Rathgeber and Warawa Sitting in a Tree

Interesting development in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has suffered another blow as a Tory MP quit the Conservative caucus Wednesday night, decrying the Conservatives’ lack of progress on open government.

Alberta MP Brent Rathgeber made public his decision on Twitter, saying he had informed the board of directors for his riding association and the Speaker of the Commons that he had resigned from the Conservative caucus.

“My decision to resign from the Caucus is because of the Government’s lack of commitment to transparency and open government,” he announced on Twitter.

Rathgeber was first elected MP for the Edmonton-St. Albert riding in 2008 and then re-elected in 2011.

Immediately-- and rather hilariously -- there was a call for Rathgeber to step down from the PMO.

Harper’s office reacted quickly, saying that Rathgeber should face the voters again.

“The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a byelection,” Harper aide Andrew MacDougall said in his own Twitter posting.

This was not the position the Conservatives took, however, when former Liberal MPs David Emerson, Wajid Khan and Joe Comuzzi defected to the government party over the past few years.

Frankly, DJ! doesn't give a rat's ass over one Contempt Party member's finding his 'nads, but there was this intriguing -- and quick -- reaction.

@brentrathgeber Brent, you are a man of integrity and will be missed.

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) June 6, 2013

Yep, that's our Mark Warawa, he of Warawa's Wank and he who got miffed enough at his own party to at least float the notion of a Backbench Spring.

Now that he has seen how it's done, might he follow Rathgeber's trailblazing lead and quit the party?

And might some of the one hundred anti-choice CON MPs join him?

We live in hope of an implosion.

ADDED: Rathgeber in his own words.

UPDATE: List of eight CONs who have 'bucked' the party. How many do they need to lose to get back into minority status? Six? Come on, boys, just how much do you care about those fetuses?

A Coup for Parliament or a Recruiting Tool for CHP

As we know, Warwara's Wank ended with a further wank, this one about Free Speech.

The long-awaited Speaker's decision on his point of privilege over having his member's statement (S.O.30) snuffed by the CON Whip was announced yesterday at around 3 p.m.

Here's Kady O'Malley's story filed at 4:57 p.m.

If backbench MPs want to the right to speak freely in the House, they're going to have to start standing up to be counted -- even if it means ignoring the speaking lists prepared by the party whip to compete against their caucus colleagues for the attention of the speaker. 

That, it seems, is the gist of House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer's much-anticipated ruling on the point of privilege raised by Conservative MP Mark Warawa after his pre-Question Period speaking slot was abruptly yanked by his party's whip due to his choice of subject -- specifically, his similarly scuttled attempt to bring a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion before the House.

Although he ultimately found that no prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, Scheer made it clear that, as far as he and his predecessors are concerned, the speaker has never ceded the right to choose which member should be recognized -- not just during the fifteen minute block designated for members' statements, but, in theory, during QP as well. He just hasn't yet been put in a position where he would have to do so, as -- again, at least as yet --  no members have ever attempted to circumvent the whip-created list.

So, fans of the Westminster parliamentary system parsed that all to hell, gleefully anticipating little bobble-heads bobbing up and down trying to catch the eye of the venerable 33-year-old Speaker.

The more cynical of course wondered just how much eye-catching Opposition members might have to mount. Clown-costumes wouldn't be out of place, after all.

Other cynics wondered if this really meant anything at all.

Funny, though, not much attention at all was paid to this story filed by John Ivison at 11:13 yesterday morning, about 4 hours before the decision.

John Ivison: Ruling on alleged breach of Warawa’s privilege to speak freely could head off Tory rebellion

But there are rumblings in caucus that Mr. Scheer may make a significant additional ruling by pointing to the Westminster example, where it is a long established convention that the Speaker has the right to recognize members from either side of the House when they stand during Question Time. In the British House of Commons, a number of MPs bob up and down at any given time, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, and it is up to the chair to recognize them. The inference would be that if more than one MP stands up during members’ statements and Question Period, they could be recognized by the Speaker, whether they are on the whips’ list or not.

If Mr. Scheer leans towards the Westminster model, it could have profound implications in both the short and long term governance of the House. It would also suggest he will not find Mr. Warawa’s privilege was breached, since he could have been recognized by the speaker if he’d only stood up to speak at members’ statements.

