With Friends Like These...

As a minor contributor to Dammit Janet! (who has, thankfully, not pushed any code buttons saying 'wipe blog out'), I'd like to say I am in concurrence with the senior writers at DJ! in withdrawing from an internet aggregator that does not serve the purposes of the information and opinions here.

I admit to a lethal bias, since I'm uhm...not actually aware of the aggregator as a waystation on the internets, except of course in the vague, annual reportage of their bloggy awards and the bunfest over the awards administrators' intransigent confusion over what feminism is.

I came to DJ! by googling around.  I use DJ!'s blogroll as my aggregator starting line to meander around to the other blogs that have interesting things going on at their virtual kitchen tables.  I use my own bookmarks otherwise.  I do not know what 'voting up' is.

 Everyone has opinions on what words mean and in this case Progressive is being defined by those that have the admin rights on the aggregator.  That is their prerogative and they are free to express it.

I would like to think that 'progressive' has at least a baseline definition of aligning with the Canadian Charter of Rights.  It was the Charter's existence that gave the Supreme Court of Canada the legal foundation to make a very unconfused decision January 28, 1988. 

If someone calling themselves a societal progressive cannot get behind that decision and the two following it, cannot comprehend that what they airily claim is merely an intellectual exercise, is in actuality a matter of literal life, liberty and equality to billions of human beings around the world at this-very-moment, I require that person to define what 'progressive' is and what exceptions they are willing to insert into the definition.

Why? Because it is my prerogative to not accept that I must stay quietly in place and accommodate someone who can look me in the eye and tell me that I, and any womb possessing human of a certain fertility, shouldn't mind if our bodies and lives are *debated* over cocktales as being *unworthy* of autonomy, by authoritarian, lying, anti-evidence, theocracy-pandering plutocrats who smugly know that whatever prescriptive law exists, exists for the 'little people', which of course, aren't them.

I cannot help but suspect exceptions in the definition of progressive will be ones the exceptionalist believes, or knows, will not affect *their* personal privilege in society.

I also invite that self-identified societal progressive to consider, since so much time has passed and science has progressed so amazingly, this topic of bodily autonomy should also be up for debate among people concerned for those members of a nation too irresponsible to be trusted to look after themselves and others.

Update on the Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill

The Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill is NOT about abortion, right? Let's hear again from Rod Bruinooge on the matter:

Bruinooge insists he’s not trying to push the Commons into a debate the Prime Minister has specifically banned, arguing that nothing in his bill would make it illegal to obtain an abortion.

“This bill doesn’t affect gestational limits or access to abortion in Canada,” Bruinooge told reporters Thursday morning. “It’s something that in fact doesn’t reopen the abortion debate but it does make it a crime to threaten or intimidate a woman into abortion.”

Now let's hear from Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass: Dern tootin'! It is ALL about abortion.

For all the fans of “Kicking Abortion’s Ass” Alert: Abortion.is.going.to.die.in.Canada.

You watch. It’s gonna happen. Not now, but in our lifetimes. It’s something for you to look forward to.

See the problem of whistling to your cretinous followers, Rod? They know what the bill is about but they won't toe the party line and keep their gaping maws shut. Oh, and that 'in our lifetimes' bit? Not bloody likely, according to a poll released today indicating that young Canadians are more abortion- and gay-marriage-loving than ever.

Meanwhile, membership is growing at the new Faytene-free Facebook group, while the wall there is strangely moribund. They seem to be allowing hardcore fetus fetishists again, including Mr KBA -- using his real name, John Pacheco -- and whackjob Bill Whatcott, who writes:

I should also add brutal and premeditated murders like this one, strengthen my belief in the efficacy of capital punishment.

Odd, innit? Fetus-fetishizing and outlaw-lynching so often go together.

And there's a new feature at the website, Share Your Story.

Since the launch of Roxanne's Law we have come to discover that women being coerced against their will to have an unwanted abortion is very common. Many women and men have been coming forward to share their stories. This is your chance as well. By sharing your story you can make something good come out of a horrible experience. Sharing your story will strengthen the argument for Roxanne's Law and help ensure that a woman's right to choose to keep her baby is protected.

