Rabble contributor admits abortion debate is alive, if not necessarily well
Rabble contributor Mercedes Allen is officially off the reservation.
Pro-abortion activists in Canada have long insisted that there is no debate on abortion in Canada -- your not-so-humble scribe was once threatened with gun violence for merely pointing out that there is. Many pro-abortion activists have long operated under a mistaken belief that, if they simply refused to discuss the abortion topic as an issue of ideas, that there was no debate.
Logical people would know better. And even if one disagrees with Allen on any number of different issues, one at least has to respect her acknowledgement of the ongoing debate.
It doesn't necessarily mean that she's happy about it.
Allen is apparently frustrated with parents who oppose the institution of extreme and provocative anti-discrimination education curriculum -- similar to that administered by the Toronto District School Board -- while some Catholic schools in Canada are giving students course credit for protesting against abortion, as is happening at Christ the King school in Winnipeg.
"According to the Winnipeg Free Press, students are being given full credits for doing so, and principal David Hood is considering making it an official school activity," Allen fumes. "Christ the King School is a private Catholic school in St. Vital, Manitoba providing instruction to students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 8. It's a funded independent school, which means that it receives 50 per cent of student tuition from the province."
"In Canada, there have been renewed efforts to eliminate all funding for International Planned Parenthood, even for women's health initiatives in countries where abortion is banned," she continues. "The United Way similarly came under fire for women's health support and some Canadian hairstylists reportedly participated in a campaign to discuss pro-life beliefs with customers. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform has been picketing schools of all levels across southern and central Alberta and BC with graphic signs."
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated during the election that he wasn't interested in reopening the debate about abortion," she concludes. "But he doesn't have to, and Canadians no longer have that luxury."
Precisely. There is still a debate on abortion, no matter how badly pro-abortion activists would prefer there isn't, no matter how vociferously they demand that it not take place.
This is increasingly going to be a problem for a movement that has convinced itself that it enjoys near-uniform support among Canadians, even as they applaud the jailing of their adversaries, as was the case when longtime anti-abortion activist Mary Wagner was jailed for counseling women against abortion too close to an abortion clinic.
“Despite numerous warnings from judges to stop breaking the law, she continues to do so,” remarked Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada coordinator Joyce Arthur. “Judges have little choice but to send people to jail when they do that. Wagner is apparently willing to pay the price, and so she should. Wagner needs to take responsibility for her actions and the harms she inflicts on women.”
Apparently, for Arthur, being confronted with the idea that the life they are about to terminate is human "inflicts harm on women."
If this were merely about keeping anti-abortion activists away from abortion clinics, it would be one thing. But Arthur's applause of the jailing of Wagner is unsurprising when one considers her long history of advocacy in favour of denying on-campus anti-abortion groups the same access to student resources as their pro-abortion adversaries.
In the sad history of pro-aboriton authoritarianism, Arthur has been its leading figure. If Mercedes Allen's admission that the abortion debate is active is going to provoke an angry outburst from the pro-abortion lobby, Joyce Arthur should be considered the leading candidate to freak out.
There's plenty of room to debate whether or not Catholic school students should be given course credit for anti-abortion protest (in this author's view, they absolutely should not).
But Mercedes Allen is entirely right: there is a debate on abortion taking place, regardless of how loudly pro-abortion authoritarians like Joyce Arthur demand that it not.
Showing posts with label Pro-abortion authoritarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro-abortion authoritarianism. Show all posts
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Diane Abbott Bloviates on Abortion Policy
Labour MP outraged over inclusion of anti-abortion group in debate
Debate on the topic of abortion is heating up in Britain, as the British pro-abortion lobby is making demands quite familiar to those who follow abortion in the rest of the world.
That demand is rather simple: groups who hold a differing opinion on abortion are to be denied a voice in the discussion.
Labour Shadow Minister of Health Diane Abbott is apparently quite apoplectic about the inclusion of Life, a British anti-abortion group, on a government advisory panel on sexual health.
Abbott is apoplectic that groups such as life, or Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, would be allowed to have a voice on any kind of government panel.
"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," Abbott declared. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications."
"And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health," she continued. "This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move."
"Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales," she added. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose."
All of this over the inclusion of a few abortion-opposing groups on an advisory panel intended to represent a wide variety of views.
Perhaps it's time for Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to make something clear: do Britons have the right to have an opinion on abortion that differs from her own? And if they do, do they not have the right to be heard by the government?
Then again, perhaps Abbott has already made herself clear about that.
Debate on the topic of abortion is heating up in Britain, as the British pro-abortion lobby is making demands quite familiar to those who follow abortion in the rest of the world.
That demand is rather simple: groups who hold a differing opinion on abortion are to be denied a voice in the discussion.
Labour Shadow Minister of Health Diane Abbott is apparently quite apoplectic about the inclusion of Life, a British anti-abortion group, on a government advisory panel on sexual health.
Abbott is apoplectic that groups such as life, or Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, would be allowed to have a voice on any kind of government panel.
"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," Abbott declared. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications."
"And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health," she continued. "This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move."
"Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales," she added. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose."
All of this over the inclusion of a few abortion-opposing groups on an advisory panel intended to represent a wide variety of views.
Perhaps it's time for Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to make something clear: do Britons have the right to have an opinion on abortion that differs from her own? And if they do, do they not have the right to be heard by the government?
Then again, perhaps Abbott has already made herself clear about that.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Legalize It (?)
Joyce Arhtur calls for formally legalized abortion, and more
When the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, abortion under demand, under any circumstances and for any reason, became legal in Canada.
In the years since, few governments have dared venture anywhere near the abortion issue. Brian Mulroney's government attempted to legislate a new abortion law only to be stopped by a deadlocked caucus.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada director Joyce Arthur, however, thinks this state of affairs has gone on long enough -- and that Canada needs an abortion law.
Unshockingly, Arthur thinks that Canada should formally legalize abortion. She's actually right about this. But after a few more small details, that's where it ends, and Arthur's ideas diverge into pro-abortion authoritarianism.
Arthur is actually right to insist that provincial health ministries should ensure that abortion is available in each region of their province for those women who need them.
But Arthur's other proposals for such a law are fraught with problems.
For example, Arthur insists that all medical students should be required to be trained in abortion. She suggests that governments should be required to fund abortions, and that provinces be required to pay for reciprocally-billed abortions.
She suggests that the law limit conscientious objection by doctors, and ban abortion protests outside of clinics.
Clearly, it's Arthur's latter two suggestions that are more troublesome.
Arthur isn't only in favour of shutting down anti-abortion protest outside of clinics. She's also in favour of shutting down anti-abortion groups on university campuses, denying them both funding and club status.
It seems that Arthur is full of all kinds of ideas to curb the debate on abortion -- so long as it's her opponents who are being silenced.
The suggestion regarding limited conscientious objection is even more alarming. For one thing, Arthur declines to define under what circumstances she believes an appropriately trained physician could decline to perform an abortion. Her insistence that all medical students, even those specializing in otherwise-unrelated fields, be trained in abortion would confront a great many more doctors with that choice.
(Requiring doctors who decline to perform an abortion to refer appropriately is actually a reasonable requirement.)
Moreover, Arthur's proposed law speaks nothing to any kind of limit on abortion. The word "limit" appears only within her suggestion to limit consientious objection, and "late-term abortion" appears not at all.
If Canada were to legislate on abortion without including a limit on abortion on demand, it would be the only country in the developed world to do so.
Moreover, it's unlikely that any government could manage to pass such a law without any kind of limits on on-demand aboriton. It's actually unlikely that any government could pass such a law with such limits, as the Mulroney example clearly demonstrates.
Perhaps Arthur imagines that her the Liberal Party decline to nominate any candidates who are not pro-abortion fits in with this proposal.
That the Liberal Party could not win a government without tolerating dissent on the topic of abortion seems to escape her -- as does the right of others to disagree with her.
When the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, abortion under demand, under any circumstances and for any reason, became legal in Canada.
In the years since, few governments have dared venture anywhere near the abortion issue. Brian Mulroney's government attempted to legislate a new abortion law only to be stopped by a deadlocked caucus.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada director Joyce Arthur, however, thinks this state of affairs has gone on long enough -- and that Canada needs an abortion law.
Unshockingly, Arthur thinks that Canada should formally legalize abortion. She's actually right about this. But after a few more small details, that's where it ends, and Arthur's ideas diverge into pro-abortion authoritarianism.
Arthur is actually right to insist that provincial health ministries should ensure that abortion is available in each region of their province for those women who need them.
But Arthur's other proposals for such a law are fraught with problems.
For example, Arthur insists that all medical students should be required to be trained in abortion. She suggests that governments should be required to fund abortions, and that provinces be required to pay for reciprocally-billed abortions.
She suggests that the law limit conscientious objection by doctors, and ban abortion protests outside of clinics.
Clearly, it's Arthur's latter two suggestions that are more troublesome.
Arthur isn't only in favour of shutting down anti-abortion protest outside of clinics. She's also in favour of shutting down anti-abortion groups on university campuses, denying them both funding and club status.
It seems that Arthur is full of all kinds of ideas to curb the debate on abortion -- so long as it's her opponents who are being silenced.
