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.)

Yo, SUZY ALL-CAPS and/or Other Fetus Fetishists!

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?

Four days ago, we called out to supporters of Bill C-484, challenging them to produce one, just one, anti-violence-against-women organization that publicly endorses the Bill That Is Totally All About Protecting Pregant Women and That Has Nothing to Do with Abortion.

Our sister and fellow Vicious Abortion Crusaders, JJ, aka Unrepentant Old Hippie, and matttbastard at Bastard Logic also took up the call. (We at Birth Pangs lurve the photo at mattt's place.)

So, as pogge points out, the most fervent supporters of this bill are anti-choice. But what are we to make of the fact that not one anti-violence group has come out in favour?

Hmmmmmmm?

(First published at Birth Pangs.)