Please write your story in 800 words or less and e-mail it to us at contact @ roxanneslaw.ca.

Thank you for your courage.

This will no doubt elicit some creative -- if nearly illiterate -- glurge.

And to round out today's coverage of the Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada today issued a media release*.

Pro-Choice Group Calls for Law Banning Coerced Childbirth
NATIONAL – A bill recently introduced by a Conservative MP to criminalize “coercing” a woman into abortion should be scuttled in favour of a bill prohibiting the much more common practice of coercing a woman into childbirth, says the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), a national pro-choice group.

“It’s wrong to pressure women into an abortion, but this does not occur on the grand scale often claimed by anti-choice propagandists. It mostly stems from situations of domestic abuse,” said Joyce Arthur, Coordinator of ARCC. Arthur pointed to a recent U.S. study that examined reproductive control of women by abusive male partners. “Some were pressured to have an abortion, but women also reported that their partners prevented them from obtaining or using birth control, threatened them with pregnancy, or forced unprotected sex on them. If they became pregnant and wanted an abortion, some partners threatened or pressured them to carry to term.”

In 1989, Chantal Daigle of Quebec had to travel to the U.S. for an abortion after her boyfriend got an injunction preventing her from having an abortion. Canada’s Supreme Court subsequently ruled that male partners cannot force a woman to have a baby.

“It’s not just partners or family members who try to compel women and girls to have babies against their will,” said Arthur. “The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!”

Hee. Wouldn't that be fun? Call the cops! SUZY ALL-CAPS is posting fetal pr0n again!


*You can download a pdf of the whole thing, including references, here.

97% of Fetus Fetishists Make Sh*t Up

JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie, among others, doesn't think the Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill has much of a chance of passing, mainly because we already have laws to deal with coercion and threats. Also:

There’s no legitimate rationale for amending the existing law to address so rare a circumstance as “coerced abortion”, especially within the hazy parameters defined by Bill C-510.

But, but, but, JJ, you're wrong! Coerced abortion is rampant! Here's what LieShite said:

A Canadian MP has introduced legislation similar to bills in the United States that helps women who face pressure or coercion when considering an abortion. With surveys showing anywhere from 40-60 percent of women are pressured into unwanted abortions, the legislation can help large numbers of women.

This struck me as totally bogus, so I got googling but I could not find anything that backs up that 40-60 per cent number, or the plural 'surveys'.

But I have found multiple citations of one very precise number -- 64% -- all with the same reference, for example, this 22-page pdf called 'Forced Abortion in America: A Special Report'.

Page 1 headline: 'Most abortions are unwanted or coerced. Many are forced.' Bullet copy detailing anecdotes, duly end-noted.

Page 2 headline: 'The Un-Choice', then some statistical bullet copy with end-note numbers. (There is a lot of bullshit there unrelated to coercion that I'm leaving out. Stuff about post-abortion depression, suicide, other health complications -- all thoroughly and regularly debunked by real researchers. This is the single page with anything like facts on it. The rest of the 22-page report is all anecdotal.)

64% of women reported feeling pressured to abort.1

Most felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% weren’t counseled.1

79% weren’t told of available reasources.1

84% weren’t sufficiently informed before abortion.1

So what is that all-important Reference 1?

VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004).

I ran it through Google Scholar and this is what turned up -- miles of anti-choice pseudo-science articles referencing it.

I chased down the abstract at Medical Science Monitor, a Polish monthly that styles itself as an 'International Medical Journal for Experimental and Clinical Research'.

Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women
Vincent Rue, Priscilla Coleman, James Rue, David Reardon
Med Sci Monit 2004; 10(10): SR 5 - 16
Manuscript ID: 11784

Institute for Pregnancy Loss, Jacksonville, FL, U.S.A.
Human Development and Family Studies, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, U.S.A.
Sir Thomas More Clinic, Downey, CA, U.S.A.
Elliot Institute, Springfield, IL, U.S.A.

Background: Individual and situational risk factors associated with negative postabortion psychological sequelae have been identified, but the degree of posttraumatic stress reactions and the effects of culture are largely unknown.