The suggestion regarding limited conscientious objection is even more alarming. For one thing, Arthur declines to define under what circumstances she believes an appropriately trained physician could decline to perform an abortion. Her insistence that all medical students, even those specializing in otherwise-unrelated fields, be trained in abortion would confront a great many more doctors with that choice.
(Requiring doctors who decline to perform an abortion to refer appropriately is actually a reasonable requirement.)
Moreover, Arthur's proposed law speaks nothing to any kind of limit on abortion. The word "limit" appears only within her suggestion to limit consientious objection, and "late-term abortion" appears not at all.
If Canada were to legislate on abortion without including a limit on abortion on demand, it would be the only country in the developed world to do so.
Moreover, it's unlikely that any government could manage to pass such a law without any kind of limits on on-demand aboriton. It's actually unlikely that any government could pass such a law with such limits, as the Mulroney example clearly demonstrates.
Perhaps Arthur imagines that her the Liberal Party decline to nominate any candidates who are not pro-abortion fits in with this proposal.
That the Liberal Party could not win a government without tolerating dissent on the topic of abortion seems to escape her -- as does the right of others to disagree with her.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Institutional Censorship of the Pro-Abortion Movement
Banning anti-abortion groups violates civil liberties
Across Canada, anti-abortion groups on various University campuses have been under fire.
Where pro-abortion groups fail and students' unions decline to run pro-abortion groups off campus, they settle for simply disrupting any events they disagree with.
In the latter case, it's censorship by deeply-institutionalized means.
Fortunately, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is prepared to take a stand on the matter, they're preparing to intervene in a case involving the University of Victoria Student Society and an anti-abortion group by the name of Youth Protecting Youth.
The argument is that anti-abortion activism "inherently discriminates" against women.
It shouldn't be thought that the BCCLA necessarily agrees with Youth Protecting Youth -- they merely believe that their freedom of expression should be protected.
"We're pro-choice nuts over at the civil liberties association," explained BCCLA spokesman John Dixon. "We would like to persuade the university students society to relent -- that's the course we're pursuing for now."
"This is a public institution and an organ of the government of British Columbia. Students are forced to pay fees to fund the Students Society."
It's on that note that the members of Youth Protecting Youth pay funds to an organization that has acted to deny them the freedom to express themselves because pro-abortion busybodies like Joyce Arthur -- who is representing pro-abortion group Students for Choice in this matter -- believe that expression "inherently" oppresses them.
Dixon insists that the U Vic Students' Society is wrong to attempt to censor the group. He quite rightly notes that silencing Youth Protecting Youth doesn't in any way settle the abortion issue.
"They can't punish, denounce, discipline a group who, in a very civil way ... try to persuade people not to have abortions. It isn't as though the entire Western world has settled all these bioethical questions about the beginning of life and end of life -- they're live issues."
Barry Cooper has often theorized about what he calls the "embedded state". He describes the embedded state as politicized institutions that operate for the preservation of its own powers, often in support of partisan or ideological interests.
The behaviour of the students unions that rush to run anti-abortion groups off their campuses demonstrate that the embedded state is alive and well on university campuses across Canada.
These organizations have given themselves the power to censor student groups on their campus in direct contravention of civil liberties. It's entirely understandable that zealots like Joyce Arthur either do not understand this or simply don't care.
Fortunately, the BCCLA seems to be prepared to stand up to these organizations -- at least within the province of BC. The time is long overdue that civil liberties groups in other provinces take a similar stand.
Across Canada, anti-abortion groups on various University campuses have been under fire.
Where pro-abortion groups fail and students' unions decline to run pro-abortion groups off campus, they settle for simply disrupting any events they disagree with.
In the latter case, it's censorship by deeply-institutionalized means.
Fortunately, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is prepared to take a stand on the matter, they're preparing to intervene in a case involving the University of Victoria Student Society and an anti-abortion group by the name of Youth Protecting Youth.
The argument is that anti-abortion activism "inherently discriminates" against women.
It shouldn't be thought that the BCCLA necessarily agrees with Youth Protecting Youth -- they merely believe that their freedom of expression should be protected.
"We're pro-choice nuts over at the civil liberties association," explained BCCLA spokesman John Dixon. "We would like to persuade the university students society to relent -- that's the course we're pursuing for now."
"This is a public institution and an organ of the government of British Columbia. Students are forced to pay fees to fund the Students Society."
It's on that note that the members of Youth Protecting Youth pay funds to an organization that has acted to deny them the freedom to express themselves because pro-abortion busybodies like Joyce Arthur -- who is representing pro-abortion group Students for Choice in this matter -- believe that expression "inherently" oppresses them.
Dixon insists that the U Vic Students' Society is wrong to attempt to censor the group. He quite rightly notes that silencing Youth Protecting Youth doesn't in any way settle the abortion issue.
"They can't punish, denounce, discipline a group who, in a very civil way ... try to persuade people not to have abortions. It isn't as though the entire Western world has settled all these bioethical questions about the beginning of life and end of life -- they're live issues."
Barry Cooper has often theorized about what he calls the "embedded state". He describes the embedded state as politicized institutions that operate for the preservation of its own powers, often in support of partisan or ideological interests.
The behaviour of the students unions that rush to run anti-abortion groups off their campuses demonstrate that the embedded state is alive and well on university campuses across Canada.
These organizations have given themselves the power to censor student groups on their campus in direct contravention of civil liberties. It's entirely understandable that zealots like Joyce Arthur either do not understand this or simply don't care.
Fortunately, the BCCLA seems to be prepared to stand up to these organizations -- at least within the province of BC. The time is long overdue that civil liberties groups in other provinces take a similar stand.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Medium the Pro-Abortion Movement Cannot Silence
Law and Order discusses abortion
A recent episode of Law and Order has apparently provoked quite the controversy amongst the pro-abortion movement.
In the episode, Detectives Cyrus Lupo (Jeremy Sisto) and Kevin Bernard (Anthony Anderson) are investigating the murder of Dr Walter Benning, an abortion doctor killed while attending his church.
Dr Benning is clearly a stand-in for Dr George Tiller, who was murdered earlier this year while attending his own church.
Eventually, they identify Wayne Grogan (PJ Sosko) as their suspect. Grogan is defended by Roger Jenkins (Richard Thomas), who also acts as the legal advisor for a Crisis Pregnancy Centre.
He defends Grogan with a justification defense. They argue that, as Grogan was -- in his own mind, at least -- acting in defense of a single viable unborn child set to be born with a medical condition that would render her skin fragile, although she could survive the condition.
Based on the survivability of the condition, the judge in the case allows Grogan and Jenkins to present their justification defense.
The battle lines over the case are clearly drawn between the characters. Bernard is fervently anti-abortion, Lupo is pro-abortion. Executive Assistant District Attorney Michael Cutter (Linus Roache) is anti-abortion, and Assistant District Attorney Conny Rubirose (Alana De La Garza) is stridently pro-abortion.
Despite the fact that both Bernard and McCoy oppose abortion, they pursue Dr Bennet's murderer to the fullest extent of their ability. McCoy even helps suppress knowledge that Dr Benning had apparently finished an abortion after a child was born live during a partial-birth abortion.
Oddly enough it's Rubirose, who is so strongly in favour of legalized abortion that she refers to the anti-abortion movement as "anti-choice", who discloses the matter to the defense.
While the pro-abortion movement is decrying the episode as presenting "almost every deranged anti-abortion talking point can be found in the episode — comparing anti-choicers to the civil rights movement — with little or no pro-choice rebuttal," they're overlooking the fact that virtually every argument of the pro-abortion movement is presented.
Numerous women in the episode note that seeking an abortion is the most difficult decision they will ever face, and many women display the emotional distress that many women feel after the fact. Even witnesses on the stand who oppose abortion agree that doctors such as Dr Benning provide a necessary medical service for the women who need it.
In the end, Grogan is quite rightly convicted. Even if Dr Benning was performing illegal abortions, Grogan's act was still an act of terrorism, and had to be treated accordingly.
What individuals like JJ are really outraged about isn't that the anti-abortion case was presented without pro-aboriton rebuttal, but rather that it was presented at all.
It's one thing for pro-abortion protesters to show up at an anti-abortion speech and disrupt the event so that the presenter cannot speak. It's entirely another for the pro-abortion movement to attempt to barge into the living rooms of every home watching Law and Order and prevent them from watching the show because it presents sides of the abortion debate that they don't want to be heard.
They can accomplish one of these things -- they cannot accomplish the other, and it seems to positively embitter them that the anti-abortion message has (although not unopposed within the episode itself) found a medium that they cannot silence.
(Although the producers of Law and Order may want to watch out for this lunatic sitting behind them in church.)
A recent episode of Law and Order has apparently provoked quite the controversy amongst the pro-abortion movement.
In the episode, Detectives Cyrus Lupo (Jeremy Sisto) and Kevin Bernard (Anthony Anderson) are investigating the murder of Dr Walter Benning, an abortion doctor killed while attending his church.
Dr Benning is clearly a stand-in for Dr George Tiller, who was murdered earlier this year while attending his own church.
Eventually, they identify Wayne Grogan (PJ Sosko) as their suspect. Grogan is defended by Roger Jenkins (Richard Thomas), who also acts as the legal advisor for a Crisis Pregnancy Centre.