In the short-term, it could head off a rebellion in the Conservative caucus that threatens to culminate in some Tories voting alongside the Liberals. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has introduced a motion to allocate members’ statements in alphabetical order which will reach the House on Wednesday and, absent some kind of significant reform, a number of Tory MPs may be tempted to signal their displeasure.

So, at least four hours in advance, senator-in-waiting Ivison was tipped to the outcome.

And indeed, the Speaker's ruling does have the salubrious effect of quelling the now pretty-well defunct Backbenchers Spring.

As the Church Lady would say: How conveeeenient.

Political shenangigans in the Speaker's Office!?!1???

Say it ain't so.

Now of course the question is which of the intrepid backbenchers will get up on their hind legs and attempt to speak to an unapproved topic -- like abortion, for example?

@fernhilldammit It's actually pretty close in structure to the UK model. We'll see if he actually sticks to it.

— E (@freezingkiwi) April 23, 2013

(I've bet @freezingkiwi that his kiwis will really freeze before that happens.)

Will only the nutbars avail themselves of this privilege ignominious display? Will more sensible, team-playing BBers keep shtum and/or clap their flippers as they read the usual 'job-killing carbon tax' talking points ad nauseum?

I wondered if Speaker Scheer had offered any protection -- kinda like whistle-blower protection -- for retribution from vengeful whips and leaders.

According to Mark Jarvis, author of Democratizing the Constitution:

@fernhilldammit @thomashall17 nothing.

— mark d. jarvis (@markdjarvis) April 24, 2013

Retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Thomas Hall, went further.

@fernhilldammit @markdjarvis Yep!The pwr to sign nomination papers needs to be removed from party leaders and returned to riding assocs.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 24, 2013

It's down to party constitutions. And ipso fatso, only future Christian Heritage Party candidates will partake.

ADDED: For all of you breathless with anticipation as to what Free Speech Warrior and Defender of Girls, Mark Warawa, would say in his totally unfettered S.O. 31 today -- behold! (I swear you can't make this shit up.)

UPDATE (April 26/13): How successful was Speaker Scheer in quelling the Backbench Revolt? Perfectly. Not one BBer voted for the Liberal motion to choose MPs to make member's statements by alphabetical order.

Pro smack-down of M408

One of the MASSIVE irritants that swims in the eddy churned up by CON MP Mark Warawa's misogynistic M408 is the twitter spamming campaign in which the antiChoice lobby engages.

The shrieeeking, the lack of finesse, the crude lies, the pitiful attempts at logical thinking.

My co-blogger fern hill has done a brilliant job of addressing, challenging and smacking down the most odious of those tweets.  And she has blogged frequently at DJ! in response to the obfuscation and sheer stoopidity of M408.

And yet, some in the media appear content to parrot Warawa's and Woodworth's twisty prevarications about women's right to choose —with the support of Canadian healthcare professionals— whether to continue carrying a pregnancy to term or not.

It is a simple, clear-cut proposition. The voluntary termination of a pregnancy is a medical procedure.  It is regulated in Canada through public health care.  Canada is not a christian theocracy.  It has - or used to have - a secular government.  Religious freedom implies that individuals can observe their own private religious beliefs, practices and rituals at will - but NOT enforce those upon people who have different ones.

This Op-Ed piece in the Ottawa Citizen addresses the abusive obfuscation that M408 has generated, most lucidly and potently.

That the fetus you are carrying is female is certainly a terrible reason to have an abortion — but, good or bad, your reason is none of the government’s business. It’s simply not the place of our federal Parliament to voice an opinion on the merit of this or that reason behind a woman’s choice to have an abortion.[...]

It’s not for Parliament to voice an opinion on women’s reasons for having abortions, for human fetuses are neither in fact persons nor recognized as such in Canadian law. They are not persons for they have no interests; they lack the self-consciousness necessary for having interests.

Since they lack interests, human fetuses cannot be wronged. They cannot, therefore, be wronged by being discriminated against, not on grounds of sex, not on any grounds.

