tweeted later, that she'd no doubt fare better if she asked someone who looked like she had actually been inside such an establishment in the last decade.

Later, cruising the toobz, I found this at LifeShite.

A new approach to get information about the high abortion rate among black women in the U.S. to thousands of people was launched at a trade show for barbers and hair stylists in Atlanta over the weekend, reports Christina Martin of Bound4Life.

Over a thousand hairdressers told organizers of The Samson Project that they would talk about abortion in their shops.

According to the organizers of the “Samson Project” - named for the long-haired Nazirite of the Old Testament - over 1,000 people committed to watching their DVD, and talking about abortion’s tragic impact on the black community in their shops.

Genius, eh? What more captive audience than people with partly completed hair-dos who can't escape until the job's done?

I'm thinking there are about to be 1,000 hairdressers who lose some serious business.

Later a tweet from Antonia Zerbisias: 'Hair salon ad depicting battered woman sparks online furor', which sent me here. There's a photo of the ad there.

A two-year-old ad for an Edmonton hair salon uncovered by a New York advertising executive has unleashed a ferocious debate on abuse versus art.

The ad, one in a series of six, shows a stylish young woman in heels and big hair with a huge black eye sitting on a couch. A young man in a suit stands behind the couch holding a diamond necklace.

“Look good in all you do,” the tagline reads.

The salon's owner is Sarah Cameron, who tries to defend it.

“The ads were our interpretation of a particular ‘art form,’” she wrote. “Is it cutting edge advertising? Yes. Is it intended to be a satirical look at real life situations that ignites conversation and debate? Of course.

“Is it to everyone’s taste? Probably not.”

'Look good in all you do' includes:

Other photographs in the “Look Good In All You Do” series on Facebook depict a woman smoking a cigarette on a mattress in an alley; a stylish young woman dragging well-shod female legs from a white hearse; and an Amy Winehouse-lookalike.

Am I turning into a humourless old feminazi? Go look at the ad. The couch is ugly, the room is barren, the hair-do is weird, the model looks stunned. The shiner is MASSIVE.

The gal is NOT looking particularly good.

So, I'm thinking that if someone wants to try to co-opt beauty parlour employees into proselytizing captive customers, information on violence against women might be a more productive topic than bullshit about abortion equalling genocide and/or slavery.

Mostly, I'm reaffirmed in my desire to stay the fuck outta Beauty Salons.

Image source.