March for Lies 2016, Part 2: UMPTY-GAZILLION ATTENDEES!

There were great expectations for this year's March for Lies. First, its traditional organizer, Catholic Campaign Life, graciously invited all anti-choice groups to participate.

And second, Parliament is debating and will pass the tragically flawed medical assistance in dying act, which one would have thought would rev up the "womb to tomb" gang.

So the turn-out was going to be MASSIVE, yes?

In Part 1 of our annual Delusion Watch, we compared the size of yesterday's rally to April's 4/20 marijuana rally.

Doing this again. Compare rallies. 4/20 on left #MarchforLife #m4l on right. pic.twitter.com/7EXzGCzDhq

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) May 12, 2016

So how many people were there?

The Ottawa Citizen had veteran fetus freak watchers, Kady O'Malley and David Akin, live blogging/tweeting the event.

This really doesn't look quite as big as last year. #m4" pic.twitter.com/qmQmBk4rRM

— kady o'malley (@kady) May 12, 2016

Kady reported that an on-stage speaker claimed 20K in attendance and added "I'd put it closer to 6K, but we'll see what the RCMP says."

What did the RCMP say? CFRA Radio:

Rough RCMP estimates indicate more than 10,000 people participated in the march.

But that's not what David Akin reported.

Also: my count of crowd - and I walk through crowd actually counting — is 4,500. Smallest #M4L I can recall pic.twitter.com/tiqZf9EjnE

— David Akin (@davidakin) May 12, 2016

He added in another tweet that "police" said 3,000.

We were still breathlessly awaiting LieShite's outrageous inflation estimate and today we found out.

22,000!!!

So, there you have it. Somewhere around 3,000 (RCMP officer to Akin), 4,500 (Akin), 6,000 (O'Malley), 10,000 (RCMP), 20,000 (from the stage), or 22,000 (LieShite) people attended this year's Futility Bunfest.

Akin made a 40-second Facebook video with this introduction:

Here's my March For Life crowd in 40 seconds. Smallest turnout I've seen at this event. I actually count myself - takes about 20 minutes -- and I got 4,500 at 1230 ET (and I might be a little generous) RCMP officer told me: 3,000. Organizers from the stage said there were 20,000.

We called it in April. The anti-choice movement in Canada is *snerk* dying.

Even with the widening of the tent and the extra impetus of imminent government action on assisted dying, the ranks of forced birthers are thinning remarkably.

But the bald-faced lying is as strong as ever.


ADDED: David Akin's report. He picked up on the comparison to 4/20. :-)



Last year's report.

March for Lies 2016, Part 1

Clever me. I saved screen shots of the 4/20 marijuana rally from the Hill Cam to compare with March for Lies, Futility on the Hill Bunfest.

Top image today at 1:26, just before the marching, at max attendance.

Bottom image 4/20 at 4:20.

Compare.

Speakers at today's bunfest claimed there were 20,000 people there.

David Akin, veteran reporter of these events, estimated 4,500, adding that that might be generous.

Or as I said:

If that's 20K people I'll eat a Knights of Columbus hat. #MarchforLies #m4l

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) May 12, 2016

Part 2 will be a report on the fetus freaks' inflation of this sparse event to SEVEN GAZILLION!

Kill C14: Trust Patients and Doctors on Assisted Dying

DAMMIT JANET! has a not-so-radical proposal. Treat medical assistance in dying (MAID) like abortion.

In other words, adopt no new law on it and let patients and medical professionals figure it out.

In both Carter and Morgentaler, the Supreme Court called on Parliament to craft new laws.

In declining to create a Charter exemption, SCC said in the "remedy" section of Carter:

Complex regulatory regimes are better created by Parliament than by the courts.

And that is exactly where we disagree.

Parliament is NOT the place to create complex regulatory regimes. Parliament is a contentious, partisan arena, subject to lobbying by all the usual suspects, with all the usual agendas.

Look at its track record on abortion.

The government tried twice.

The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Mulroney made two attempts to pass a new abortion law. The first proposal, in the spring of 1988, did not pass the House of Commons. The second attempt, introduced by the Minister of Justice as Bill C-43 in late 1989, would be defeated on a tie vote by the time it came to third reading in Senate on January 31, 1991, leaving Canada without criminal legislation governing abortion.

And then there were the private member's bills. Plus the current one, C225, Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights.