Material/Methods: Retrospective data were collected using the Institute for Pregnancy Loss Questionnaire (IPLQ) and the Traumatic Stress Institute’s (TSI) Belief Scale administered at health care facilities to 548 women (331 Russian and 217 American) who had experienced one or more abortions, but no other pregnancy losses.

Results: Overall, the findings here indicated that American women were more negatively influenced by their abortion experiences than Russian women. While 65% of American women and 13.1% of Russian women experienced multiple symptoms of increased arousal, re-experiencing and avoidance associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 14.3% of American and 0.9% of Russian women met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Russian women had significantly higher scores on the TSI Belief Scale than American women, indicating more disruption of cognitive schemas. In this sample, American women were considerably more likely to have experienced childhood and adult traumatic experiences than Russian women. Predictors of positive and negative outcomes associated with abortion differed across the two cultures.

Conclusions: Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion. Consistent with previous research, the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities, particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior traumata. Study limitations preclude drawing definitive conclusions, but the findings do suggest additional cross-cultural research is warranted.

We'll get to the authors and institutions in a moment, but first, a question. Do you see the words 'pressure' or 'coercion' anywhere in that abstract? Anything about counselling or information?

What I see is a pretty interesting cross-cultural study of the impact of culture on stress-inducing events.

With even more interesting implications. Why would Russian women -- where abortion has been very common and accepted as an unfortunate method of birth control for decades -- experience so much less stress than Merkin women -- where abortion continues to be one of the most hotly contested societal issues with a ton of stigma attached?

Oh. Did I just answer that question?

Still, coerced abortion is not the focus of the study. It appears that the authors were concerned to show a link between abortion and stress. Well, shit, anybody's who has had an abortion or knows someone who has had an abortion could have told them that.

Much more informative and interesting would be a comparison of stress measures between women who had abortions and women who gave birth.

But perhaps information about 'pressure' was gleaned from those Institute for Pregnancy Loss Questionnaires and inserted into a footnote or something. We don't know, do we?

Other obvious problems with it: number of participants (548, fewer than half of whom are Merkin) and date (six years old).

Not to mention the fact that it seems to be the only study anybody cites.

On to the bias part. All the authors and three of the four institutions are anti-choice.

Vincent Rue is the coiner of the term 'post-abortion syndrome' and director of the Institute for Pregnancy Loss, which has no online presence, by the way.

We ran into Priscilla Coleman doing her SHRIEEEKY thing over the most recent -- and no doubt not last -- scholarly debunking of the 'abortion=insanity' equation.

Coleman has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals that claim there is a causal relationship between abortion and poor mental health. Her co-authors are pro-life advocates J.R. Cougle, Vincent Rue and David Reardon. Reardon is controversial for misrepresenting his academic credentials and for his research methods.

The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA). A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."

And now, the clincher -- the 'controversial' David Reardon, founder of the anti-choice Elliot Institute, creator of the 'pro-woman pro-life' strategy, and profiled in 2005 as an example of 'Christian conservatives [who] have gone a long way towards creating their own scientific counter-establishment.'

Right. The 'make-up-the-facts-to-fit-the-agenda' gang.

So this is what the HonMem Bruinooge is relying on as evidence for his urgently needed bill. Oh, and the tragic murder of Roxanne Fernando who was NOT murdered because she refused to have an abortion, but, seemingly, because she was infatuated with a Really Bad Boy who was so dim that the only way he could think of to get her to leave him alone was to kill her.

And other anti-coerced abortion legislation is based on the same bogus 'research'.

Sen. Jack Johnson has sponsored legislation requiring abortion clinics in Tennessee to post anti-coercion signs. He cites statistics that purport to show that 64 percent of women “were coerced into having that abortion.” Let’s dig a little deeper.

(snip)

In other words, these statistics are 6 years old, are based on a very small data sample (over half of which wasn’t even in the U.S.), and were prepared at the behest of organizations with a clear bias about the outcome.

Is this the sort of informed decision-making we should expect from our legislators?

Apparently. ReformaTories and ReThuglicans never let facts get in the way of their authoritarian, paternalistic, misogynist agenda.

Bruinooge's Bill Divides the Right

In DJ!'s ongoing effort to divide the right, Bruinooge's private member's bill, C-510, or the Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill (OK, it's not as good as Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, but we're working on it) may be a boon.

