Shhhhhh

OK, we admit it. Sometimes we at Birth Pangs make shit up. But we didn't make this up.

Back in March we started calling Bill C-484 The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill after a prominent fetus fetishist called it that on his blog.

So, despite the fact that an anonymous commenter there helpfully pointed out that the post had just made a liar out of Ken Epp, today the same blogger posted Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill - The Sequel. (The Freak Dominionists are also discussing it.)

He links to a LifeShite story about Courtney Love refusing to have a abortion despite her heroin use. This is of course celebrated (though we doubt very much else about Ms Love's life would be celebrated by the fetus fetishists). Then the article maunders on about proposed legislation in the US somewhere about banning 'coerced' abortions. This is par for the course for fetus fetishists. They believe that most abortions -- except those for Culture of Death Feminazis -- are coerced, mainly by the menfolk in these women's lives, and of course by Culture of Death Feminazis. They figger if they can outlaw 'coerced' abortions -- presto change-o! -- abortion would just about disappear -- except for those of the Culture of Death Feminazis of course. He wants such legislation here.

Here, we'll let him tell you:

With C-484 and then this as a follow-up? Holy smokes, Batman, talk about having the devil on the run.

Can you imagine how much this kind of legislation is going to cut down on abortion in Canada when we truck it up here? It will show just how fraudulent the whole “choice” of abortion really is.

But, please, nobody go over there and tell him he's just made a liar out of Ken Epp and his minions. Again.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

C-484: The Bill That Is Totally NOT about Abortion

Except that a lot of people -- Conservative Party people -- think it is.

Remember when the 8,000-member strong Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (FMSQ) came out in opposition to Bill C-484, aka The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill?

Well, according to the Canadian Press, the president, Dr. Barrette, is taking some heat for it. Apparently he is getting hate mail from English Canada hoping he'll «brûler en enfer».

But there's also this:

Cependant, il ajoute avoir aussi reçu confirmation de gens du Parti conservateur dans l'ouest canadien que l'objectif du projet de loi C-484 était bien d'établir une reconnaissance des droits du foetus dans le but d'interdire l'avortement.

Translation:

However, he [Dr Barrette, President of the FMSQ] adds that he received confirmation from people from the Conservative Party from Western Canada that the objective of Bill C-484 was clearly to recognize rights of the fetus with the goal to ban abortion.

OK, we glad that's cleared up.

Check out our newly updated Activist Page to see who else may be getting hate mail. The Canadian Bar Association? The Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians? The YWCA?

h/t choice joyce at Bread and Roses

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

Poor Little 'Charity' vs. Evul Feminazis, Part 2

Yes indeedy, the story about the poor little 'charity' suing the big evul Planned Parenthood is trying to grow legs. Again, we want to help.

The splendidly named blog, Nexus of Assholery, is fuming.

But before we get to that, a small factual matter. S/He refers to us (without a linky-link, very rude that) and questions our veracity.

Birth Pangs' blogger Fern Hill insists that the links were later removed from the site (something which actually is in the realm of possibility, but hard to accept without proof that they existed in the first place).

Here is the relevant quote from the Communist Broadcasting Corporation (note: this is a news story, not a column by the Devil Incarnate, aka Heather Mallick):

This week, the centre pulled some controversial links about abortion and birth control from its website after articles such as one by CBC.ca columnist Heather Mallick, who reported the links included a story comparing corporations that make birth control drugs to the Jewish Holocaust and a story by an anonymous author with the headline: "One baby in 30 left alive after medical abortion."

Crisis Pregnancy Centre Sues Planned Parenthood

This story -- First Place Pregnancy Centre sues Planned Parenthood of Ottawa -- is trying to grow legs. We at Birth Pangs want to help. (Berlynn and deBeauxOs began our coverage.)

Yesterday LifeShite got into it. Here's its account:

The Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Ottawa, operating under the registered business name First Place Pregnancy Centre, issued a Statement of Claim Tuesday against Planned Parenthood Ottawa and two of its representatives before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. First Place alleges that Planned Parenthood Ottawa interfered with critical funding and defamed their charity putting the charity and the women they serve at risk.

On Monday, November 26th, 2007 the wives and girlfriends of the Ottawa Senators announced the launch of their holiday fundraiser, the "SENSational Tree Raffle", naming First Place as one of three chosen charities. The following day, Planned Parenthood Ottawa issued a press release in which it is alleged that they made false and defamatory statements about First Place. Planned Parenthood's actions caused First Place to withdraw from the fundraiser and forego the thousands of dollars that could have assisted First Place and its clients.