Warawa’s motion, then, makes no sense. No fetus is wrongfully discriminated against when it is aborted on account of its being female, so sex-selective pregnancy termination involves no wrongful discrimination for Parliament to condemn.

Now this is not to say that the fact that some women in Canada choose to abort fetuses because of their sex is no proper concern of civil society or even of the Canadian government.

It may very well be a proper matter of concern for you and me, and perhaps our government eventually has some role to play. But no one, no doctor, no ultrasound technician, no politician should seek to place any barrier between any pregnant woman and an abortion.

"It’s simply not the place of our federal Parliament to voice an opinion on the merit of this or that reason behind a woman’s choice to have an abortion."  Expect the zygote zealots to shriEEEk in reply to this view. It is a bracing, thoughtful antidote to the religious fundamentalist, authoritarian, crotch-sniffing ideologues who are lobbying to criminalize abortion.

Update: fern hill caught tweets from @ThomasHall17 - a retired House of Commons procedural clerk, who sets the record straight with regard to M408.  That alleged sacrosanct parliamentary "right" that some mansplainers tried to foist upon proChoice supporters, bellowing that Warawa was entitled to something that was bigger and more important than our silly little hill of beans? 

All self-indulgent BS.  Thomas Hall has the real 411.

It starts here.  A very good, illuminating read.

The Blue Army Chorus Revolts

The kerfuffle over Warawa's Wank is becoming even more FUN!

Another CON backbencher has been designated attack dog on this and calls the malcontents 'rogues'.

The Conservatives admit they have “rogues” within their party as one MP said his colleagues “must suffer the consequences” for their anti-abortion stance amid the most open show of rebellion under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to date.

He does have a point. All CON candidates campaigned knowing Harper's frequently repeated vow 'not to reopen the abortion debate'.

Yet they happily campaigned under the CON banner.

The NatPo quotes our pal Stephen Woodworth, he of Woodworth's Wank fame, and the noted anti-choice wordsmith does not disappoint.

“It may be that’s what’s at play here, that this abortionism philosophy has led the sub-committee members to put abortion above the independence of private members, above the right of Parliament to comment on an important issue, above the right of members to be able to vote on such an issue,” Kitchener MP Stephen Woodworth said Tuesday.

Abortionism?????

Noun
abortionism (uncountable)
1. The advocacy or practice of abortion.

Usage notes
This term appears to be used principally in pejorative fashion by opponents of abortion.

For a longer nuttier explication of the term see Abortionism: American's New Established State Religion.

And for those who may have forgotten Woody's previous feat of wordsmithy, here again is his deathless M312, Fixed-Wing Technology and Ballooning.

The title of this blogpost comes from the NatPo story, quoting Bob Rae.

[Rae] agreed with Conservative backbenchers that there should be more freedom for MPs to speak their minds and to vote free of party discipline. It’s no surprise they’re finally rebelling against Harper’s iron control, Rae said.

“I think they’re annoyed and tired of the harness. I think they’re tired of having to respond to everything by acting like the Blue Army Chorus and I think they want to be able to speak their minds,” he said.

As I said: FUN!

Warawa Wankless!

It was unanimous.

As predicted in countless private members' business-related posts passim and, most recently, in today's OotD, Conservative MP Mark Warawa's non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion has been deemed non-votable by unanimous vote of the subcommittee charged with overseeing private members`business.

Why?

Ostensibly, because it's provincial jurisdiction and the House already voted on abortion. @just_a_josh @kady what was the rationale given?

— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2013

Warawa can appeal.

Oh look.

Members of PMB Sub-Committee broke rules today deeming #M408 unvoteable. Were they forced and by who? An appeal process has begun.

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) March 21, 2013

Stay tuned. We all love a good conspiracy theory, don't we?

UPDATE: Tantrums have begun.

Misogynists United

What would unite Russia, the Vatican, Iran and other conservative Muslim states in common cause?

Those uppity women.

An "unholy alliance" of Iran, Russia, the Vatican and others is threatening to derail a U.N. declaration urging an end to violence against women and girls by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights, some U.N. diplomats said Wednesday.

Delegates to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women are racing to reach a consensus deal on a final document by Friday and some diplomats say the future of the commission - a global policy-making body created in 1946 for the advancement of women - is at risk if they fail to broker a compromise.

