Fetus Freaks React to Sex-Selective Abortion Study

Fetus freaks reacted predictably to the news of a large study confirming that sex-selective abortion probably accounts for a significant male/female birth ratio imbalance in Ontario's Indo-Canadian community. (Note that freaks call it "gendercide.")

There are three categories of reactions.
1. Generalized hand-wringing, tut-tutting, and slamming of abortion.
2. "Where are the feminists?"
3. Calls to action.

1. Generalized hand-wringing. Two in this category: Focus on the Family's astroturf site and LieShite, which manages to pack in a bunch of buzzwords, including "cultural profiling" (whatever that is, but sounds bad, doesn't it?), "political incorrectness" (I think they mean "political correctness" but hey, they're just buzzwords, right?) and of course "gendercide." This one goes on for quite a bit but this is its only point:

Gendercide, or sex-selective abortion, shows everything that is wrong with abortion – all abortion.

2. Where are the feminists? The freaks clearly think they have a gotcha here that runs something like this: "If feminists really cared about women, they'd be up in arms about female fetuses being aborted."

Why they think this is a gotcha is a mystery to me. Duh, the reason we are feminists is because we are excruciatingly well aware of the bias against girls and women in society. And we're working to do something -- a bunch of things, actually, ranging from pay equity to universal day care to expanded reproductive care, etc etc etc -- about it. That's what makes us feminists.

Two in this category: Amateur Statistician and Robyn Urback in the NatPo, a truly loathsome, hypocritical piece (q.v.).

Aside: I left comments at both the Focus on the Family and Amateur Statistician blogs, asking politely what they would suggest be done about this. Focus on the Family declined to publish my question (though now there's an odd fragment of a tweet of mine in the comments) and AS said she wouldn't answer because I'm rude. OK then.

3. Calls to action. Here we have the Dominionist who is rather vague about what's to be done, because he doesn't actually have to say that his goal -- banning all abortion -- would fix the problem. But government should do something!!!!!!!

The other call to action is a media release from CampaignLie under the title "Campaign Life Coalition calls for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions."

The media release starts:

The barbaric practice of sex-selective abortions has resurfaced in Canada after further evidence has been published proving that gendercide does indeed occur in Canadian hospitals and abortion facilities.

("Barbaric," we all know, means "done by non-white people.")

But unlike the Dominionist, Campaign Lie has a plan. There's a quote from president Jim Hughes, referring to Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins' bone-headed knee-jerk, which I will address in another post.

“If he's truly disturbed by the killing of baby girls - just because they’re girls – then Hoskins shouldn’t hesitate to delist this type of abortion from provincial health insurance plans. Furthermore, every province’s Minister of Health should do the same.”

The title calls for a ban -- without of course getting into any of the messy details of how discriminatory, unethical, and futile such a ban would be, but the text calls for defunding the procedure.

Because that will help.

We know anecdotally that coercion -- general cultural pressure and/or specific pressure, threats, and worse -- is involved in at least some of these abortions. Here's an example from Jen Gunter, a practising OB/GYN (whose blogpost is essential reading on this topic).

"He beat me very badly after I had my last girl, I can’t go through that again,” a woman once told me. What exactly were this woman’s options who spoke limited English, had no job and depended on her husband for money. She took a bus to her abortion because she didn’t drive and would have to explain the money for a cab. Do I judge her? Do I with my upper middle class upbringing and the earning potential of a physician say, “Sorry honey, not tragic enough?” And what if she doesn’t get that abortion and is then beaten to death in her third trimester or after she delivers? I’ve seen that, but no one writing about the “evils” or “moral ambiguity” of sex selective abortion mentions maternal abuse or murder.

So, these kindly Christians ignore the circumstances of women in these situations and instead seek to punish them further and drive the practice underground.

Because, if they were "good" (even if non-white) women, they would instead undergo multiple pregnancies in the quest for a boy.

Jen Gunter again:

What about eight pregnancies in search of a boy, is that not harmful? Why does no one ever mention that when they discuss harm? I have delivered many women who sobbed and looked away in disgust when they saw they had delivered their fifth or sixth or eighth girl, because they knew they would be back year after year until they delivered that coveted boy or died trying. How is that not violence against women?