He defends Grogan with a justification defense. They argue that, as Grogan was -- in his own mind, at least -- acting in defense of a single viable unborn child set to be born with a medical condition that would render her skin fragile, although she could survive the condition.
Based on the survivability of the condition, the judge in the case allows Grogan and Jenkins to present their justification defense.
The battle lines over the case are clearly drawn between the characters. Bernard is fervently anti-abortion, Lupo is pro-abortion. Executive Assistant District Attorney Michael Cutter (Linus Roache) is anti-abortion, and Assistant District Attorney Conny Rubirose (Alana De La Garza) is stridently pro-abortion.
Despite the fact that both Bernard and McCoy oppose abortion, they pursue Dr Bennet's murderer to the fullest extent of their ability. McCoy even helps suppress knowledge that Dr Benning had apparently finished an abortion after a child was born live during a partial-birth abortion.
Oddly enough it's Rubirose, who is so strongly in favour of legalized abortion that she refers to the anti-abortion movement as "anti-choice", who discloses the matter to the defense.
While the pro-abortion movement is decrying the episode as presenting "almost every deranged anti-abortion talking point can be found in the episode — comparing anti-choicers to the civil rights movement — with little or no pro-choice rebuttal," they're overlooking the fact that virtually every argument of the pro-abortion movement is presented.
Numerous women in the episode note that seeking an abortion is the most difficult decision they will ever face, and many women display the emotional distress that many women feel after the fact. Even witnesses on the stand who oppose abortion agree that doctors such as Dr Benning provide a necessary medical service for the women who need it.
In the end, Grogan is quite rightly convicted. Even if Dr Benning was performing illegal abortions, Grogan's act was still an act of terrorism, and had to be treated accordingly.
What individuals like JJ are really outraged about isn't that the anti-abortion case was presented without pro-aboriton rebuttal, but rather that it was presented at all.
It's one thing for pro-abortion protesters to show up at an anti-abortion speech and disrupt the event so that the presenter cannot speak. It's entirely another for the pro-abortion movement to attempt to barge into the living rooms of every home watching Law and Order and prevent them from watching the show because it presents sides of the abortion debate that they don't want to be heard.
They can accomplish one of these things -- they cannot accomplish the other, and it seems to positively embitter them that the anti-abortion message has (although not unopposed within the episode itself) found a medium that they cannot silence.
(Although the producers of Law and Order may want to watch out for this lunatic sitting behind them in church.)
Friday, September 25, 2009
Eeeeeeek! It's Christians! And They're Praying!
Antonia Zerbisias offers an odd definition of "intimidation"
Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias has long been a not-so-subetly-kept secret of Canada's loony left (a category of left wingers who should be considered a subcategory of the hateful left, themselves a category of left wingers).
Parading her political thought under the guise of mainstream respectability, Zerbisias has, on occasion, let her true nature slip through the facade -- such as when she suggested Dick Cheney should shoot Michelle Malkin in the face and more recently, when she questioned Irwin Cotler's loyalty to Canada on account of his children volunteering for the Israeli Defense Forces.
But, as is so often the case with individuals such as Zerbisias, it seems that whatever lunacy or silliness (however the case may be) has transpired to date may only be the tip of the iceberg.
Zerbisias recently suggested that Christians embarking on an ambitious new protest campaign against abortion are actually out to intimidate women seeking abortions.
"The birds of `pray' who will be targeting women's clinics in Canadian cities for the next 40 days really don't care about saving lives," Zerbisias wrote. "If they did, they wouldn't be so much about intimidating the desperate women and girls who are seeking abortions."
Intimidation? That sounds truly horrible. Certainly, any rational person would want to know precisely what it is that these "birds of pray" are doing that is so intimidating.
As it turns out, Zerbisias' comments refer to the 40 Days for Life campaign being staged by various anti-abortion groups. For 40 days they'll be praying and fasting outside of abortion clinics, as well as conducting a door-to-door petition.
Intimidation!
Of course, any rational individual would wait for actual violence to occur as part of the 40 Days for Life campaign -- or at least some kind of threat -- before accusing them of indimidation.
Perhaps something like one of the participants in the 40 Days for Life campaign were to pull a gun on a woman seeking an abortion. It isn't as if Zerbisias' cohorts in the extreme pro-abortion movement haven't made any excuses for such incidents.
Hell, some of them have even participated in acts of intimidation.
Zerbisias seems to conclude that the praying protesters only want to take women's rights away.
"No matter how much they will attempt to cloak their vigils outside two Toronto clinics with solemn vows to 'never stop defending life,' their true agenda is unveiled by their lack of support for babies once they're born, their often impoverished mothers and the kind of sex education and contraception accessibility that would avoid abortion in the first place," Zerbisias insists. "Nowhere on 40DaysForLife.com is there any discussion of any of these matters."
"That's why it's easy to assume that what the anti-choice movement is really about is exactly that: no choice for women," Zerbisias continues. "No choice when it comes to their reproductive rights, no choice when it comes to being free to pursue independent lives, no choice to have careers, no choice at all."
In the wake of the revelation that the 40 Days for Life website doesn't address post-birth support for single mothers, contraception or sex eduation, one may be willing to say "fair enough" (at least to that fact, if not to her rhetoric).
But then one would wonder what Zerbisias would have to say about anti-abortion organizations -- such as Feminists for Life that do have something to say about the matter.
Among the various resources available via the FFL website include calls to change cultural attitudes toward single parents to create an environment more conducive to single parenthood, notes on how to raise children inexpensively, and advice on how to cope with an unplanned pregnancy.
When writing about Feminists for Life, Zerbisias has failed to mention these things.
For her own part, this isn't particularly damning. But some of Zerbisias' compatriots in the pro-abortion movement have more deliberately overlooked such things. In a column appearing on the Talking Points Memo website, Ruth Rosen accused FfL of being "cleverly disingenuous".
As anyone who paid attention to the various controversies that swirled around former US Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin knows that FfL's slogan is "women deserves better choices".
That at the very least, is something Feminists for Life and the pro-abortion movement should be able to agree on, even if they fundamentally disagree on abortion.
But despite the fact that FfL's website does address some of the issues that Zerbisias criticizes 40 Days for Life for not mentioning, Ruth Rosen makes a rather unsurprising conclusion.
"In the end, I decided that Feminists for Life is neither about feminism nor about choice," Rosen writes. "It is a cunning attempt to convince young women that choice means giving up the right to 'choose.'"
So, it would seem that no matter who is writing, and no matter what the conditions, the pro-abortion movement insists that the anti-abortion movement simply opposes choice -- that they oppose freedom.
Against this general rhetorical backdrop it's hard to treat Zerbisias' commentary as anything other than disingenuous.
In this particular column, that disingenuity begins when she accuses Christians publicly praying of "intimidating" women, and takes deeper root when she follows the typical pro-abortion rhetorical tactic of accusing them of simply hating freedom.
Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias has long been a not-so-subetly-kept secret of Canada's loony left (a category of left wingers who should be considered a subcategory of the hateful left, themselves a category of left wingers).
Parading her political thought under the guise of mainstream respectability, Zerbisias has, on occasion, let her true nature slip through the facade -- such as when she suggested Dick Cheney should shoot Michelle Malkin in the face and more recently, when she questioned Irwin Cotler's loyalty to Canada on account of his children volunteering for the Israeli Defense Forces.
But, as is so often the case with individuals such as Zerbisias, it seems that whatever lunacy or silliness (however the case may be) has transpired to date may only be the tip of the iceberg.
Zerbisias recently suggested that Christians embarking on an ambitious new protest campaign against abortion are actually out to intimidate women seeking abortions.
"The birds of `pray' who will be targeting women's clinics in Canadian cities for the next 40 days really don't care about saving lives," Zerbisias wrote. "If they did, they wouldn't be so much about intimidating the desperate women and girls who are seeking abortions."
Intimidation? That sounds truly horrible. Certainly, any rational person would want to know precisely what it is that these "birds of pray" are doing that is so intimidating.
As it turns out, Zerbisias' comments refer to the 40 Days for Life campaign being staged by various anti-abortion groups. For 40 days they'll be praying and fasting outside of abortion clinics, as well as conducting a door-to-door petition.
Intimidation!
Of course, any rational individual would wait for actual violence to occur as part of the 40 Days for Life campaign -- or at least some kind of threat -- before accusing them of indimidation.
Perhaps something like one of the participants in the 40 Days for Life campaign were to pull a gun on a woman seeking an abortion. It isn't as if Zerbisias' cohorts in the extreme pro-abortion movement haven't made any excuses for such incidents.
Hell, some of them have even participated in acts of intimidation.
Zerbisias seems to conclude that the praying protesters only want to take women's rights away.
"No matter how much they will attempt to cloak their vigils outside two Toronto clinics with solemn vows to 'never stop defending life,' their true agenda is unveiled by their lack of support for babies once they're born, their often impoverished mothers and the kind of sex education and contraception accessibility that would avoid abortion in the first place," Zerbisias insists. "Nowhere on 40DaysForLife.com is there any discussion of any of these matters."
"That's why it's easy to assume that what the anti-choice movement is really about is exactly that: no choice for women," Zerbisias continues. "No choice when it comes to their reproductive rights, no choice when it comes to being free to pursue independent lives, no choice to have careers, no choice at all."