"There's this sort of unholy alliance ... coming together to oppose language on sexual health, reproductive rights and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights," one senior U.N. diplomat said. "It's tough going, but progress is being made."

So, of course, Canada's own staunch defender of preborn women, Mark Warawa, would be totally down with the draft declaration, yes?

A draft declaration urges member states to take a number of measures, including the elimination of any impunity in violence against women, by prosecuting and punishing perpetrators; allowing women and girls to have control over their sexuality and access to health care; doing away with harmful practices such as female genital mutilation; providing services to victims of violence such as emergency contraception and safe abortion where permitted by law.

From now on, we should ask all backers of Warawa's Wank if they also support the UN's efforts to actually protect women.

Whose safety?

A group of students stage an impromptu theatrical intervention, to welcome Con MP Stephen Woodworth (of Motion 312 infamy) to the University of Waterloo.

There are more students protesting his appearance at a *Campus Crusade for Life* club than there are Zygote/Embryo/Fetus zealots present to hear him...

One of the proChoice agitprop performers said to the cops shielding Woodworth from verbal remonstrations and the Vagina-Lady: "Why are you concerned about his safety and not the safety of our uteruses?" 

Here's an overview of DJ! previous posts about Woodworth's Wank.

Grand merci to Canadian Cynic for bringing another Woodworth FAIL to our attention — though I disagree with his comment. Buffoon antics are the perfect way to foil rightwing christian fundamentalist ideology and tactics!

Meanwhile, with M408 the antiChoice forces within Harper's CPC get ready to launch another attack against women's reproductive justice rights and pregnant women's right to choose to carry (or not) their pregnancy to term on March 28 - right in time for Easter! 

Con MP Mark Warawa's Motion 408 is also a thinly disguised attempt to criminalize abortion, women, and the healthcare professionals who provide medical support.

ADDED: According to the Notional Pest, the artist known as Vulveeta is from WLU and he made that nifty outfit.  Those rightwing christianist conservatives like Woodworth just suck all the fun out of fundamentalism.  So dour and sour.

Today in Harpocrit Land

It's Pink Shirt Day today.

I booted up the Twitter machine, checked the hashtag for Warawa's Wank and nearly blew camomile tea out my nose.

Today is Anti-bullying day. Bullying in all forms is wrong. Standing up for victims helps! #M408

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) February 27, 2013

I wasn't the only one struck by this hypocritical drivel.

@mpmarkwarawa Right. Remind me again which party voted against the NDP anti-bullying motion? #hypocrisy #CPC #M408 #cdnpoIi

— Claudine Jacques (@ClaudineJacques) February 27, 2013

Well, we all know the answer to Claudine's question, don't we?

Votes from a handful of Conservative backbenchers weren’t enough to push through an NDP proposal to strike an all-party committee to study and craft a national anti-bullying strategy.

The motion from NDP backbencher Dany Morin was defeated Wednesday night in the Commons by a vote of 149 to 134. About half a dozen Conservative backbenchers voted in favour of the motion, but the support was not enough to have it passed.

I looked and found the five Cons who voted for it: Smith, Allen, Brown, Tilson, and Bezan.

Mark Warawa, champion of bullied fetuses, not among them.

I know. You're shocked.

UPDATE: Courtesy of Radical Centrist, here is the division. Note Warawa among the NAYS, not conveeeniently absent.

Anti-Choice Tag Team

Thar's gold in them thar uteri.

Keeping the abortion debate alive is very lucrative for a number of anti-choice entrepreneurs. Churches and 'right to life' groups are only the most obvious.

There are the born-again anti-choicers like Abby Johnson, who once were blind but now they see.

There are the 'Conceived in Rape' mongers, like Rebecca Kiessling.

And now, a new-to-me brand of huckster -- the faux women's rights defenders.

Via Kady O'Malley, we learn that sex-selective abortion promoter opponent Mark Warawa had a bunfest planned for Thursday, aka The Day Senator Brawler Brazeau Blew up the Internet.

Meanwhile, outside the Chamber, Conservative MP Mark Warawa will kick off his campaign to build support for his bid to condemn sex-selective terminations -- which, it's worth noting, is due to be added to the private members' priority list in early March -- by arranging a press conference for Reggie Littlejohn, who is, according to the advisory, a "leading expert" on China's One Child Policy.