If women have to justify their abortion why shouldn’t they have to justify their eighth pregnancy? The latter is far more dangerous than the former.

And yes, six additional deliveries is a lot more harmful than six abortions.

How many pregnancies must a woman endure in search of a boy before the patriarchy decides she is allowed to have an abortion? Three? Five? Eight? Fifteen?

Whatever you call it, we need to look hard at this practice. To rewrite LieShite's line:

Gendercide, or sex-selective abortion, shows everything that is wrong with society in all its loathsome sexism, misogyny, classism, and racism.

All of which the fetus freaks are delighted to enable.

Any Fix for Sex-Selective Abortion Would Be Discriminatory, Unethical, and Futile

Well, now at least we seem to have some decent research on sex selective abortion in Canada.

Previous studies indicated that it might be happening in "some communities," but there were quibbles about methodology.

This seems solid.

It’s the clearest evidence yet that abortion is being used to help parents have a son. A study has found that some Indian-born immigrants to Canada are selectively aborting female fetuses if they have already had two daughters. The researchers say, however, that action may not be necessary as the incidence is low, and the practice is likely to go away on its own as immigrants become settled.

Link to full study.

Yes, it's happening in Canada, but as we've said many times before: So what?

There is still zero evidence that the practice is skewing the sex ratio in general.

And if it is skewing the ratio in "some communities," we say again: So what? Parents who prefer boys may get a comeuppance when their precious sons bring home girlfriends (or boyfriends [!]) from other ethnic backgrounds.

But look at the hand-wringing going on. The normally sane Toronto Star has an unusually sensational piece about it.

Even my fave Matt Galloway of CBC's MetroMorning got into the "abortion is terrible" meme, trying really hard to get one of the study's authors to call the results "troubling."

@metromorning Well, that was disappointing. Matt tried twice to get author of #SexSelection study to say he was "troubled" by findings.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) April 12, 2016

@metromorning Why "troubled"? Why not "what are implications?" Guy is a researcher. You want community reaction, ask them.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) April 12, 2016

@metromorning Good. It's a complicated issue and I find it "troubling" you fall so easily into stereotypical tropes.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) April 12, 2016

And while We Need a Law Like a Hole in the Head was ready with his SHRIEK!!!! (Title: Government needs to end pre-natal discrimination against women) and because somebody had to do it, Amateur Statistician asks WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS????, it is very disappointing that mainstream media would prefer to point fingers and tsk-tsk.

(Other fetus freak sites are no doubt still working up their dudgeon.)

Also, this issue conjures up a disgusting stew of misogyny and racism. DO NOT read comments.

As an antidote, read this piece from the eminently sensible André Picard (from 2012) about the complexities of the issue.

Here's the thing: any attempted "fix" will be discriminatory, unethical, and futile.

Refuse to reveal sex of fetus until it's too late to abort? How exactly? Refuse to disclose all pregnant patients' own information? Or just "some" patients?

What about sex-related genetic disorders? Will we force people to carry blighted pregnancies to term because we're up in arms over possible sex-selection?

And it will all be futile because there are home sex-test kits, highways and airplanes, and unethical ultrasound technicians.

The only way to "fix" this is to value girls and women as we do boys and men.

That's a helluva long-term project, but it's the only way.

From New Scientist again:

In India, male preference has led to a shortfall of millions of female children, so strict legislation was necessary. But in North America, the problem is small and likely to resolve itself as immigrant communities become more integrated. “My suspicion is that in the second generation you would not notice this phenomenon at all,” [Anil Deolalikar, economist at the University of California] says.

Past DJ! posts on sex selection.


ADDED: Dr Brian Goldman weighs in and comes to the attention of Dr Jen Gunter, newly dubbed "Twitter's OB/GYN."

Get ready for a response big time https://t.co/ts1TyM6qie

— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) April 12, 2016

This won't be pretty. :)


UPDATE April 13/16: Here is Dr Jen Gunter's response to Dr Goldman. Ouch!

Something Dr Gunter mentions that I -- and most other commenters on this subject -- have not is: multiple pregnancies in the quest for a male child. Since we know that pregnancy is 14 times more dangerous than abortion, why does no one consider the risk of multiple pregnancies for the "good" women who do not seek abortion?