In the wake of the revelation that the 40 Days for Life website doesn't address post-birth support for single mothers, contraception or sex eduation, one may be willing to say "fair enough" (at least to that fact, if not to her rhetoric).
But then one would wonder what Zerbisias would have to say about anti-abortion organizations -- such as Feminists for Life that do have something to say about the matter.
Among the various resources available via the FFL website include calls to change cultural attitudes toward single parents to create an environment more conducive to single parenthood, notes on how to raise children inexpensively, and advice on how to cope with an unplanned pregnancy.
When writing about Feminists for Life, Zerbisias has failed to mention these things.
For her own part, this isn't particularly damning. But some of Zerbisias' compatriots in the pro-abortion movement have more deliberately overlooked such things. In a column appearing on the Talking Points Memo website, Ruth Rosen accused FfL of being "cleverly disingenuous".
As anyone who paid attention to the various controversies that swirled around former US Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin knows that FfL's slogan is "women deserves better choices".
That at the very least, is something Feminists for Life and the pro-abortion movement should be able to agree on, even if they fundamentally disagree on abortion.
But despite the fact that FfL's website does address some of the issues that Zerbisias criticizes 40 Days for Life for not mentioning, Ruth Rosen makes a rather unsurprising conclusion.
"In the end, I decided that Feminists for Life is neither about feminism nor about choice," Rosen writes. "It is a cunning attempt to convince young women that choice means giving up the right to 'choose.'"
So, it would seem that no matter who is writing, and no matter what the conditions, the pro-abortion movement insists that the anti-abortion movement simply opposes choice -- that they oppose freedom.
Against this general rhetorical backdrop it's hard to treat Zerbisias' commentary as anything other than disingenuous.
In this particular column, that disingenuity begins when she accuses Christians publicly praying of "intimidating" women, and takes deeper root when she follows the typical pro-abortion rhetorical tactic of accusing them of simply hating freedom.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Joyce Arthur Says the Anti-Abortion Movement is Drinking Champagne...
...Yet she's the one making a toast
Let it never be said that Joyce Arthur doesn't have a gift for arriving late to the party.
This evening in Vancouver, Arthur's Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada will join with numerous other pro-abortion groups in order to rally in the memory of the assassinated Dr George Tiller -- only a mere three weeks after he was killed, and 12 days after his funeral.
But the protest isn't merely about Dr Tiller's death. It's also about promoting the opening of more facilities that will offer late-term abortion in Canada.
“It’s a scandal that women are forced to travel to Kansas for these procedures,” Arthur says.
Arthur insists that the idea that late-term abortions are ever performed on healthy fetuses is a misconception. “People think there are women out there who are having late abortions so they can fit into their prom dresses,” she says.
One would expect -- one would certainly hope -- that there aren't any women making the decision regarding late-term abortion frivolously. But one would also wonder if individuals like Arthur would be in favour of placing legal restrictions on late-term abortion.
You know, just to make sure these women aren't just in it for the prom.
But, as anyone who has followed the abortion debate in Canada knows, this is apparently a non-starter. Joyce Arthur and her fellows in the pro-abortion movement would never accept any law in regards to abortion.
Oddly enough, not only do Arthur and her cohorts oppose setting any kind of legal limit on late-term abortions, but they also oppose legally protecting a doctor's right to refuse to perform abortions they deem unethical. They do this even as they propose measures that would make that protection necessary.
But there's a deeper issue underlying the Vancouver rally aside from just Arthur and her cohort's unwillingness to accept legislation that they insist would actually change nothing.
Arthur has joined a chorus of crazed voices -- including this tool -- who blame the entire anti-abortion movement for Dr Tiller's murder.
“We thought it was import to honour [Dr Tiller] here because it’s not just an American issue. We had shootings here in the 1990s. We see similar hateful rhetoric here," Arthur insists. “They might be condemning the murder in public, but privately they’re drinking champagne. There’s a lot of that sentiment around that he deserved what he got.”
Yet interestingly enough, though Arthur insists that it's the anti-abortion movement who are drinking champagne to Dr Tiller's death, it seems that Joyce Arthur is proposing a toast to his memory.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But one has to wonder if Arthur is also secretly proposing a toast to the rhetorical club the pro-abortion movement wants to transform his death into.
Let it never be said that Joyce Arthur doesn't have a gift for arriving late to the party.
This evening in Vancouver, Arthur's Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada will join with numerous other pro-abortion groups in order to rally in the memory of the assassinated Dr George Tiller -- only a mere three weeks after he was killed, and 12 days after his funeral.
But the protest isn't merely about Dr Tiller's death. It's also about promoting the opening of more facilities that will offer late-term abortion in Canada.
“It’s a scandal that women are forced to travel to Kansas for these procedures,” Arthur says.
Arthur insists that the idea that late-term abortions are ever performed on healthy fetuses is a misconception. “People think there are women out there who are having late abortions so they can fit into their prom dresses,” she says.
One would expect -- one would certainly hope -- that there aren't any women making the decision regarding late-term abortion frivolously. But one would also wonder if individuals like Arthur would be in favour of placing legal restrictions on late-term abortion.
You know, just to make sure these women aren't just in it for the prom.
But, as anyone who has followed the abortion debate in Canada knows, this is apparently a non-starter. Joyce Arthur and her fellows in the pro-abortion movement would never accept any law in regards to abortion.
Oddly enough, not only do Arthur and her cohorts oppose setting any kind of legal limit on late-term abortions, but they also oppose legally protecting a doctor's right to refuse to perform abortions they deem unethical. They do this even as they propose measures that would make that protection necessary.
But there's a deeper issue underlying the Vancouver rally aside from just Arthur and her cohort's unwillingness to accept legislation that they insist would actually change nothing.
Arthur has joined a chorus of crazed voices -- including this tool -- who blame the entire anti-abortion movement for Dr Tiller's murder.
“We thought it was import to honour [Dr Tiller] here because it’s not just an American issue. We had shootings here in the 1990s. We see similar hateful rhetoric here," Arthur insists. “They might be condemning the murder in public, but privately they’re drinking champagne. There’s a lot of that sentiment around that he deserved what he got.”
Yet interestingly enough, though Arthur insists that it's the anti-abortion movement who are drinking champagne to Dr Tiller's death, it seems that Joyce Arthur is proposing a toast to his memory.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But one has to wonder if Arthur is also secretly proposing a toast to the rhetorical club the pro-abortion movement wants to transform his death into.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
The Bizarre "Rationalism" of the Pro-Abortion Lobby
Those reading the Nexus over the past couple of days are already familiar with the silly argument recently raised by Stage Left's Balbulican insisting that opposition to abortion is essentially a sexual fetish -- a mental illness.
While the response to criticism of Balbulican's invalid argument has been amusing -- essentially boiling down to an argument that the alleged psychological sexual fetish described by Balbulican shouldn't have to actually adhere to the definition of a sexual fetish according to psychology -- some of the other arguments to be raised in the course of that thread have been amusing in an altogether different manner.
Such as the argument raised by Mike of Rational Reasons, who, in the course of taking exception to the arguments raised by Blue Wave Canada's Suzanne, suggests that a fetus -- or unborn child, as some may prefer to call it -- is a foreign entity to its mother:
Mike's counter-argument seems to rest on one key misconceived premise: if an unborn child is separate from its mother then it's a foreign entity.
But even if one were to accept the argument that an unborn child is separate from its mother -- and considering that, as Mike himself notes, the unborn child receives oxygen and nourishment from its mother through its umbilical cord, this is a very difficult argument to accept -- it doesn't logically follow that the unborn child is foreign to its mother.
After all, if Mike had received the same birds-and-the-bees talk that the vast overwhelming majority of educated people receive he would know that an unborn child is the product of natural processes occurring within the mother's body.
Yet the word foreign, in almost any sense of the term, deals with things that either originate externally, or do not belong there in the first place.
Considering that a child is conceived within the mother's body, through the reproductive processes that are natural to a woman's body, an unborn child could not possibly be a foreign entity.
It would also be foolish to believe that the unborn child doesn't belong there, considering that (again) it results from natural bodily processes within the mother.
Yet Mike, as it turns out, not only won't admit to the fallacy of his argument, he wants to disavow the argument altogether:
Suzanne indeed suggested that the mother and their unborn child are distinct biological entities. Interestingly enough, she doesn't actually use the word "separate", although it's clearly implied in her argument.
But there are numerous cases in which two entities can be biologically distinct from one another, yet not separate and certainly foreign to one another.
An interesting test case is that of conjoined twins. Conjoined twins are often born sharing the same organs, and even the same DNA. Yet, they are biologically distinct from one another to the extent that they can often be successfully separated via surgery -- although often one or both twins die in the process.
Thus "biologically distinct" -- even though it's clearly implicit in Suzanne's specific argument -- doesn't automatically mean separate. Nor does separate necessarily mean foreign.
Of course, this is nothing new to those who are familiar with Mike. The indefensible argument is one of this individual's specialties, and whenever he's caught in one, he simply insists that he isn't obligated to defend his ideas.
Which may be true enough. But no one is obligated to accept an undefended and unsupportable idea.
Any truly rational person knows this.