According to the notice, Littlejohn will 'call on Canadian leaders to condemn ... gendercide," which is, of course, precisely what the Warawa motion would do.

Tonda MacCharles tweeted a bit about it, so it did occur, but it got no other coverage.

Reggie Littlejohn hath an organization called Women's Rights Without Frontiers, which claims to be a coalition dedicated to SHRIEEKING about forced abortion in China.

Under 'Team', Littlejohn herself is listed along with a board of directors, including couple of organizations like this one, concerned with 'Serving persecuted Christians worldwide'.

OK then, forced abortion and persecuted Christians go together well, I guess.

But is Littlejohn anti-choice? You betcha. She was recently awarded the 'National Pro-Life Recognition Award at the National Prayer Service preceding the Annual March for Life'.

From her acceptance speech:

My question is, where is the pro-choice movement on this?  Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, no one supports forced abortion because it is not a choice.  Why isn’t the pro-choice movement condemning forced abortion in China? Why aren’t they standing against forced sterilization? Why aren’t they crying out against the selective abortion of baby girls? Right now, as I am speaking to you, women are being dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables, and forcibly aborted and sterilized. I challenge these organizations to take a stand.

Woo. That glurge oughta open some wallets, eh?

Wait. There's more.

Also on Thursday, I ran across a press release announcing that someone named Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute would address some Kansas (where else?) legislators on sex-selective abortion.

PRI describes itself as: 'an international non-profit which works to end coercive population control, and fight the myth of overpopulation which fuels it.'

Mosher seems to do quite nicely out of the venture.

The President of PRI, Steven W. Mosher, received in 2005 the equivalent of ~13% of the entire expenses budget for the organization and roughly equivalent to the entire administrative expenses budget for 2005.

And he's 'controversial'.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied the George W. Bush administration to withhold $34 to $40 million per year for seven years from the U.N. Population Fund, the largest international donor to family planning programs.

So, Mosher works to withhold contraception while Littlejohn squeals about the results. Works good.

I'm betting the next time Warawa organizes a bunfest on M408, Mosher will be the guest.

M408: Totally Bogus

In previous blogposts here on private member's bill M408, the condemnation of sex selection, aka The Latest Backdoor Attempt to Legislate on Abortion, we've noted that it is sheer, cynical posturing coming from a member of the CONtempt Party.

The CONs have nothing but contempt for women. For starters, just look at the list of women's organizations whose funding has been cut or ended by them.

Today, I decided to have a look at Mark Warawa's history on matters relating to his new hobby, 'protecting girls'.

I mean, there are tons of fetus fetishizing Cons, why pick him as the front man for this little ploy?

At Campaign Lie, he gets a Double Plus Good rating.

At Rate Parliament, he's got two comments presumably from constituents, neither complimentary.

At Open Parliament, we learn that his favourite word is 'environment', which makes sense. He's chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Searching Open Parliament for his recorded actions and statements, we find 306 pages going back to the beginning of his MP life in 2004. The record consists of petitions (back in the day, lots of them on 'traditional marriage', now on sex selection) and acres of time-keeping at environment committee.

A search of those 306 pages with the keyword 'women' turns up a measly two pages.

Most of those references are in the stock phrase, 'men and women', or its more enlightened variant, 'women and men'.

Only two pertained to women specifically.

Here he is on REAL Women on September 28, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, hearing the comments like meanspirited, if the Liberals were in government they would raise the GST back up because they voted against that. They voted against providing parents the choice in child care. They want to take back that $100 a month for children. That would be meanspirited.

I have a question that relates to the comments that have been made about REAL Women. REAL Women is going to be coming to the committee. I am looking for some wisdom from the member who just spoke. I have been on committees for many years. My understanding is that when a delegation is coming to a committee that the committee is open-minded and the committee is prepared to listen to delegates that come and dialogue in order to learn.

However, when we have the chairperson of a committee publicly ridiculing a delegation that is about to come, like REAL Women, I have real concerns that democracy may be under attack. We hear rhetoric now and heckling. Is that a good approach for a delegation coming? I would like to hear an answer.