UPDATE April 14/16: Yesterday, CBC's The Current ran an informative and hopeful segment on this issue, demonstrating how complex it is.

Vengeance -- and More -- Drives "Unborn Victims" Law

I said I had no more to say about the new “unborn victims” law proposed as a private member’s bill by double-plus good fetus freak Cathay Wagantall.

But there have been developments. The bill (C225) has been deemed votable, which mean we will be subjected to a glurge-filled debate in Parliament on it.

Like Ken Epp’s ill-fated C484, this “unborn victims law" is intended to and will, if passed, impact Canadian women’s right to autonomy by giving rights and status to fetuses.

DAMMIT JANET! opposes C225 as does Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) (pdf).

This bill, like other attempts, was spurred by a horrible crime and is being pushed by, not to put too fine a point on it, vengeance-minded people.

Principally by the ex-partner of the murdered woman who now seems to have come completely unhinged.

In a 2500 word rant, he is now attacking Joyce Arthur of ARCC, claiming that she is “anti-choice.”

A sample:

You are NOT an advocate for a woman’s choice if you are only willing to protect one of her options. In fact, you have been a cancer to the rights of these women, and it has come at a cost to their physical protection at the very time they should have it most. Please for the sake of women – get right or step down.

LifeShite reported on his latest under the title
“‘Pro-choice’ dad rips top abortion activist: the only ‘choice’ she pushes is abortion.”

Jeff Durham is the man’s name and he lists the “unborn victims laws” that ARCC — and all pro-choice people — have opposed. His blogpost includes photos and names of pregnant women killed.

He is in effect blaming pro-choice, and Joyce Arthur in particular, for the deaths of these women.

I don’t know if Joyce is a litigious person, but in her shoes I sure as hell would be inclined to speak to a lawyer about this situation.

Oddly missing in all this is the accused, Matthew Brush. At his last court appearance in March, the judge decreed that he would be tried for first-degree murder and the next court date was set for April 8, but I can’t find any mention of it.

Media coverage of the crime has been extremely tight-lipped. Cassandra Kaake was determined to have died from blood loss caused by extreme trauma. Her body was discovered in the ruins of a deliberately set house-fire.

I have seen nothing about possible motive or the relationship (if any) between Kaake and Brush. Nothing.

There is clearly much more to this story. Is that “more” what’s driving Durham’s rage?

I guess we’ll find out.

Previous posts on C255 here and here.


UPDATE: Dig this.

After noting that Durham describes himself as "pro-choice," the piece goes on:

Wagantall says that Durham’s public support of the bill is part of the strategy to counter so-called pro-choice objections that unborn victims laws are pro-life laws in sheep’s clothing.

So, is Durham being manipulated by fetus freaks? Sure looks like it.

And they have the gall to call us out for noting that is *IS* an anti-abortion law in sheep's clothing.

Heal the RCMP or replace it.

Necrotic festering is bubbling up within the RCMP.  Its foul stench wafts from every part of the force. The infection is spreading: surgery and excision will be required.

The affliction known as flesh-eating disease "..is a misnomer, as in truth, the bacteria do not 'eat' the tissue. They destroy the tissue that makes up the skin and muscle by releasing toxins.."

RCMP Commissioner Paulson has to be removed, as soon as possible. The man is worse than gangrene; he spouts insincere platitudes and clichés in lieu of genuine commitment to change the toxic culture and behaviours that contaminate every aspect of the organization.

Recently Paulson attended an event where he was invited 

"to discuss national security in the wake of the Brussels bombing, and also what progress he was making on curtailing harassment and weeding out members who have sullied the force's reputation. [..] he was asked by a member of the audience, when was the last time he had written a traffic ticket to anyone. Instead of answering the question, the commissioner went on a "bon mot" diversion. He talked about speeding down B.C.'s Coquihalla Highway with some family members last year and being pulled over by an RCMP officer. Paulson got some laughs when he mimicked the horrified reaction of the member who suddenly realized he had just pulled over the big boss; an officer who faced the unenviable decision of whether or not to lay a fine on him. The tell though, came when the moderator said he wouldn't ask about the dollar value of the ticket. Paulson's expression went from a broad grin to 'oh-oh' in a flash as he seemed to realize he had stepped in it. [..] Later, talking to reporters, he was clearly not pleased when the speeding incident came up. At first, he said, "Aw, it was just a story I made up." Pressed further he changed course, saying, "No, I don't want to talk about that. I do not want to talk about that."