While the response to criticism of Balbulican's invalid argument has been amusing -- essentially boiling down to an argument that the alleged psychological sexual fetish described by Balbulican shouldn't have to actually adhere to the definition of a sexual fetish according to psychology -- some of the other arguments to be raised in the course of that thread have been amusing in an altogether different manner.
Such as the argument raised by Mike of Rational Reasons, who, in the course of taking exception to the arguments raised by Blue Wave Canada's Suzanne, suggests that a fetus -- or unborn child, as some may prefer to call it -- is a foreign entity to its mother:
"...My bodily integrity is paramount and I cannot be compelled to carry any foreign biological entity within me against my will. After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity and you are trying to compel a woman to carry this entity within her against her will. I cannot be compelled to carry such an entity even if it means certain death for the entity or someone else."In the wake of a comment this incredibly stupid, one really can't help but wonder who, precisely, it was that taught Mike one of two things: sex education, and english.
Mike's counter-argument seems to rest on one key misconceived premise: if an unborn child is separate from its mother then it's a foreign entity.
But even if one were to accept the argument that an unborn child is separate from its mother -- and considering that, as Mike himself notes, the unborn child receives oxygen and nourishment from its mother through its umbilical cord, this is a very difficult argument to accept -- it doesn't logically follow that the unborn child is foreign to its mother.
After all, if Mike had received the same birds-and-the-bees talk that the vast overwhelming majority of educated people receive he would know that an unborn child is the product of natural processes occurring within the mother's body.
Yet the word foreign, in almost any sense of the term, deals with things that either originate externally, or do not belong there in the first place.
Considering that a child is conceived within the mother's body, through the reproductive processes that are natural to a woman's body, an unborn child could not possibly be a foreign entity.
It would also be foolish to believe that the unborn child doesn't belong there, considering that (again) it results from natural bodily processes within the mother.
Yet Mike, as it turns out, not only won't admit to the fallacy of his argument, he wants to disavow the argument altogether:
"And, in that exact same paragraph, I quite clearly explained how it connected with what Suzanne said:And yet, interestingly enough, it wasn't Suzanne who suggested that the unborn child is separate and foreign to the mother.
After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity…"
Suzanne indeed suggested that the mother and their unborn child are distinct biological entities. Interestingly enough, she doesn't actually use the word "separate", although it's clearly implied in her argument.
But there are numerous cases in which two entities can be biologically distinct from one another, yet not separate and certainly foreign to one another.
An interesting test case is that of conjoined twins. Conjoined twins are often born sharing the same organs, and even the same DNA. Yet, they are biologically distinct from one another to the extent that they can often be successfully separated via surgery -- although often one or both twins die in the process.
Thus "biologically distinct" -- even though it's clearly implicit in Suzanne's specific argument -- doesn't automatically mean separate. Nor does separate necessarily mean foreign.
Of course, this is nothing new to those who are familiar with Mike. The indefensible argument is one of this individual's specialties, and whenever he's caught in one, he simply insists that he isn't obligated to defend his ideas.
Which may be true enough. But no one is obligated to accept an undefended and unsupportable idea.
Any truly rational person knows this.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Joyce Arthur Speaks for Herself
Canadians have the right to debate abortion, no matter how terrified the pro-abortion lobby may be
Despite numerous efforts by the pro-abortion lobby -- and by politicians too afraid to stand up to them -- it seems there are still MPs on Parliament Hill who want to debate the issue of abortion.
And Joyce Aurthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't like it.
For her own part, Aurthur blames it on the Conservative party. Most of the Conservative party's MPs, she insists are "publicly anti-choice" (buy which she actually means anti-abortion).
"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur insists. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."
But what she must mean by that is that she and her cohorts in the pro-abortion lobby are happy with the status quo and don't want to go back to the abortion debate. Some of them steadfastly insist that there is no debate.
But they and Aurthur are wrong. There are a great many Canadians who recognize the necessity of finally having this debate in Canada.
Rod Bruinooge, the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, is much closer to the truth when he notes that this debate hasn't really ended. No matter what individuals such as Aurthur may prefer, this debate is ongoing. "I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge said. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."
Bruinooge notes that there are members of each party on what he describes as an informal Parliamentary committee, although we won't identify any of them, insisting that each member should "present their personal philosophy on this issue."
Not that such an act wouldn't be politically perilous for these particular individuals. One may recall the outrage directed at NDP Peter Stoffer when he voted in favour of Bill C-484 -- the Fetal Homicide Bill -- being referred to committee for discussion.
Some of the most fervent believers in the pro-abortion lobby insisted that Stoffer should be cast out of the NDP caucus -- and this was just for voting in favour of the bill in questions -- which actually contained protections against the bill being applied to cases of abortion -- should be talked about.
The mini-controversy that emerged when Macleans Magazine columnist Andrew Coyne wrote a column advocating the reopening of the abortion debate.
Coyne never really advocated a particular stance on the issue -- he only noted that democratic debate is necessary to establish a legitimate consensus.
Yet the response to Coyne's column alluded to a significant fear of an actual debate. Robert Baglow, for example, ruled debate out of the question because to do so would be to "gamble on a woman's right to choose".
As Coyne himself noted, a debate on abortion would be emotional to the point of sheer savagery. It would give the most irrational denizens of each side -- the pro-abortion and anti-abortion lobbies -- an opportunity to seize the spotlight and draw attention to themselves.
And it's almost certain that many from each side simply will not tolerate a "third-way" abortion debate.
But Canadians have the right to debate abortion -- whether it's under rational pretenses or otherwise -- if they so choose. That's part and parcel of living in a democracy wherein our freedoms of speech and expression are legally protected.
To allow the pro-abortion lobby -- who are so content to slur their opponents with meaningless and nonsensical epithets such as "anti-choice" -- to curb sucha debate out of simple fear of losing would be unconscionable.
Rod Bruinooge's courage in raising the issue should be recognized and saluted, just as Joyce Aurthur's intellectual cowardice should be recognized and condemned.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Nick Taylor-Vaisey - "Abortion: Why Not Open the Debate?"
Jesse Ferreras - "MP Wants to Put Abortion Back in Limelight
Justin Hoffer - "Abortion Debate Reopening"
Despite numerous efforts by the pro-abortion lobby -- and by politicians too afraid to stand up to them -- it seems there are still MPs on Parliament Hill who want to debate the issue of abortion.
And Joyce Aurthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't like it.
For her own part, Aurthur blames it on the Conservative party. Most of the Conservative party's MPs, she insists are "publicly anti-choice" (buy which she actually means anti-abortion).
"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur insists. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."
But what she must mean by that is that she and her cohorts in the pro-abortion lobby are happy with the status quo and don't want to go back to the abortion debate. Some of them steadfastly insist that there is no debate.
But they and Aurthur are wrong. There are a great many Canadians who recognize the necessity of finally having this debate in Canada.
Rod Bruinooge, the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, is much closer to the truth when he notes that this debate hasn't really ended. No matter what individuals such as Aurthur may prefer, this debate is ongoing. "I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge said. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."
Bruinooge notes that there are members of each party on what he describes as an informal Parliamentary committee, although we won't identify any of them, insisting that each member should "present their personal philosophy on this issue."
Not that such an act wouldn't be politically perilous for these particular individuals. One may recall the outrage directed at NDP Peter Stoffer when he voted in favour of Bill C-484 -- the Fetal Homicide Bill -- being referred to committee for discussion.
Some of the most fervent believers in the pro-abortion lobby insisted that Stoffer should be cast out of the NDP caucus -- and this was just for voting in favour of the bill in questions -- which actually contained protections against the bill being applied to cases of abortion -- should be talked about.
The mini-controversy that emerged when Macleans Magazine columnist Andrew Coyne wrote a column advocating the reopening of the abortion debate.
Coyne never really advocated a particular stance on the issue -- he only noted that democratic debate is necessary to establish a legitimate consensus.
Yet the response to Coyne's column alluded to a significant fear of an actual debate. Robert Baglow, for example, ruled debate out of the question because to do so would be to "gamble on a woman's right to choose".
As Coyne himself noted, a debate on abortion would be emotional to the point of sheer savagery. It would give the most irrational denizens of each side -- the pro-abortion and anti-abortion lobbies -- an opportunity to seize the spotlight and draw attention to themselves.
And it's almost certain that many from each side simply will not tolerate a "third-way" abortion debate.
But Canadians have the right to debate abortion -- whether it's under rational pretenses or otherwise -- if they so choose. That's part and parcel of living in a democracy wherein our freedoms of speech and expression are legally protected.
To allow the pro-abortion lobby -- who are so content to slur their opponents with meaningless and nonsensical epithets such as "anti-choice" -- to curb sucha debate out of simple fear of losing would be unconscionable.
Rod Bruinooge's courage in raising the issue should be recognized and saluted, just as Joyce Aurthur's intellectual cowardice should be recognized and condemned.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Nick Taylor-Vaisey - "Abortion: Why Not Open the Debate?"
Jesse Ferreras - "MP Wants to Put Abortion Back in Limelight
Justin Hoffer - "Abortion Debate Reopening"
Saturday, November 29, 2008
How to Not Get Something Over With
University of Guelph Students Association drags its feet on Life Choice controversy
The latest development on the tale of the Life Choice controversy at the University of Guelph is being embraced by the editoral staff of the Guelph Mercury embracing the reinstatement of interim club status as a "welcome gesture".