And here's a snippet from his glurgey support for Woodworth's Wank on September 21, 2012.

We need to protect women's rights but we also must protect everyone's rights, the rights of women, children, adults and all human rights.

Awww, isn't that sweet? 'We need to protect women's rights. BUT'.

BUT. Maybe he was one of the renegade seven Cons who supported the truly 'pro-life' private member's bill that sought to provide cheaper life-saving drugs for poor countries. After all, our pal Maurice Vellacott voted in favour of it.

Nope.

This is precisely how bankrupt the CONtempt Party is on gender-related issues.

This guy is the best they could come up with to front M408.

This is how totally bogus M408 is.

M408: Sheer Cynical Posturing

At Rabble today, Joyce Arthur has a terrific article on the newest fetus fetishist gambit, Motion 408, to condemn sex selective abortion.

She makes a bunch of excellent points, including this unintentional revelation of what they really think of those murderous sluts poor coerced women.

Warawa wants Parliament to "condemn this worst form of discrimination against females," which he calls "gender violence -- gendercide."

But women are the ones having sex-selection abortions, which means Warawa is accusing women of violence and gendercide -- and courtesy of MP Stella Ambler -- "atrocities." Ending discrimination against women does not start with making nasty accusations against them. Yes, sex selection can be a sexist act, but it's nonsensical to protect women from discrimination by restricting their rights. In India, laws against sex-selection abortion cause women to resort to unsafe and illegal abortion to avoid having a girl, and some may even face abuse and violence from their families if they bear a girl.

Arthur included this dandy link to facts on gender preference in the US.

Highlights:
• In adoption, parents request girls far more often than boys.

• There is no evidence that females are aborted at a higher rate. In fact, the birth ratio of girls has increased since the legalization of abortion.

• Parents using currently available sex selection techniques prefer girls by quite a margin.

I doubt Canadians and Americans are much different in this regard, but I went looking for Canadian studies or polls.

A study published in January this year asked a slightly different question in skewed way. Researchers wanted to find out if men preferred boys and women girls. The dodgy part is that answers had to be 'male' or 'female'. No option for 'doesn't matter' was offered.

Surprise! Men wanted boys, women wanted girls.

The question is why do men and women have these preferences? The researchers hypothesize that men favour boys for much the same reason that women favour girls—because human beings often project their own dreams on their children and those dreams often come with stereotypical ideas of what it means to be male or female.

 
The piece ends with:


Moreover, the study suggests that affluent democratic societies encourage women to favour daughters more than those societies where opportunities for women are circumscribed by discrimination and inequality.  Seen in that light, women preferring daughters over sons is a sign of progress.

Makes total sense, eh? When girls have the same opportunities as boys, there's little downside to letting nature take its course.

Another recent study on sex-selection in Canada in 'certain' communities indicates that *if* it is happening, it is on a very small scale.

The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women.

Dr. [Prabhat Jha, chair in disease control at the University of Toronto and director of the Centre for Global Health Research at St. Michael’s Hospital] said in an e-mail if sex-selective abortion is at play, it is a very small problem and other “important but subtle biases,” such as migration of Indian women about to give birth to a son, could help explain the trend.

Note that the study was conducted with data only from Indian-born women living in Canada.

A reasonable conclusion would be that as newcomers to Canada come to believe that their daughters have (most of) the benefits that sons do, the preference will die out.

In the meantime, other Canadians' desire for girls will balance things out.

Sex selection is not a societal issue in Canada. It is a problem in 'certain' communities that are well aware of it and are working to eliminate it.

Kindly put, Warawa's motion is a solution in search of a problem. More realistically, it's another attack on women's rights masquerading cynically as a concern for gender discrimination.

BONUS: If you can tolerate nearly 8 minutes of StunNews, have a look at the spin we're up against.

Shameless Douchebaggery

I have no words for the crassness of this.

M408: Thankfully shot Pakistan school girl in stable condition. Discrimination against girls must stop. nation.co.ke/News/world/Sho…

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) October 14, 2012

This would be fetus fetishist Mark Warawa making a smarmy reference to his motion (M408) to condemn sex-selective abortion.