Good scientific information and research along with conscientious practice have been emphatically demonstrated by Canada's post-Morgentaler abortion experience to be the avenue towards compassionate, reasonable, and respectful medical care.

Nobody is happy with C14 as presently proposed.

Not the doctors.

Not the gawd-botherers.

And not Canada's number uno medical writer, André Picard, who captures the essence of C14 perfectly.

The draft law is not respectful of the wishes of the majority of Canadians, nor is it patient-friendly; it’s patronizing and risk-averse. In trying to offend no one, the Liberal government has failed everyone.

What we have here is not a right to die, but a guarantee that too many Canadians will continue to suffer unnecessarily at the end of their lives.

And unlike in 1988 when there wasn't a clear consensus on what Canadians wanted to do about abortion, now there definitely is consensus. Eight out of ten of us want assistance in dying when we bloody well decide to go.

Canadians learned with abortion. We know how to do this. Trust doctors and patients to work out how to go about the details of this non-issue.

We want to be able to die on our own terms. Let us work out those terms with our own doctors.

Blamelessness

Acts of Gord -- floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, ice storms -- devastate everything and everyone in their path. Acts of humans like war, train derailments, oil rig blowouts, and pipeline failures likewise do not discriminate in their victims.

We consider these victims to be blameless and deserving of all our help and compassion. (Well, except maybe when victims do not share our skin colour, religion, etc. Then we might come around to [minimal] help and [grudging] compassion if the scale of the disaster is massive enough.)

Right now the fire in Fort McMurray is gripping Canada. As it should. More than 80,000 people are homeless, their homes, possessions, jobs, schools, communities wiped out.

The response has been huge.

The media can't get enough of stories about formerly or currently afflicted groups like Syrian war refugees, blown-up towns, and First Nations stepping up to help.

The national self-congratulation has been huge also.

I was thinking of all those homeless people. And then of homelessness (2013 report) in general.

It is estimated that on any given night, there are 30,000 homeless people in Canada, 200,000 at some point over the year. No, most of them probably weren't suddenly and dramatically driven from their nice suburban homes. For the majority, their situations are the result of dozens of small individual earthquakes of the personal, emotional, medical, financial sort. Some of their situations are the result of larger, systemic ice storms like the residential school system, the utter failure of the mental health system, war, racism, patriarchy . . .

So. I tweeted.

Not meaning any disrespect, but events like #ymmfire make me wonder what Canadians could do to tackle all the homelessness/poverty.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) May 5, 2016

@GameIndie_1 Um. Compassion?

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) May 5, 2016

More people responded with variants of this observation.

@fernhilldammit Nothing. Because we blame the homeless and impoverished. Fires could happen to any of us. But not poverty. Oh no. PFFT.

— Luna (@Heading_West) May 5, 2016

A vivid example is presented daily by Mark Cherrington, a youth worker in, coincidentally, Edmonton. He tweets about his efforts to help homeless, poor, abused youth and his battles with an incredibly stingy, uncaring bureaucracy.

Supporting a young mom of 3X children fighting a slum landlord. No smoke detectors, mold, unusable toilet. She is going to take him to court

— Mark Cherrington (@MarkCherrington) May 2, 2016

Rushing across the city to some road on the outskirts. A girl has been tossed out of a car like some fast food wrapper. Make her safe.

— Mark Cherrington (@MarkCherrington) April 27, 2016

These are kids doing the best they can with shitty situations, running afoul of petty laws, trying to stay in school, looking after children of their own.

But we won't care for them properly because they are not blameless. Somehow they are the authors of their fate and so not "deserving" of our attention.

In short, fuck 'em.

You'd think homelessness on the scale of the current disaster in Fort Mac would get us thinking about homelessness and inadequate housing in general.

Yeah, right.

C225: Dead as a Doornail

Yesterday, private member's bill C225, or the Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights bill, got its first hour of debate in Parliament.

I live-tweeted it, sort of.

After sponsor Cathay Wagantall blathered on about how carefully her bill was written to ensure it had zero zip nada effect on abortion -- choking up theatrically in the process -- Bill (The Liar) Blair, former top cop in Toronto and now MP and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, spoke.