Let's have a look at what the so-conned are saying.

First, LifeShite appears to think that if they keep asking the same question, they'll get an answer they like.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, refused today to say whether the PM would allow a free vote in his party on the recently-tabled private members bill from Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge that seeks to protect women from coercive abortions.

Asked by LifeSiteNews (LSN) whether there would be a free vote, Soudas responded that “the government's policy is that we will not initiate or support legislation that reopens the debate on abortion.”

“That's been the consistent policy of this government and this Prime Minister since he took the position and since he was leader of the opposition,” he added. “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Asked again, Soudas reiterated, “Like I said, the government will not be supporting this piece of legislation because we do not support reopening the debate on abortion.”

LSN asked “So that means no [free vote]?” and Soudas said again: “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Over at Catholic Insight, famous frothing fetus fetishist, Alphonse de Valk, has really got his panties in a twist:

We already know that under Marxist/atheist Gilles Duceppe the Bloc Quebecois is unfit to govern. The New Democratic Party has long since earned the title The New Death Party because of its 45-year-long commitment to killing babies. The Green Party is all in favour of reducing the earth’s population one way or another. The Liberal party under agnostics Ignatieff, Rae and Dion is set to kill as many babies as possible, preferably in Africa and Asia, while carrying on the Trudeau tradition at home. That party still has three or four MP’s who think otherwise but they are locked into the wrong party.

That leaves the Conservatives whose pro-life members must get ready to rise up against Stephen Harper.

Oooh, rise up! Against Stephen Harper! Yay!

No Apologies got the same answer from different spokesthingy, with an added kicker (emphasis mine):

The Prime Minister’s Office was quick, however, to squelch any thought Bruinooge’s bill might be acceptable. “The government will not support the bill,” Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall said in an interview. “Our Conservative government will not initiate or support any legislation that opens the abortion debate.”

(snip)

MacDougall said the government would demonstrate its opposition at the time of any vote by having cabinet ministers vote against it.

Obviously, the only choice (snerk) left for rabid fetus fetishists is the Christian Heritage Party and they've got ambitions!

Christian Heritage Party leader eyes Tory votes
The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is hoping be to the Tories what the Green party has been to the Grits.

CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk believes the Greens on the left have siphoned votes from the Liberals in the last couple of federal elections — and his party intends to mirror that success on the right against the Conservatives.

To get the ball rolling on the monumental task, Hnatiuk is on a Western tour that stops in Kamloops on Saturday, April 17.

Hey, they got nowhere to go but up -- from 0.19% of the popular vote last two times out.

And who wouldn't want to vote for a party whose (albeit unofficial) colour is -- wait for it -- PUCE? (I just looked 'puce' up to be sure. Yup, means 'flea-coloured'.)


ADDED BONUS: Go read pale at A Creative Revolution.

MORE BONUS: Online poll. Link supplied by Roddy himself at the FB page. You know what to do.

'Coerced Abortion': A Whole New Branch of Lying Lies

Having run into what seemed to me totally bogus numbers on the frequency of 'coerced abortion', I just spent a fascinating couple of hours discovering an entirely new (to me) branch of lying lies fetus fetishists tell -- many blogposts to come.

But for now, let's deal with Lie Number One. It's right there in the preamble to Rod Bruinooge's private member's bill, C-510, or Roxanne's Law.

Whereas Roxanne Fernando was a Winnipeg woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her to abort their unborn child and subsequently murdered her for refusing to do so;

That's just a great big porky pie.

At the sentencing of her murderers, the lawyer for one of the convicted men rejected that motive.

Fernando had learned she was pregnant with Plourde's child weeks before her death, court heard in the teen's case. In the youth's case the court heard her murder was planned because she refused to have an abortion, but Plourde's lawyer told the court today that the pregnancy had nothing to do with the offence.

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Because killing someone who had refused herself to kill a defenceless bay-bee is just so much worse, isn't it? And defence counsel has a duty to mitigate the gravity of his client's crime, right? And the prosecution has just as much interest in making the crime sound most heinous, yes?

Oh. Wait.