Paulson's casual Catskills routine is offensive, in light of the most recent developments and disclosures in the matter of interminable sexual harassment within RCMP ranks.

The harassment, [Linda Davidson] alleges in court papers, took many forms: unwanted grabbing and kissing; crude jokes, including the placement of ketchup-stained tampons in her locker; and constant questioning about her sexual orientation and abilities. “I experienced this treatment irrespective of my detachment, posting, rank or seniority,” she wrote in an affidavit. “I never felt that I could rely on senior officers to protect me.“ The Bracebridge, Ont., mother, who now runs a security firm, is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging systemic gender-based harassment and discrimination in the RCMP — the second such lawsuit to hit the force in recent years.

Last, but not least, is the ongoing RCMP mindset of collusion with rape culture and racism, which enables abusive practices such as this one.

Last month, Cody Durocher was convicted of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in Hay River, N.W.T. It was his third sexual assault conviction. RELATED | RCMP botched N.W.T. sex assault investigation, documents say At that trial N.W.T. Supreme Court Justice Louise Charbonneau had some harsh words for the way that girl was treated after disclosing the incident to police, noting that instead of being taken to hospital, she was put in a jail cell for violating her probation, where she remained until the following evening. Durocher, 31, was convicted of raping two women in different towns in northern Alberta in 2010. He pleaded guilty to the first after DNA evidence linked him to the attack. He was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Durocher was sentenced to three years for the second attack. In court, the 13-year-old Hay River victim said Durocher sexually assaulted her on January 11, 2014.

Here's an idea: appoint a royal commission to investigate the institutional roots of whatever pathology it is that maintains a "..nature of policing makes it ripe for behaviour that is _less than professional_" 

Name Marie Henein to chair that commission. She doesn't suffer fools gladly. Here's how she handled Peter Mansbridge's ham-handed attempt at interviewing her.

Buy popcorn.  Lots and lots of popcorn.

HUGE win for pro-choice in PEI

Well, that didn't take much.

Just three-plus decades.

A horrifying story of a woman needing medical care turned away from a Prince Edward Island hospital.

A clever guerrilla poster campaign featuring a likeness (maybe) of the Island's most famous fictional character.

Bunch of rallies and demonstrations.

A scathing video on abortion access in the Maritimes.

Oh, yeah, and a constitutional challenge.

Today, the government of PEI threw in the towel on abortion.

The Prince Edward Island government announced today that it will not oppose a constitutional challenge to provincial policies regarding access to in-province abortion services.

“Based on legal advice that current policies regarding access to in-province abortion services would likely be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, government determined that the most responsible approach is to revise the policy rather than embark on a long and costly court case,” said Premier and Minister of Justice Wade MacLauchlan.

Not only that, Health PEI will open a new women's reproductive health centre that will offer medical and surgical abortions, along with other needed reproductive care.

Abortion had been available in PEI until 1982 when two hospitals merged, on the condition from the Catlick one that abortion be banned.

Aaaaand cue the lying liars.

@JustinTrudeau Extremely disappointed that #PEI health practitioners will now be forced to kill babies.

— Mike Schouten (@mike_schouten) March 31, 2016

Nobody is being forced to do anything, Mike, least of all "kill babies."

Access to abortion in Canada is not uniformly good. A government's acknowledgement that denying abortion is a constitutional no-no is a HUGE step forward.

Brava! and Bravo! to all the hard-working, committed, and smart activists who made this happen.

But, of course, there's still much to do.



DAMMIT JANET! has been on PEI's case for ages. Some previous blogposts.


ADDED: Why have I not heard of this blog before? Screaming in All Caps on PEI win.

When femicide is justified by men who feel their "honour" has been soiled.

The first post of an informal series, illustrating how and when all the elements of the legal system do work and justice is served.

Dorothy Woods.

Police officers meticulously collected evidence to document a complicated investigation in a rigorous, professional manner.

Here's an interesting series of posts, following the release of her accused killer - presumed innocent as the legal system goes, and this feminist agrees - on bail after he was charged.