Bill Blair using "fetus." Oh lord, I loathe Blair, but he might be speaking against #c225. #conflicted

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) May 2, 2016

Blair pointed out that judges have, and have used, discretion in applying Canada's sensible notion of "aggravating factors" in sentencing people who assault or kill pregnant people. In other words, this bill is not necessary.

Blair: focus on domestic violence. (I'm hating this. Why couldn't some other Lib be saying this stuff.) #c225

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) May 2, 2016

After Blair, Murray Rankin (NDP), David Graham (LPC), and Sheila Malcolmson (NDP) stated their opposition to the bill. All pointed to the need for more focus on domestic violence.

Fetus freaks and CPC MPs, Michael Cooper and Garnett Genuis (corrected name; thanks to Joyce in the comments) spoke in favour, mainly whingeing about "justice," which we know means "vengeance" in these people's mouths.

So, with the Liberals and NDP opposed, there is no chance C225 will pass.

Good.

On Twitter, I tried to engage supporters (who were using the hashtag #MollyMatters) to answer my question: How exactly does adding a charge for harming or killing a fetus "protect" anyone?

More blathering about justice, but the nearest I got to a coherent answer was "deterrence."

Problem with that is deterrence doesn't work to prevent crime.

Underlying #C225 is the nonsensical notion that person contemplating violence says to self: "Whoa, extra charge for pregnancy! Better not!"

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) May 2, 2016

There will be more debate and a vote, but C225 is dead as a doornail.



Previous posts on C225:

Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights

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

It's Baaaack

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

C225, or Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill

Double-plus good fetus freak MP Cathay Wagantall's private member's bill C225, or The Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill has its first hour of debate on May 2.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), which opposes the bill, is calling on similar right-minded people to send letters to our MPs asking them to oppose it too. Here's a sample letter to cut and paste from.

There are many reasons to oppose it, but the main one is that is a "personhood" bill.

From the sample letter:

Bill C-225 is almost identical to Bill C-484 (“Unborn Victims of Crime Act”), a 2008 bill that passed second reading but got no further, and was widely criticized as a sneak attack on abortion rights. Like C-484, the new bill ascribes an implicit form of legal personhood to a fetus. Although it defines the fetus as not a human being, I think that’s disingenuous because C-225 would modify the “Offences Against the Person” section of the Criminal Code, and give the fetus the human right not to be injured or killed. But legal precedent in Canada has already established that a pregnant woman and her fetus are considered “physically one,” and that separating them would risk infringing women’s Charter rights (Supreme Court in Dobson v. Dobson). Also, I find it telling that support for the bill comes largely from the anti-choice movement. I fear that the anti-choice movement would use this law as a stepping stone to restrict abortion.

Its proponents say: no, no, no, this bill has nothing nada zip zero to do with abortion. Just as they said about C484, unless they're talking amongst themselves, and then of course it's about abortion, wink wink. Here's a link to an old blog-post by JJ, the unrepenant old hippie, with screen-caps of their "is it or isn't it?" flip-flops.

I do believe Jeff Durham, ex-partner of the murdered woman, Cassandra Kaake, and most vocal and sympathetic supporter of the law, when he says he's pro-choice and this bill is not intended (by him at least) to affect abortion rights.

But look what I found the fetus freaks saying about him amongst themselves.

After noting that Durham describes himself as "pro-choice," the piece in the Catholic rag, Interim, 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.

Thus, my name for the bill: The Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill.

They are absolutely shameless about using a man's grief and pain and thirst for justice/revenge to advance their misogynist agenda.

And the freaks know they have an emotional wedge here. Hearing of a vicious crime in which a woman is killed along with her wanted fetus, most people react with horror and condemnation. When slyly informed that the perpetrator cannot be charged with an additional crime for the death of the fetus, these people are shocked.

When further slyly informed that there is a remedy for that in this proposed law, a remedy that will NOT impinge on abortion rights or the rights of pregnant people in general, these people will nod and be reassured.

It is precisely this knee-jerk sympathy and shock that the fetus freaks intend to exploit.

I doubt C225 will pass, but who knows? C484 got further than sane people expected.

Please take a few minutes to contact your MP. (The handy MP finder by postal code thingy is here.)

Because C225 is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

MOAR Silent No More

Found on the Saskatchewan Pro Life website (bold mine):

Canada Silent No More needs Testimonies.