Terri Mazik, Executive Director of First Place Pregnancy Centre asks, "Why did Planned Parenthood Ottawa interfere in this way? While we do not refer for abortion we provide and have always provided nonjudgmental support to women facing an unintended pregnancy in order for them to make an informed decision. We have an obligation to our clients and to the community to realize our mandate and we have therefore decided to take legal action to protect our ability to do so."

Why did Planned Parenthood interfere?

Simple. To let the people buying raffle tickets know where the money was going to go. (The other two recipients were Kids Help Phone and a women's shelter.)

Why bother asking when you “know” the RIGHT answer.

“What if your mother had aborted you?” is a sham question that fetus fetishists wave on their placards and scream in the faces of Pro-Choice supporters. Recently Frances Kissling gave a thoughtful and complex answer to that rhetorical query:

"As a fetus I would have gladly given up my chance to enter the world and become Frances Kissling to have given my mother a better chance at happiness. Far too much is made of a mother’s obligations to her children and far too little of what a child’s love for her mother means. If fetuses could love, I think they would be as passionate in defense of their mothers as born children become."

Yet Canada’s ubiquitous Blob Blogger, Babbling Bellicose Wingnut dismissed her response since it was not the Right answer. BBBBW “knows” what it is, though. How can she “know”? … Well, her religious dogma TELLS her so.

Religious fanatics who believe that human beings walked with dinosaurs and maintain that every word in the bible is true, cannot envisage any reality that is different from that which is defined by their church clerics.

Of course fetus fetishists would hate the thought of their non-existence because religious doctrine TELLS them that, even when each and every one of them was a mere clump of cells dividing, they were more important than the woman giving them life. Thus, fed by this egocentric perspective, abortion criminalizers will self-righteously label women who choose to terminate a pregnancy ’selfish’.

BBBBW’s inability to understand Kissling’s answer is a product of her knee-jerk obedience to religious ideology. Her thought processes are a literal extension of established Church doctrine. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler are all the same, because her religious dogma tells her so.

The question: “What if your mother had aborted you?” is a very powerful one to consider. It is one that I pondered, as I grew up with the awareness that my existence was unintended. Quite likely, had reliable birth control or safe abortion been available to my mother, I would have not come into being. That knowledge does not make me feel angry or sad. It is what it is.

However, when I gave life and I gave birth to my daughter, it was a choice that I embraced, because I consciously and whole-heartedly made that decision. And my daughter grew up in the knowledge that she was a wanted child.

Yesterday was Mothers’ Day. The origins of the celebration is attributed to many traditions. In North America, historical research identifies social activist Julia Ward Howe …

[who] wrote the Mother’s Day Proclamation as a call for peace and disarmament. Howe failed in her attempt to get formal recognition of a Mother’s Day for Peace. [She] was influenced by Ann Jarvis, a young Appalachian homemaker who, starting in 1858, had attempted to improve sanitation through what she called Mothers’ Work Days. She organized women throughout the Civil War to work for better sanitary conditions for both sides, and in 1868 she began work to reconcile Union and Confederate neighbors.

Unfortunately, these courageous and one might say, feminist declarations in support of mothers’ concerns have been forgotten with the recent commercialization of Mothers’ Day. Fundamentalist religious organizations also promote and glorify ‘motherhood’, when it advances their goals. But their respect is only awarded to those who exemplify a specific, dogma-sanctioned type of mother.

Which would be irritating but acceptable, if fundamentalist fetus fetishists confined the enforcement of their doctrine to their own brethren. But they are attempting to bully everyone with the force of their religious rules, through proposed legislation such as private members’ Bills: C-484 and C-537.

One sane (rhetorical) response to their political manipulations is the oft-repeated chant:

Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!

First posted at Birth Pangs.

Anti-VAW Expert: 'Pregnant women don't need C-484'

A couple of weeks ago, we at Birth Pangs called out to supporters of Bill C-484, aka The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

OK. So. Here’s the challenge. Find one reputatable, established organization working against violence against women that publicly endorses this bill and we’ll shut up.

Well, they didn't/couldn't.