This was done as the appeal process for Life Choice's suspension was delayed yet again, while a tribunal is adjourned to arbitrate the matter.
Previously, on October 30, procedural considerations stalled the appeal process.
"I believe the environment of this room is unsafe," complained U of G CSA's Human Resources Commissioner Joel Harnest -- the very same Joel Harnest who indulged himself in denouncing the Life Fair as "anti-choice", and helped lead the charge against Life Choice on the basis that it somehow rendered the University of Guelph cmapus unsafe for women.
So in other words, the "unsafe environment" of the October 30 appeal hearing more likely had to do with Joel Harnest hearing things he didn't want to hear rather than any particular risk of physical violence.
The October 30 meeting had been conduced in the absence of the CSA's adviser regarding its bylaws.
For one, Patrick Case, the director of the University of Guelph's human rights and equity office admitted that the procedure of the meeting was unfair when the CSA aired uninvestigated allegations of harassment against Life Choice. Case noted that such accusations needed to be either investigated for factualness or discarded.
The matter was delayed until November 19, when the matter was once again delayed due to poor preparation on the CSA's part.
Now, the matter will be delayed further still.
Which makes one wonder precisely how confident Harnest and his CSA cohorts are in their efforts to deny Life Choice student club status in the name of promoting their own agenda -- and they very much do have an agenda.
Some of Harnest's comments printed in the National Post are very indicative of what Harnest's agenda really is, and it should be considered altogether unsurprising considering his previous "anti-choice" rhetoric.
"It's not the responsibility of the CSA to support them because we are a pro-choice organization. And as a private organization we can choose who to associate with," Harnest insists. "My argument is that women are a minority in this country in terms of the power and stake that they have. We are defending the rights of women."
Of course, there are numerous problems with Harnest's argument. First off, the University of Guelph Central Students Association is supposed to be a governing body, not a "pro-choice group".
Secondly, while it can be expected that such organizations will reflect the views of its membership, it does not have the right to impose them on others. Furthermore, the CSA would have to demonstrate that a significant majority of students at the U of G hold "pro-choice" views before it could reasonably declare itself to hold such a stance.
Even then, being a "pro-choice" group does not give it the right to expel a club from its membership for holding contrary views -- particularly when the members of that club each, as U of G students, pay student fees to fund the CSA.
Furthermore, the University of Guelph's actions is proven that it is not a pro-choice group. What Harnest really means is pro-abortion group. Any group that would expel a member for daring to choose to express a contrary opinion is not pro-choice.
Now, with their rationale for expelling Life Choice unraveling before their very eyes under the scrutiny of the U of G human rights and equity office -- an organization that Harnest had to have imagined would back his agenda 100% without so much as a question -- the CSA is apparently looking for a way out.
Now, if their decision to expel Life Choice is overturned by a tribunal, it will at least seem as if their personal responsibility in the matter is diminished.
But it won't be. The University of Guelph Central Student's Association made a decision dictated not by the rules of the CSA itself, but by the political biases of its members.
Given the place this episode has taken as yet another chapter in what Charles Lewis considers to be the ongoing tale of left-wing intolerance on many University campuses, this is an episode that will not be forgotten.
Nor will the role of the CSA in bringing these events to fruition.
The latest development on the tale of the Life Choice controversy at the University of Guelph is being embraced by the editoral staff of the Guelph Mercury embracing the reinstatement of interim club status as a "welcome gesture".
This was done as the appeal process for Life Choice's suspension was delayed yet again, while a tribunal is adjourned to arbitrate the matter.
Previously, on October 30, procedural considerations stalled the appeal process.
"I believe the environment of this room is unsafe," complained U of G CSA's Human Resources Commissioner Joel Harnest -- the very same Joel Harnest who indulged himself in denouncing the Life Fair as "anti-choice", and helped lead the charge against Life Choice on the basis that it somehow rendered the University of Guelph cmapus unsafe for women.
So in other words, the "unsafe environment" of the October 30 appeal hearing more likely had to do with Joel Harnest hearing things he didn't want to hear rather than any particular risk of physical violence.
The October 30 meeting had been conduced in the absence of the CSA's adviser regarding its bylaws.
For one, Patrick Case, the director of the University of Guelph's human rights and equity office admitted that the procedure of the meeting was unfair when the CSA aired uninvestigated allegations of harassment against Life Choice. Case noted that such accusations needed to be either investigated for factualness or discarded.
The matter was delayed until November 19, when the matter was once again delayed due to poor preparation on the CSA's part.
Now, the matter will be delayed further still.
Which makes one wonder precisely how confident Harnest and his CSA cohorts are in their efforts to deny Life Choice student club status in the name of promoting their own agenda -- and they very much do have an agenda.
Some of Harnest's comments printed in the National Post are very indicative of what Harnest's agenda really is, and it should be considered altogether unsurprising considering his previous "anti-choice" rhetoric.
"It's not the responsibility of the CSA to support them because we are a pro-choice organization. And as a private organization we can choose who to associate with," Harnest insists. "My argument is that women are a minority in this country in terms of the power and stake that they have. We are defending the rights of women."
Of course, there are numerous problems with Harnest's argument. First off, the University of Guelph Central Students Association is supposed to be a governing body, not a "pro-choice group".
Secondly, while it can be expected that such organizations will reflect the views of its membership, it does not have the right to impose them on others. Furthermore, the CSA would have to demonstrate that a significant majority of students at the U of G hold "pro-choice" views before it could reasonably declare itself to hold such a stance.
Even then, being a "pro-choice" group does not give it the right to expel a club from its membership for holding contrary views -- particularly when the members of that club each, as U of G students, pay student fees to fund the CSA.
Furthermore, the University of Guelph's actions is proven that it is not a pro-choice group. What Harnest really means is pro-abortion group. Any group that would expel a member for daring to choose to express a contrary opinion is not pro-choice.
Now, with their rationale for expelling Life Choice unraveling before their very eyes under the scrutiny of the U of G human rights and equity office -- an organization that Harnest had to have imagined would back his agenda 100% without so much as a question -- the CSA is apparently looking for a way out.
Now, if their decision to expel Life Choice is overturned by a tribunal, it will at least seem as if their personal responsibility in the matter is diminished.
But it won't be. The University of Guelph Central Student's Association made a decision dictated not by the rules of the CSA itself, but by the political biases of its members.
Given the place this episode has taken as yet another chapter in what Charles Lewis considers to be the ongoing tale of left-wing intolerance on many University campuses, this is an episode that will not be forgotten.
Nor will the role of the CSA in bringing these events to fruition.
Monday, August 18, 2008
The CPSO Has Your "Pro-Choice" Right Here!
College of Physicians and Surgians of Ontario moves to deny doctors choice
Frequent readers of the Nexus will almost certainly recall a recent response to a challenge by a pro-abortion blogger in which the philosophical quandry of the so-called "pro-choice" lobby opposing legislation that would protect the rights of doctors to refuse to perform abortions for moral, religious or ethical reasons was brought to her attention.
According to a column published in today's National Post, it turns out the issue is worse than previously thought.
The CPSO has proposed new guidelines that could result in doctors who refuse to perform abortions, refer women for abortions, perscribe the morning after pill, or perform any number of medical procedures they find objectionable for any reason being stripped of their credentials.
The CPSO frames these proposals against a doctor's responsibility to their patients, postulating that a "physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, [so] there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services they require."
As Gunter notes, one may have questions about at one point an abortion is or isn't a "necessary" service.
Perhaps one of the most recent Order of Canada recipients, Dr Henry Morgentaler, can provide us with a clue.
"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler told CTV in 2004. "Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."
Morgentaler used his ethical concerns about late-term abortions as a reason to refuse to perform late-term abortions. "What we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually council the woman to continue the pregnancy and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," Morgentaler noted.
Morgentaler's clinics were only performing late-term abortions in cases where the woman's life was imperiled by her pregnancy, or when a child would be born facing serious health concerns.
That most physicians refuse to perform abortion was cited by Morgentaler as a reason why no rules regulating late-term abortions are necessary. The argument in 2004 was, essentially, that doctors were regulating themselves.
Now, the CPSO is moving to refuse doctors in Ontario the right to refuse to perform an abortion or refer for an abortion.
It was bad enough when the pro-abortion lobby was merely opposing legislation like Bill C-537. Now, one can fully expect that the pro-abortion lobby will inevitably flock to shower praise on the CPSO for passing guidelines that will essentially grant women in Ontario the right to demand abortions (or, at the very least, referrals for abortion) from doctors who would otherwise be unwilling to perform them.
Even while they parrot Dr Morgentaler's insistence that regulation of late-term abortion is unncessary because doctors can refuse to perform them, they'll happily support the CPSO in making that very costly, indeed.
Unfortunately, it isn't at all like the pro-abortion lobby to gut their own logic in support of their cause.
But when the pro-abortion lobby's support of the CPSO emerges -- and it inevitably will -- Canadians will once again have their confirmation that, for the so-called "pro-choice" lobby, the issue isn't about choice at all.
It's about abortion. So much so that they believe that doctors should be denied the right to choose as punishment for the "egregious crime" of opposing abortion for ethical, moral or religious reasons.