URGENT: We are collecting testimony declarations from women who have been hurt or damaged physically, emotionally or who got breast cancer, cervical damage, had a subsequent pre-term birth, infertility, suffered depression, turned to alcohol and drugs, had suicidal thoughts or attempts etc? We want to hear from you. We are looking for brave and courageous women to testify to the Supreme Court of Canada on how legal abortion has hurt them. You are not alone. If you know any former abortion patients, please have them message me, k. Also we need pro life groups to distribute our declaration forms...the US has over 5,000, we would like to get at least 500. We have over 100 declarations so far. Thank you so much for your prayers and support!! God bless you!

Plus a link to Denise Mountenay's Facebook page, where she says she is the "Founder/President" of Canada Silent No More.

And a link to a pdf form to fill out. The form is titled "Testimony Declaration" and stipulates that it is to be filled out by women who have had an abortion.

(Click to embiggen)



It asks for age, dates(s) and location(s) of abortion(s), whether the testifier (is that a word?) was adequately informed of the risks of abortion, whether she was coerced into it/them.

Then there's this: "Were you ever informed of any link between abortion and Breast Cancer (BC)?" (yes, capitalized) with yes/no boxes to tick.

Follow-up question: "Have you had Breast Cancer, or any lumps or cysts removed, or cervical cancer since your abortion(s)?" Yes/no boxes, with request to give details.

Then three more questions on Physical Complications (yes, capitalized again), "depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, etc." Some space to give details.

Signature/date lines, some boxes to tick about whether the person is willing to let her name be used etc., then an identification section asking for full name, email and mailing address, phone number.

If this were a poll, which it is in a way, it would be called a "push poll."

I don't think I need to remind DJ! readers that THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER.

But I had never seen abortion connected with cervical cancer before and googling "abortion cervical cancer" returns only fetus freak sites.

Further inspection of the Canada Silent No More site reveals a "testimonies" section, which is three pages of snippets of stories with links to their continuation, oddly, all posted on January 26, 2016.

There is no mention anywhere on the site that I could find of the Supreme Court of Canada and I feel pretty confident in saying that if there were an abortion case coming up before the SCC, I'd know about it.

So WTF is this about? Who is Denise Mountebank, er, Mountenay, and why is she collecting this information? Why is she leading people to believe they will have a chance to "testify" about their abortions to the Supreme Court?

And while we're asking questions: What *is* Canada Silent No More?

There already is a Silent No More organization with a Canadian chapter. Angelina Steenstra is National Coordinator for Canada.

On the Canadian page, there's this repressive little note at the end:

Canada Silent No More is a separate organization and is not affiliated with Silent No More Awareness Campaign Canada.

Oooh, dissent in FetusFreakLand?

After all, there is room for just so many *inspirational* "I had an abortion boohooooo" speakers in the market.

Will both organizations make an appearance at the upcoming Futility Fest on the Hill? Will unpleasantness ensue?

Angelina: I'm Silent No More!

Denise: No! I'm Silent No More!

Angelina: I'm More Silenter No More than you are!

Denise: I'm the Most Silent No More!

Etc.

Fun.

The Death Throes of Pro-Life

Desperate fetus freaks are changing tactics for this year's Futility Fest on the HIll, aka March For Lies.

Campaign Life Coalition has paved the way for every organization fighting for the unborn to take part in this year’s National March for Life May 12.

“We’ve done something very deliberate this year,” said Campaign Life Ottawa lobbyist Johanne Brownrigg. “We have decided to present a unified voice from the entire pro-life movement as far and wide as we could reach.”

Even though Campaign Life, the national political arm of the pro-life movement, remains the sole organizer of the march, the promo video released March 14 includes groups such as WeNeedaLaw.ca*, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), educational pro-life groups such as LifeCanada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Priests for Life and 4MYCanada. The promo can be viewed at Marchforlife.ca.

(*NOTE: We Need a Law Like a Hole in the Head is a project of the Dominionist ARPA. For the click-averse, Dominionists want to impose Xian biblical law on all levels of government.)

This is news because the abolitionists (largely Vatican Talibaners) and incrementalists (largely evangelical fundies) do not play well together. I call this the Wingnut Wedgie.

Here's the description of their differences from the top link, a Catlick rag.

Pro-life groups have often been at odds over tactics. For instance, WeNeedaLaw.ca supports incremental legislation that would use a gestational approach to restricting abortion, a tactic Campaign Life has opposed because of its emphasis on protecting life from conception.