The Crown proceeded with skill, compassion and due diligence.

The defendant's lawyer attempted to impugn the integrity and the objectivity of the prosecutor.

Outside court, defense lawyer Michael Nolin took issue with how the texts presented to the jury portray David Woods as a racist. "I'm very disappointed that this is the line that the prosecution has chosen to draw in the sand," he said. "I find it interesting that the only prosecutor of colour in the Saskatoon provincial prosecution office has been drawn to try this case. And he's been on it from the beginning."

Nolin concluded his case for the defence by stating Dorothy engaged in a high-risk lifestyle with several strange (code for black) men*, and exhorted the jurors to "vote with their conscience".  Oddly that doesn't sound at all like a closing argument to me though it does seem to be a judgement.

The judge carefully presided over the trial and instructed the jury members.

The attentive jury reviewed the details of evidence that was gathered and presented.

After a finding of first degree murder, the prosecutor Michael Segu was able to offer observations to the media in his measured, thoughtful manner.

Oh. Was it racism, the "the elephant in the room" that Woods' lawyer Michael Nolin kept tripping over?

Nonetheless David Woods refused to take responsibility for the aggrieved male honour and patriarchal privilege that motivated him to plan and execute the vengeful murder of his wife.  He appealed his conviction.

*The testimony of Dorothy's friend was challenged by Woods' lawyer; the judge allowed it.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 

ADDED: to provide a context for this post.  There have been many confrontations after the Ghomeshi decision, particularly with regard to those who seem compelled to police what can be properly criticized.  On both sides of the divide, many have descended into use of hyperbole.

These screen caps indicate how most criticism of Justice Horkins' judgement is met with hostile screeching of SO YOU WANT TO ABOLISH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE! 

When those accused of being "anti-presumption of innocence" attempt to clarify - they're then accused of being in league with some RWNJ advocacy for victims, such as the useful con job Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu.  Err, no. 

Ghomeshi Lessons, part 1.

What to write about the trial of the decade? The banal evil of social media hyperbole + a depraved legal system can devour events and regurgitate a perfectly horrifying dawg's breakfast.

The cathartic element in this case and trial is a histrionically skilled and malignant narcissist who has benefitted immeasurably from patriarchy AND feminism.

Seasoned feminists observed that in the 1970s women acquired the right to say YES enthusiastically to sexual activity.  This *revolution* was immediately countered by many men who exploited it to their advantage by denying a woman's right to say NO.

Generations of men then followed, some who claim not to understand what consent is, others who whine about being "friend-zoned" and those who aspire to PUA summits of Roosh-like action.

Jian Ghomeshi falls into the latter category.  His public schtick, which worked admirably well for pseudo-feminists in the 1970s, was refined to the point that many staunch feminist acquaintances were completely scammed by his Support Bro' demeanour.  Meanwhile, in his private life he was the guy who badly needed to hurt women to get a really good hard-on.

In late 2014, when rumours about certain proclivities became too loud, he deployed a well-honed tactic of pre-emptive aggression.  He showed a video of one of his rough sex episodes to his CBC bosses.  It's not known whether the other participant consented to the activity, its recording or its presentation to Ghomeshi's superiors.

That didn't go well.  So he cranked up the campaign by posting a self-indulgent piece (Just a lad with a kink!) on his Facebook website, not anticipating this would provide leverage to The Toronto Star to publish their story.

This led to an outpouring of many other women reporting that Ghomeshi had physically assaulted them.

When his PR firm failed him, Ghomeshi hired Marie Henein as his criminal defence lawyer, weeks ahead of actually being charged with criminal assault.

Here's a chronology of events.

Back in 2014, I anticipated Henein would find ways of stitching-up the evidence.

Playing Cassandra is an unpleasant role though somebody has to do it.

This was before the trial commenced.  As it unfolded, I wrote a blogpost and used tweets to observe, from afar.

Horkins' pontification seems to confirm that Henein used the knowledge she gleaned from his previous judgments to map out a strategy that played to his beliefs and principles.  A specific approach to cross-examination was required to demonstrate the complainants were unreliable and that their testimony wasn't credible.

But. If the prosecution's case could be so easily destroyed, why didn't Heinin approach the Crown, as she did with the Michael Bryant case, to lay out the full content of the defence preparation and suggest that the charges be dismissed?