One has to wonder, however: how will the "pro-choice" Dr Morgentaler respond if the CPSO makes it impossible for his clinics to refuse to perform abortions it would otherwise refuse to perform for ethical reasons?
Ultimately, Morgentaler himself has a great deal to lose if the CPSO gets its way.
Frequent readers of the Nexus will almost certainly recall a recent response to a challenge by a pro-abortion blogger in which the philosophical quandry of the so-called "pro-choice" lobby opposing legislation that would protect the rights of doctors to refuse to perform abortions for moral, religious or ethical reasons was brought to her attention.
According to a column published in today's National Post, it turns out the issue is worse than previously thought.
The CPSO has proposed new guidelines that could result in doctors who refuse to perform abortions, refer women for abortions, perscribe the morning after pill, or perform any number of medical procedures they find objectionable for any reason being stripped of their credentials.
The CPSO frames these proposals against a doctor's responsibility to their patients, postulating that a "physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, [so] there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services they require."
As Gunter notes, one may have questions about at one point an abortion is or isn't a "necessary" service.
Perhaps one of the most recent Order of Canada recipients, Dr Henry Morgentaler, can provide us with a clue."We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler told CTV in 2004. "Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."
Morgentaler used his ethical concerns about late-term abortions as a reason to refuse to perform late-term abortions. "What we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually council the woman to continue the pregnancy and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," Morgentaler noted.
Morgentaler's clinics were only performing late-term abortions in cases where the woman's life was imperiled by her pregnancy, or when a child would be born facing serious health concerns.
That most physicians refuse to perform abortion was cited by Morgentaler as a reason why no rules regulating late-term abortions are necessary. The argument in 2004 was, essentially, that doctors were regulating themselves.
Now, the CPSO is moving to refuse doctors in Ontario the right to refuse to perform an abortion or refer for an abortion.
It was bad enough when the pro-abortion lobby was merely opposing legislation like Bill C-537. Now, one can fully expect that the pro-abortion lobby will inevitably flock to shower praise on the CPSO for passing guidelines that will essentially grant women in Ontario the right to demand abortions (or, at the very least, referrals for abortion) from doctors who would otherwise be unwilling to perform them.
Even while they parrot Dr Morgentaler's insistence that regulation of late-term abortion is unncessary because doctors can refuse to perform them, they'll happily support the CPSO in making that very costly, indeed.
Unfortunately, it isn't at all like the pro-abortion lobby to gut their own logic in support of their cause.
But when the pro-abortion lobby's support of the CPSO emerges -- and it inevitably will -- Canadians will once again have their confirmation that, for the so-called "pro-choice" lobby, the issue isn't about choice at all.
It's about abortion. So much so that they believe that doctors should be denied the right to choose as punishment for the "egregious crime" of opposing abortion for ethical, moral or religious reasons.
One has to wonder, however: how will the "pro-choice" Dr Morgentaler respond if the CPSO makes it impossible for his clinics to refuse to perform abortions it would otherwise refuse to perform for ethical reasons?
Ultimately, Morgentaler himself has a great deal to lose if the CPSO gets its way.
Friday, May 30, 2008
How Easily They Forget...
Readers of the Nexus may recall a story from a couple of days ago about Ottawa's First Place Pregnancy Center filing suit against Planned Parenthood for "defamatory comments".
A rather typical enraged comment accompanied by the braying of a rather unsurprising cheerleader seems to miss the obvious point.
That the Sens Better Halves didn't boot the FPPC off the tree raffle charity, as Fern Hill dishonestly suggests here:
But rather the First Place Pregnancy Centre voluntarily withdrew.
Now if only Fern Hill were to come out and suggest why they believe their side of the debate should be entitled to federal funding while they work so hard to ensure their opponents receive no funding, even when they're providing actual services to women...
Fat chance of that.
A rather typical enraged comment accompanied by the braying of a rather unsurprising cheerleader seems to miss the obvious point.
That the Sens Better Halves didn't boot the FPPC off the tree raffle charity, as Fern Hill dishonestly suggests here:
"We feminazis didn’t deny anyone funding. It was the Ottawa Senators’ fans — private individuals — who denied the anti-choicers their hard-earned dough."
But rather the First Place Pregnancy Centre voluntarily withdrew.
Now if only Fern Hill were to come out and suggest why they believe their side of the debate should be entitled to federal funding while they work so hard to ensure their opponents receive no funding, even when they're providing actual services to women...
Fat chance of that.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Federal Funding For Me, Sweet Fuck All For Thee
Heather Mallick reveals the depth of hypocrisy within so-called "women's lobby"
In a story that is slowly starting to grow legs across the blogosphere, Ottawa's First Place Pregnancy Centre is suing Planned Parenthood Ottawa for comments issued in a press release that eventually resulted in First Place withdrawing from the Ottawa's Senators' Better Halves (hockey wives and girlfriends) annual tree raffle.
Along with Kids Help Phone and Harmony House -- an Ottawa-area women's shelter -- First Place was to split up to $150,000 in support of its services. That's no small chunk of change for an organization that receives no government funding.
Yet, when one examines the entire controversy, one uncovers a not-so-subtle layer of controversy under Canada's feminist establishment, wherein they enforce a deeply-ingrained need to attempt to set the public agenda and allow no deviation whatsoever -- even from public organizations.
A significant portion of the tale revolves around author, journalist and activist Heather Mallick's direct intervention in the matter with Sens Foundation Dave Ready.
Before we can get to that, however, it's actually quite interesting to examine the verbal beating that Mallick heaps upon the Sens Better Halves and, in the process, any and all women who choose to date or marry hockey players:
It isn't terribly relevant to the topic at hand, and it's because it isn't all that relevant to the topic that the attack on the poor ladies -- who were only trying to support some local charities -- wasn't all that relevant in the first place.
That aside, Mallick took such a personal interest in the matter in which she called up Ready and allegedly took him on a tour of the First Place website, through several links which don't seem to exist on the site. Birth Pangs' blogger Fern Hill insists that the links were later removed from the site (something which actually is in the realm of possibility, but hard to accept without proof that they existed in the first place).
This, like Mallick's attack on the Sens Wives, is actually largely immaterial. What is really of interest here is Mallick's attitudes toward the entire episode:
As it turns out, Mallick is actually wrong about two things.
First off, First Place Pregnancy Centre is a registered charity, as the CBC story later notes.
But Mallick herself seems to be overlooking the fact that, for decades in this country, Status of Women Canada has provided funding to various pro-abortion groups. There is clearly absolutely no question that money came from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, including taxpayers would probably would not have supported such groups.
Yet Mallick, in an article appearing in Chatelaine magazine, makes it perfectly apparent that she believes that taxpayers should be obligated to support the causes she thinks they should, regardless of whether or not they actually agree with it, when she accuses the Harper government of misogyny over the changes made to Status of Women Canada:
Of course, not all Canadians agreed with the means under which the Status of Women operates. Particularly troublesome was the program portion effectively culled from the Status of Women -- advocacy, which comes with a double-shot of zero accountability (no accountability in terms of how money granted for "advocacy" is actually spent, and no accountability for results).
Yet when the government moves to shift funding away from wasteful non-services like "advocacy" toward actual services, Mallick joins the chorus of objections.
Here's where the rampant hypocrisy comes in. When the federal government dumps millions of dollars into programs that often pursue causes that many Canadians wouldn't agree with and fund pet projects by special interest groups, Mallick's OK with it.
But when the Sens Better Halves choose an organization that provides actual services to women, Mallick is opposed to that. Mostly because she's opposed to the service itself:
"They exist solely to prevent abortion," Mallick writes. "Terri Mazik, executive director of First Place, sent out a press release attacking 'our colleagues at Planned Parenthood' for their press release. She says First Place makes its position clear by saying it doesn't do "abortion referrals," ignoring the fact that no one does. Referrals aren't necessary; all anyone needs is to be guided to a phone book."
Which is actually an interesting way for Mallick to ignore the fact that First Place Pregnancy centre is actually very up-front about its stance toward an abortion.
Mallick insists that "Planned Parenthood told me it frequently talks to women who went to these apparently welcoming places for counselling on the three options — abortion, adoption and parenting." (Again, the fact that the centre does not refer women for abortion, and is upfront about it should make this rather curious.) "The group says women report feeling badly treated," she adds. And certainly some of them probably would feel "badly treated" if they went to First Place seeking an abortion referral and didn't receive one.
In fact, when one examines some of the services First Place offers, one notices that they offer post-abortion recovery services for women "experiencing emotional effects after an abortion".
Many pro-abortion activists have made it quite clear what the pro-abortion lobby thinks of the very idea that some women experience depression after an abortion. They deny it, despite the various reports of depression by women who have had abortions and research that has determined that women become more vulnerable to depression following an abortion -- a risk that is much higher for women closer to their due date.
In even suggesting that abortion comes with any sort of risks at all, First Place is waaaay off the reservation in the eyes of Mallick and those who think like her.
As their method of squeezing such organizations out of existence, Mallick and likeminded activists have targeted their sources of funding -- in this case, donations from private organizations.
Yet when their own lobby groups and special interest groups are denied funding, they denounce it as a terrible injustice.