The only regard CONs hold for women and girls -- especially those furren women -- is their worth as political pawns when there's an invasion or a mean-spirited foreign policy to try to justify.

Or a bunch of uteruses to police.

*PTUI*

Sex Selective Abortion: Latest SHRIEEEEK!

People are all up in arms because Rona Ambrose, Cabinet Moron Responsible for the Status of Women, voted in favour of Woodworth's Wank, aka The Motion to Determine When the State Gets Up Into Our Hoo-haws.

This should be no surprise. She has voted for fetal rights before.

But here her 'worry' is simply ridiculous.

The federal cabinet minister responsible for the status of women has offered at least a partial explanation for why she voted in support of a pro-life motion in the House of Commons.

Rona Ambrose says on Twitter that she's long been worried about discrimination against girls through "sex selection abortion."

One would need way more than 140 characters to get from Woodworth's Wank to sex selection abortion as it requires some spectacularly twisty gymnastics.

Then, right on cue, today CON MP Mark Warawa tabled a motion to condemn sex selection abortion.

We've been down this path at DJ! several times.

Is gender selection happening in Canada? Seems so, but the numbers are dodgy and the methodology controversial. (See above link for specific studies and reports.)

There is NO evidence that the at-birth gender ratio is skewed in Canada generally as a result, unlike in India and China where it is widely practiced.

There is some (questioned) evidence that there may be a slight gender ratio difference in 'some communities'.

But, as we've argued here before, so what? We've got lots of people in Canada. The few 'extra' boys in 'some communities' may be forced to look outside those communities for partners.

And that's a good thing. *evilsmiley*

Running with the sensational story though, back in June, CBC did an undercover gotcha on private ultrasound clinics to see whether any were willing to test for gender before the usual 20 weeks' gestation mark.

The notion is that if information is withheld until after 20 weeks, women and families inclined to select for males will not be able to. Abortion after 20 weeks is not done in Canada unless for pressing reasons.

The CBC did find clinics willing to perform ultrasounds earlier. Most of the cases seemed to me a result of sloppy training or an over-eagerness to please. One of the cases is indeed disgustingly venal and exploitive.

So, is that the whole story?

Seems not. In the US, where the same 'communities' are under scrutiny, the practice is getting coverage too. Like this recent story in Slate: How to Buy a Daughter.

Much of the evidence that Americans preferentially choose girls is anecdotal, as no larger body tracks gender selection procedures. But data from Google show that “how to have a girl” is searched three times as often in the United States as “how to have a boy.” Many fertility doctors say that girls are the goal for 80 percent of gender selection patients. A study published in 2009 by the online journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online found Caucasian-Americans preferentially select females through PGD [preimplantation genetic diagnosis] 70 percent of the time. Those of Indian or Chinese descent largely chose boys.

Some want boys, some want girls. Things even out.

But, of course there's more.

In this article, the author argues that sex selection is a parental right.

And why not? If we stand for reproduction by choice, why would we eliminate one category of choice? Me, I don't see a problem.

But there is.

Perhaps ironically, sex selection has caused some consternation among some feminists, a group usually known for their vocal support of reproductive freedom. Their objections to gender selection center around the possibility that the practice will encourage gender stereotypes. Girls made to be girls, they say, will face an undue burden to behave a certain way, to take up an interest in fashion instead of basketball, for example. That's certainly a possibility, but the complaint overlooks the fact that males and females are actually different in some important ways, as a lot of research has shown. Given those differences between the sexes, is it really such a bad thing that parents may prefer to raise a girl instead of a boy? 

Back in the Slate article, there is indeed some glurgey anecdotal crap about women wanting girls to shop, dress, and cook with.

Yuck.

But choice is choice.

You're for it or against it.

This issue is obviously the focus of the fetus fetishists' next gambit. It polls well for them.

From a January Angus-Reid poll:

Three-in-five respondents—including two thirds of women—believe there should be laws to outline whether a woman can have an abortion based solely on the gender of the fetus.

There oughta be a law!

I think Ambrose's idiotic justification and Warawa's Wank are just ploys to keep the fetus fetishists revved up and going for their chequebooks.

It may develop into something more serious and I'll woman the barricades again.

But I need a rest first.