In the Bryant file, technical experts dismantled the sloppy evidence-gathering TPS produced. As well, there was considerable information with regard to Darcy Sheppard and manifestations of physical threats he expressed against other drivers.

Wait.  Here's the difference between the two cases, in addition to the possibility one of the accused is a basically decent person and the other one isn't.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that a professional would have to consult their client before engaging with the prosecution in matters such as plea bargaining or suggesting charges be dismissed.

With Bryant's case, proceeding to trial meant that Henein or her assistant counsel would have to set up Crown witnesses as well as TPS staff testimony for demolition and in the process, embarrassing the police department as well as the prosecution lawyers.  Proof of Darcy Sheppard's previous violent behaviour would have to be thoroughly documented.  Bryant was likely to be acquitted, why not avoid the expense of a prolonged trial that besmirched the memory of his victim?

In light of what's been revealed with regard to the pleasure he takes from manipulating, degrading, harming and injuring women, I believe that if Ghomeshi had been informed of Henein's strategy, he would have licked his chops at the eventuality of seeing these women savaged in the court-room.  No way would this vindictive man have chosen to deprive himself of a privileged front-row seat to their humiliation.

That trial stands not only as a warning to women who have been physically and sexually assaulted to avoid reporting the crime to the criminal injustice system, but to those who might now and in the future, be approached by Ghomeshi.  His sexual fetish is violence against women and girls. (Some of the women who claim he approached them online are under 21 years of age. He is 46.)

A woman who was a graduate law student when she dated Ghomeshi in 2002, described what occurred and why she chose at that time not to report his violent, coercive attack on her.

Cops, crown lawyers, defence attorneys, judges: anybody who continues to exonerate and justify the way in which the legal system crushes complainants and re-victimizes them, explicitly colludes with patriarchal violence.

Unless they speak up against such travesty, and work to change this injustice.

ADDED: _What Ought Crown Counsel to do in Prosecuting Sexual Assault Charges? Some Post-Ghomeshi Reflections_ March 29, 2016 from Alice Woolley.

"[..] preparation is still essential for the prosecution of a criminal trial. Witness preparation does more than tell the lawyer about the nature of the evidence. It allows the lawyer to assess the witness’s ability to present the evidence, to determine whether the witness will advance the lawyer’s trial strategy and, ultimately, to determine if that trial strategy has a viable chance of succeeding given the nature of this witness’s evidence and capacity to testify. Further, it allows the lawyer to help ensure that the witness gets to provide her testimony, and that she will not end up looking like a liar when she is telling the truth.

Because let’s be absolutely clear: it is the ethical duty of a defence lawyer to make prosecution witnesses look like liars, even if those witnesses are telling the truth. That duty is constrained; a defence lawyer must not harass a witness, and must remain within the boundaries of the legal restrictions on cross-examination (in a sexual assault case, e.g., not asking improper questions about the complainant’s sexual history). But within those constraints a defence lawyer will do his best to exploit any inconsistency or weakness in the witness’s evidence to make that witness appear to be non-credible. Whether or not the witness is in fact telling the truth is not only irrelevant, it may make discrediting that witness essential to the defence lawyer’s ability to obtain an acquittal for his client [..]"

Read the whole magnificent thing here.

ALSO: This. _Mastery or Misogyny? The Ghomeshi Judgment and Sexual Assault Reform_ April 1, 2016 from Joshua Sealy-Harrington.

As discussed earlier, Justice Horkins’ judgment has deeply polarized Canadian discourse on sexual assault, receiving both warm praise and vitriolic criticism.However, in my view, neither approach is optimal for deconstructing the judgment with a view to improving the Canadian administration of sexual assault law. Rather, a careful consideration of the judgment’s strengths and weaknesses permits the most comprehensive analysis of the genuine mistakes made by Justice Horkins (and others), and how best to avoid those mistakes in future cases.We need to address the problems that pervade the Canadian administration of sexual assault law, and those problems must be understood before they can be solved.

In my humble opinion, Kwe Today presents the best pragmatic and theoretical arguments for a timely and necessary revision of the criminal code and its sexual assault provisions.

Theses are the thinkers who are raising their voices, after Marie Henein blew the lid off the festering legal system rot.