In a brief summary of the facts of the murder presented in court Thursday, Crown attorney Mark Cantor said Plourde and the youth hatched a plot to kill Fernando if she wouldn't agree to break off pursuing a relationship with Plourde.

The abortion-refusal motive seems to have gone bye-bye.

So why was Roxanne killed?

Let's hear from the murderer himself:

“I didn’t want to be part of her life, but she didn’t take no for an answer,” Plourde told Winnipeg police homicide detectives in a February 2007 videotaped confession. “She was crazy about me. She had an obsession with me. I just couldn’t take it. Like, I’m 19. I can’t handle a 24-year-old.”

Plourde said he was facing additional pressure after learning Fernando was pregnant, a claim he initially thought was a ruse to keep them together following a brief romance that began while working together at McDonald’s.

“In my fears, she’ll come back in nine months with a kid or something,” he said. “I don’t understand why she liked me because I didn’t like her. I’m just a young punk. I showed no interest in her.”

During last year’s sentencing for a youth co-accused, Crown attorney Brent Davidson told court Plourde pressured Fernando to have an abortion. Fernando initially agreed, but later had a “change of heart.” Plourde admitted to police the pair discussed an abortion, but denied telling Fernando what to do.

Young murderous punk, yes. Evil abortion-coercer, maybe not.

But, hey, it's great optics. A law named after a victim is good P.R. Nemmind that it's -- at best -- a streeeeetch of the truth.

Roxanne's Law has a website and the inevitable Facebook group

All the usual fetus fetishists are at FB, including Faytene Kryskow as administrator (who knew there is a wikichristian?). Faytene is famous among zygot zealots for collecting signatures on a MASSIVE petition to revoke Dr Morgentaler's Order of Canada. She also seems to have something of a love-hate relationship with the media.

I've joined the group to ask some questions. *evil smiley*

h/t for the links

UPPITY DATE: Faytene deleted my question. Awwww, shucks. No truth allowed there, I guess.

Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along. . . Still

Oy. Here we go again.

Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge introduced a new bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, aimed at protecting pregnant women against abortion intimidation.

Yes. That Rod Bruinooge (isn't Open Parliament nifty?), chair of the secretive pro-lie parliamentary caucus and staunch defender of kidneys fetuses.

"The bottom line is that people like myself are not going to stop until, at the very least, unborn children have more value than a Canadian kidney."

Also, don't forget, brother of the MASSIVE Morgentaler poll fraudster.

As Joyce Arthur says at the Winnipeg Free Press link above,

"They're trying to intimidate and scare abortion providers," she said. "Providers could find themselves facing prosecution for coercing abortion."

Arthur maintains the bill steps on the toes of a successful system that's already in place and undermines the good work pregnancy support groups do. Counsellors at clinics are on the front-lines educating people on the rights of the woman, outlining the choices they have and how the decision to see the pregnancy to term is theirs and theirs alone.

"It's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist," Arthur said. "Typically, women who are coerced into having an abortion are already caught at the counselling stage."

The geniuses at Freak Dominion are sneering at it as 'incrementalism', which is exactly what it is of course, and are predicting that it will go nowhere.

Especially since the ever-truthful Stevie Peevie is on record saying that his government would not support any private member's bill to do with abortion.

In other news of that non-debate we're having about abortion, remember the ReformaTories demanded new legislation at their grassrootsy convention to replace C-484, aka Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill?

How's that coming along?

Not so well.

More than 18 months after he pledged to crack down on those who assault pregnant women, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has yet to keep his promise and won’t say when he will.

Speaking to reporters, Nicholson dismissed suggestions he has shelved his plans. However, he refused repeatedly to say when he will table a bill or even whether he will act within the coming year.

(snip)

Opposition critics Dominic Leblanc and Joe Comartin say it is a “cynical” ploy to satisfy Conservative supporters by promising legislation while at the same time avoiding a potentially explosive debate over a bill some say could restrict abortions.

Cynical? Say it ain't so!

But, hey, it seems to be working. The moronic fetus fetishists keep voting for them. And the rest of us will keep them in minority -- or, hopefully, miniscule opposition -- forever. Because we know Stephen Harper cannot be trusted.