“It has been our experience for some time now that if we are going to be successful in advancing legal protections for pre-born children it is necessary for respective pro-life organizations to focus on those things we have in common, rather than on our differences,” said Schouten. “The annual March for Life needs to become more than a stand-alone event. The March for Life affords us a great opportunity to work together to build as much momentum as possible for the following weeks and months.”

Cute, Mike. "Our experience" and "successful" do not belong in the same sentence by a fetus freak about abortion in Canada. You have had ZERO success. And a couple of HUGE losses lately. See PEI and RU486, or Mifegymiso.

And now with the election of the "most pro-abortion prime minister ever" AND the introduction of assisted dying legislation, however patronizing and risk-averse it is, fetus freaks know their movement is dying.

I called it after last year's March for Lies. Anti-choice inflation, the annual outright lying about turn-out, is stalled.

But the movement has ever been marked by delusion and (self-)deception.

Last word to another Dominionist (fixed by me):

ARPA legal counsel Andre Schutten thinks the [frantic] inclusion of his and other organizations in the promotional video is a “sign of healthy growth stagnation and the maturing imminent death of the movement.”

Zika and Abortion

I've been a student of the fetus freaks for years now. On their sites, stories are limited to a few categories. Some sites specialize in particular types of stories. The Amateur Statistician does what you'd expect from my nickname for her. Another fetishizes "botched" abortions.

The SHRIEEEEEKY categories boil down to:
• Number of abortions! YUGE! (China figures prominently here.)
• Gruesome abortions! YUCK! (Fake photos here.)
• "Botched" abortions! ANOTHER AMBULANCE CALLED TO XYZ ABORTUARY! (They seem to have people stationed permanently at clinics to watch for such events.)
• Terrible abortion laws! (Any law that expands access, even a smidge.)
• Wonderful abortion laws! (I don't need to spell this one out.)
• Terrible/wonderful politicians! (Ditto.)

Then there are the "human interest" pieces. These fall into types too.
• Celebrity anti-choicers, B-, C-, or D-list celebs you've never heard of, who ardently support misogyny and patriarchy.
• "Heroic moms" reject abortion, suffer awful disease to give birth. (Usually die leaving grieving but grateful family.)
• "Miracle babies (type 1)" born very, very early and yet survive. Usually with understated health or development issues.
• "Miracle babies (type 2)" born, despite medical advice to terminate, with what sane people would call tragic handicaps but touted as "blessings."

In the last couple of days, there are been a spate of the last sort. For example, here's one about a woman who adopts a baby with "parts of brain missing." (Warning: very sad pictures of fucked-up baby.) And here's one about a baby born without eyes, despite advice to abort. But a beautiful blessing, nonetheless.

Then the reason for these stories struck me. The US Centers for Disease Control just confirmed a causal link between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly. (Full New England Journal of Medicine study here.)

A couple of months ago, we speculated that such a link might be a game-changer, much like rubella was, and foster sympathy and support for women with wanted -- but suddenly tragic -- pregnancies.

Zika too might change the conversation around abortion.

Aaand here it is. ‘In no way does this justify abortion’: Pro-life leaders react to study linking Zika, microcephaly.

The piece rightly assumes that this confirmation will cause women, families, and governments to reassess their stands on abortion.

So, what's the counter-argument?

Not much. They revert to "miracle baby -- type 2."

Gwen Hartley, who has two daughters with microcephaly, recently told the Washington Post, “I know the joy that can come from having these kids. I wouldn’t purposely want another child to be affected, but I’m happy that they’ll know what I know [about having a child with microcephaly]. I would not have chosen it prior to my girls, but I didn’t know what I was missing out on.”

Many countries where abortion and even contraception are pretty much illegal are being hit hard by the Zika virus and, as we now know, the attendant massive public health and social crises of a generation of brain-damaged children.

Who will care for them? Who will pay for them?

Who will tell frantic pregnant women that they MUST bear these blighted babies?

Will new -- inevitably understaffed and underfunded -- orphanages for unwanted children be built as in Ceausescu's Romania when abortion was outlawed?

Or, to fend off the enormous social and actual cost, will governments, in addition to increasing mosquito-control efforts and supporting research into a possible vaccine, allow women access to contraception and abortion?

Interesting times. . .