We might listen, then actively support law reform in this regard.

Health Minister Philpott Blows a Dog Whistle

Health Minister Jane Philpott blew an anti-choice dog whistle on Tuesday. Did you catch it?

While pro-choice activists marched through Charlottetown's streets to protest the lack of abortion services on P.E.I., the issue received some attention in the House of Commons Tuesday.

It came in the form of a question from the NDP MP from Nanaimo-Ladysmith, Sheila Malcolmson, who said the service must be available to all Canadian women.

...

[Health Minister Jane Philpott] pointed out that abortion is not the only service not available across the country.

"There are inequities in access to a number of health services across the country, including abortion," she said.

"There should be access to all medically-necessary services on the basis of need and not on the basis of ability to pay. I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure access is available to all Canadians."

Before I get to the dog whistle, let me address Philpott's assertion that other services are not available across the country. Yes, indeed, this is true. Smaller centres do not have the expensive equipment or trained specialists to carry out a number of procedures, like organ transplants, complicated surgeries, etc.

But abortion, especially the more than 90% done in the first trimester, requires no expensive equipment or extensive training. In fact, if a hospital or clinic can treat a miscarriage, it can perform abortions.

In PEI, the government inexplicably turned down a proposal to provide abortion services on the island that would have actually saved money.

So, the argument that abortion is in the same category as a coronary by-pass is a non-starter. And Minister Philpott is being disingenuous at the very least to suggest it is.

Back to the dog whistle. It's the "medically necessary" (with the grammatically unnecessary hyphen) bit.

"Medically necessary" appears just once in the Canada Health Act, under "interpretations".

hospital services means any of the following services provided to in-patients or out-patients at a hospital, if the services are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability, namely....

But google "medically necessary abortion" and you'll find a slew of fetus fetishist screeds like this one: "Abortion is Never Medically Necessary to Save a Mother's Life, This Case Shows Why."

If you haven't had a whanging headache in a while and feel the need, read the mental gymnastics fetus freaks perform around ectopic pregnancy or the totally unnecessary death from septic miscarriage of Savita Halappanavar, in order to maintain the fantasy that abortion is never medically necessary.

"Pregnancy/childbirth is not a disease!" they SHRIEEEEEK. No, but it has significant risks and, in fact, a higher mortality rate than abortion.

The phrase "medically necessary" from the mouth of the Liberal Health Minister is simply music to fetus freak ears.

It is used by provinces like PEI and New Brunswick to restrict funding of abortion. And, it sounds like Minister Philpott is going to continue to give them this wiggle room.

This is worrying, to say the least. Especially as Philpott herself is a bit conflicted on the issue. From a 2014 article on vetting Liberal candidates, here what she had to say about it:

“That’s where we need to clarify the nuance on it,” she said. “I can support the policy but abortion is not a great thing.”

Oh lard, that "nuancy" thing again.

When so-called progressives go nuancy on abortion, it does NOT bode well.

Here, by the way, is the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's position paper (pdf) on "medically required abortion."

Mocking the Predators: Guelph Report

40 Days of Preyers seems to be rather a fizzle in Canada this year.

First, they're down to only 8 cities -- and a part-time vigil in Saskatoon -- from 15 in the fall last year.

There's not much bragging on social media of huge turn-outs or of women successfully coerced convinced to turn around.

And if a Québécois MNA is successful with her private member's bill, all such predatory demonstrations would be barred in Quebec.

Shorter: Anti-choice is losing in Canada and they know it.

We reported on one counter protest in Calgary.

Now here's a report by pro-choice activist Wednesday Bell from Guelph, where, note, the fetus freaks of targetted Guelph General Hospital which does NOT perform abortions. Go figger.

The counter protest was awesome! We outnumbered the anti-choicers the entire time, and they left before we did!

Best moments:

1. One girl wanting a group hug from us

2. A man thanking us because his wife had been complaining about the anti choicers for two weeks and was happy to see some resistance to them

3. The hospital security guard supporting us!

Weird moments:

1. When the anti choicers claimed it was illegal for us to be there because we were blocking the sidewalk...while they were blocking the sidewalk

2. One guy walking up to us just to tell us he was pro-life. Okay? Good for you?

And the signs were fabulous.