Motion 312 is a private member's initiative.
Substantial House of Commons financial, material and human resources are supporting Woodworth's exploratory shot at dismantling Canadian women's hard-won reproductive and procreative rights.
Here is an overview of two groups and their resources gathered to fight Woodworth's attempt to recriminalize abortion.
Starting today, all bloggers who support a woman's right to choose can and should blog fiercely about this CONservative, regressive attack on women's right to choose.
Tell a personal story about a family member who died from an illegal kitchen-table abortion.
Use your wits, your intelligence, your verve to expose Wankworth's motion for what it is: not only anti-choice but against religious freedom.
The right to government - in policies and practices that doesn't favour one religious belief system - is implicit in the Charter of rights.
Re-criminalizing a medical intervention will enforce the ideological dogma of fundamentalist religions, in particular those of the Vatican Taliban.
My parents grew up in the period of La grande noirceur, an unholy alliance of political and religious authorities. It seems to me that the Harper Regime is morphing into le Duplessis Nouveau.
Well fuck that, we're not going to let that MASSIVE obliteration of women's rights happen again. No christofascist sharia in Canada.
ADDED by fh: This is what we have to look forward to. @rWeEqualYet turned today's drivel and pap into MP Stephen Woodworth's Sunday Sermon on Twitter.
And also: petitions for the MPs - very important. Read fh, here.
7 comments:
La grande noirceur indeed - it was before my time, but history has shown me, and thus je me souviens ....
"How many Cdns really believe that women's rts depend upon a pretence that children are not human beings until the moment of complete birth?"
What a disingenuous ass.
For a lawyer, he sure is stupid. Globally, a person is identified as a legal entity by their birth certificate. His proposal would require that this legal inconvenience be changed, no? Would the state be burdened with creating an infrastructure to issue conception certificates? And what of the costly ramifications of doing so, given that so many pregnancies result in miscarriages? The number of conception and death certificates would be staggering.
Not to mention all the criminal investigations that would be legally required - which would demand extra paper work from health care professionals, in ALL cases where a zygote, embryo or fetus failed to develop, was not alive after birth, was miscarried, etc. etc.
Jobs bonanza! Monitoring the menstrual regimes of every child-bearing-age woman!
Win-win-win!
Paperwork!
Filing fees!
All good.
I just sent this to my local paper (and I claim 'misogynist merry-go-round' as it's really fun to say):
Dear Editor,
Since 1988 the women of Canada have enjoyed full security of person, the ability to decide for themselves when/if and how many children they will have. In its widsom, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that women and their healthcare providers, without the interference of government, could make this most personal of decisions.
On Thursday April 26th that right is being called into question during a debate in Parliament thanks to MP Stephen Woodworth's Motion 3-12. Mr. Woodworth would like to see a special committee formed to examine the question of fetal personhood, with the ultimate desirable outcome being the granting of personhood rights to fetuses, and therefore the outlawing of abortion.
It is absolutely horrifying to me that in 2012 this is even being considered; my rights are not up for debate, regardless of the contents of my womb. Am I or am I not a full citizen able to make my own health decisions without government interference? The Supreme Court has already decided, not just in 1988 but multiple times since then, that a woman and her fetus cannot be legally separated, and that to grant personhood to a fetus is to remove a woman's right to bodily autonomy, safety and privacy. Mr. Woodworth should know better than to open this particular political can of worms, especially since our Prime Minister has promised not to reopen the debate at all. And yet here we wait, in 2012, getting ready for another turn on the misogynist merry-go-round.
Right, then.
Everybody: if you use 'misogynist merry-go-round' (and why wouldn't you?), you gotta put '®(Jen)' after it. ;)
Shit. Forgot to use it.
Suppose I can always update ...
Post a Comment