But today in The Western Star there is an editorial by Vyda Ng, co-ordinator for the Coalition Against Violence — Avalon East, St. John’s, which looks to us like a reputable, established organization.

Ms Ng says pretty much what we at Birth Pangs and everybody else with more than one working neuron has been saying.

It would have been nice if Ken Epp, the MP behind Bill C-484, had consulted women’s and violence prevention groups before trying to push it through Parliament. We would have pointed out that the bill misses the point entirely.

Not only misses the point but adds extra legal jeopardy for pregnant women.

C-537: 'Life Begins at Fertilization'

It is usually in the nature of Private Member’s Bills that their authors are not well known to the country in general.

Such is the case with Maurice Vellacott, author and sponsor of Bill C-537, ‘An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession)’.

In the comments to an excellent blog-post by 900ftjesus at In the House and Senate, sassy offers a link to the
‘About Maurice Vellacott’ page where it is revealed that he is a founding Board Member of
Real Choices Crisis Pregnancy Centre in Saskatoon.

A quick hop over there informs us that:

We can provide you with referrals to many different resources within our community such as adoption services, housing information and programming options. WE DO NOT REFER FOR ABORTIONS.

*sigh* Big surpriiiise. It is a ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centre’, which, as has been proven over and fucking over again lie to and manipulate whoring harlots women unexpectedly pregnant.

So it should come as no surprise that Maurice snuck a little zinger into a bill supposedly about ‘conscience rights’ as JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie points out:

"'human life' means the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation."

Got that? OK. You know what to do.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

Eeeek! Sex-Selective Abortion

OK, there is no question that sex-selective abortion is a problem in traditionally patriarchal/misogynist countries. We've all heard the stories about the 'missing women' in China and India because parents choose to abort female fetuses. And we've heard about the present and future issues such a gender gap poses. Both China and India have acknowledged the problem and are undertaking (probably futile) efforts to address it.

But is it a problem here?

Well, in Canada we don't keep ethnicity-based stats, but a March 2008 study reports that sex-selective abortion may be on the rise in some British and American communities.

Sherry Colb, prominent US reproduction law expert, admittedly writing in 2005, doesn't think it poses a threat to the US overall.

But here in Canada, recently Ujjal Dosanjh, federal Liberal health critic, clutched his pearls and shrieked raised an alarm:

Speaking to CBC 's The Current, Dosanjh said the {gender ID} tests need to be regulated and a debate launched about whether it's acceptable to have an abortion because of the gender of a fetus.

Today, there's an op-ed piece by Dosanjh and Raminder Dosanjh in the Ottawa Citizen.

It starts:

Sex selection for the purpose of committing female feticide is one of the most heinous acts of violence and hatred inflicted on women. It is a practice rooted in misogyny, and it is a practice that we have spoken out against both in Canada and during travels in India.

Female feticide. Uh-oh. You see where this is going?

Next sentence:

While we firmly support a woman's right to choose as paramount, there is a clear distinction to be drawn between supporting access to safe abortions, which we vigorously defend, and the abortion of fetuses solely to prevent the births of female babies due to biased socio-cultural norms, which we abhor.

That's kind of a sticky wicket, isn't it? Support a woman's right to choose. Unless she chooses to abort a fetus on the basis of its gender.

A Response

SHE replies. Well, sorta.

The gals at Birth Pangs are trying to goad me to name one "legitamite" (re:feminist) anti-violence group that supports C-484.

First, we didn't ask for a 'legitamite' group -- though if we had, we would have spelled it correctly -- we asked for a 'reputable, established' organization working against violence against women.

We did not say this:

Because it can only be legitamite if feminists support it. If non-feminists support it, then it's no good.

(Gigi, in the comments there, ponders what a non-feminist anti-violence organization might counsel its clients.)

Then SHE puts more words in our mouth:

If I lose my fetus, the feminist answer is: tough luck! There's only one body! Your beloved unborn child did not exist! Too bad!

We will type this next bit sloooowly.

We are against this bill because it serves no purpose EXCEPT to reopen the abortion 'debate'.

This "dare" by the feminists is ideologically motivated. They're trying to pretend that the feminists who are dominant in among those who combat women's violence are the arbiters of what is and is not in the best interests of women.

Um. No. We ask sincerely: why, if this bill is all about protecting women from abuse, NOT ONE group, legitimate or not, has come out in support?

And we seem to have an answer to that.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)