At the end of the day, the matter becomes really simple. If, as Mallick insisted, tax dollars -- whether they be provided directly or through tax deductible donations -- should be kept out of the hands of political lobbies and special interest groups, then this should certainly apply to all political lobbies and special interest groups. It should also apply to the groups that were previously funded through Status of Women, and have recently been cut off from such funds.
Of course, many of these individuals will never simply come out and admit that actions such as those of Planned Parenthood and attitudes such as Heather Mallick's are born out of an ill-conceived notion that they are entitled to a monopoly on the public agenda.
Instead, they want to accuse First Place of spreading libel chill, or want to insist that Planned Parenthood's actions are about forcing a private foundation to be apolitical.
But the fact is that they've become rather smart ideologues. They know that, when you despise the ideas that an organization stands for, the best way to erase it is to deny them funding. Whether for good or ill, that is precisely what they've accomplished in the case of First Place.
Unfortunately, this means that it will be increasingly difficult for First Place to provide services -- real services, much unlike the advocacy whose loss these individuals lament at length -- for women experiencing crisis pregnancies who may not want to choose an abortion.
As is so often the case it's these women -- who are real people, experiencing a crisis pregnancy as a real problem -- that are going to suffer for the ideological wranglings of those who insist they act on their behalf.
To top it off, Mallick and her compatriots have the gall to insist that organizations that provide these services should be denied funding if they operate according to principles considered anathema by the pro-abortion lobby. All while they insist they should be entitled to plethoras of federal funding in order to provide services of no real substance at all.
The hypocrisy is absolutely astounding.
In a story that is slowly starting to grow legs across the blogosphere, Ottawa's First Place Pregnancy Centre is suing Planned Parenthood Ottawa for comments issued in a press release that eventually resulted in First Place withdrawing from the Ottawa's Senators' Better Halves (hockey wives and girlfriends) annual tree raffle.
Along with Kids Help Phone and Harmony House -- an Ottawa-area women's shelter -- First Place was to split up to $150,000 in support of its services. That's no small chunk of change for an organization that receives no government funding.
Yet, when one examines the entire controversy, one uncovers a not-so-subtle layer of controversy under Canada's feminist establishment, wherein they enforce a deeply-ingrained need to attempt to set the public agenda and allow no deviation whatsoever -- even from public organizations.
A significant portion of the tale revolves around author, journalist and activist Heather Mallick's direct intervention in the matter with Sens Foundation Dave Ready.
Before we can get to that, however, it's actually quite interesting to examine the verbal beating that Mallick heaps upon the Sens Better Halves and, in the process, any and all women who choose to date or marry hockey players:
"I hate picking on women. We're born at a disadvantage and in our wild flailing to stay afloat, we make such easy targets. But really, do the wives and girlfriends of the Ottawa Senators have to dress up in matching pink team sweaters and call their ad hoc union "The Better Halves?"
It's bad enough that these women have hooked up with bruised artist-athletes with careers of inevitably brief span, sold by hockey corporations as if they were cans of Spam, shipped around the continent without notice, thus dooming their wives' careers from the start. But must The Better Halves bully young pregnant women during their own brush with greatness? I'd like to ask the nice ladies about this, but these shy creatures are as hard to track down as the tiny, near-extinct, muntjac deer."
It isn't terribly relevant to the topic at hand, and it's because it isn't all that relevant to the topic that the attack on the poor ladies -- who were only trying to support some local charities -- wasn't all that relevant in the first place.
That aside, Mallick took such a personal interest in the matter in which she called up Ready and allegedly took him on a tour of the First Place website, through several links which don't seem to exist on the site. Birth Pangs' blogger Fern Hill insists that the links were later removed from the site (something which actually is in the realm of possibility, but hard to accept without proof that they existed in the first place).
This, like Mallick's attack on the Sens Wives, is actually largely immaterial. What is really of interest here is Mallick's attitudes toward the entire episode:
"The problem is worse than just some hockey fans inadvertently donating to a cause they may oppose — that is a personal issue between a fan and her team (in my case, the Canadiens). What irks is that our tax dollars are involved.
The raffle money is channelled through the Sens Foundation, the team's registered charity arm, which is matching every dollar raised by The Better Halves.
Not only does the foundation, which normally does good — make that wonderful — things appear to be breaking Revenue Canada's rules for charities, it is breaking its own rules.
Both the taxman and the foundation agree that donations can only support registered charities. They can't support "political or lobby" or "advocacy or special interest groups." And they shouldn't."
As it turns out, Mallick is actually wrong about two things.
First off, First Place Pregnancy Centre is a registered charity, as the CBC story later notes.
But Mallick herself seems to be overlooking the fact that, for decades in this country, Status of Women Canada has provided funding to various pro-abortion groups. There is clearly absolutely no question that money came from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, including taxpayers would probably would not have supported such groups.
Yet Mallick, in an article appearing in Chatelaine magazine, makes it perfectly apparent that she believes that taxpayers should be obligated to support the causes she thinks they should, regardless of whether or not they actually agree with it, when she accuses the Harper government of misogyny over the changes made to Status of Women Canada:
"Stephen Harper has crushed Status of Women. The federal agency no longer fights for "equality," that dirty word having been removed from its mandate. No, this now-puny agency exists "to facilitate women's participation in Canadian society by addressing their economic, social and cultural situation through Canadian organizations."
I don't know what that means – that we can now purchase tampons tax-free at the local Legion Hall? Or get our driveways shovelled gratis? – but it does signal that the Conservatives don't like women, especially the ones who speak up."
Of course, not all Canadians agreed with the means under which the Status of Women operates. Particularly troublesome was the program portion effectively culled from the Status of Women -- advocacy, which comes with a double-shot of zero accountability (no accountability in terms of how money granted for "advocacy" is actually spent, and no accountability for results).
Yet when the government moves to shift funding away from wasteful non-services like "advocacy" toward actual services, Mallick joins the chorus of objections.
Here's where the rampant hypocrisy comes in. When the federal government dumps millions of dollars into programs that often pursue causes that many Canadians wouldn't agree with and fund pet projects by special interest groups, Mallick's OK with it.
But when the Sens Better Halves choose an organization that provides actual services to women, Mallick is opposed to that. Mostly because she's opposed to the service itself:
"They exist solely to prevent abortion," Mallick writes. "Terri Mazik, executive director of First Place, sent out a press release attacking 'our colleagues at Planned Parenthood' for their press release. She says First Place makes its position clear by saying it doesn't do "abortion referrals," ignoring the fact that no one does. Referrals aren't necessary; all anyone needs is to be guided to a phone book."
Which is actually an interesting way for Mallick to ignore the fact that First Place Pregnancy centre is actually very up-front about its stance toward an abortion.
Mallick insists that "Planned Parenthood told me it frequently talks to women who went to these apparently welcoming places for counselling on the three options — abortion, adoption and parenting." (Again, the fact that the centre does not refer women for abortion, and is upfront about it should make this rather curious.) "The group says women report feeling badly treated," she adds. And certainly some of them probably would feel "badly treated" if they went to First Place seeking an abortion referral and didn't receive one.
In fact, when one examines some of the services First Place offers, one notices that they offer post-abortion recovery services for women "experiencing emotional effects after an abortion".
Many pro-abortion activists have made it quite clear what the pro-abortion lobby thinks of the very idea that some women experience depression after an abortion. They deny it, despite the various reports of depression by women who have had abortions and research that has determined that women become more vulnerable to depression following an abortion -- a risk that is much higher for women closer to their due date.
In even suggesting that abortion comes with any sort of risks at all, First Place is waaaay off the reservation in the eyes of Mallick and those who think like her.
As their method of squeezing such organizations out of existence, Mallick and likeminded activists have targeted their sources of funding -- in this case, donations from private organizations.
Yet when their own lobby groups and special interest groups are denied funding, they denounce it as a terrible injustice.
At the end of the day, the matter becomes really simple. If, as Mallick insisted, tax dollars -- whether they be provided directly or through tax deductible donations -- should be kept out of the hands of political lobbies and special interest groups, then this should certainly apply to all political lobbies and special interest groups. It should also apply to the groups that were previously funded through Status of Women, and have recently been cut off from such funds.
Of course, many of these individuals will never simply come out and admit that actions such as those of Planned Parenthood and attitudes such as Heather Mallick's are born out of an ill-conceived notion that they are entitled to a monopoly on the public agenda.
Instead, they want to accuse First Place of spreading libel chill, or want to insist that Planned Parenthood's actions are about forcing a private foundation to be apolitical.
But the fact is that they've become rather smart ideologues. They know that, when you despise the ideas that an organization stands for, the best way to erase it is to deny them funding. Whether for good or ill, that is precisely what they've accomplished in the case of First Place.
Unfortunately, this means that it will be increasingly difficult for First Place to provide services -- real services, much unlike the advocacy whose loss these individuals lament at length -- for women experiencing crisis pregnancies who may not want to choose an abortion.
As is so often the case it's these women -- who are real people, experiencing a crisis pregnancy as a real problem -- that are going to suffer for the ideological wranglings of those who insist they act on their behalf.
To top it off, Mallick and her compatriots have the gall to insist that organizations that provide these services should be denied funding if they operate according to principles considered anathema by the pro-abortion lobby. All while they insist they should be entitled to plethoras of federal funding in order to provide services of no real substance at all.
The hypocrisy is absolutely astounding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)