An article about a recent talk I did for the deVeber Institute about the interplay between being pro-life and the feminist movement.

The original feminist movement, the abolitionists seeking an end to slavery and then the suffragettes of the late 19th and early 20th century, were actually more pro-women and would have more in common with pro-lifers today, argues Mrozek, who spoke on the issue at the annual deVeber Institute Lecture Nov. 8 in Toronto.

“Really, the onus isn’t on pro-lifers to reconcile that,” she told The Catholic Register. “The onus is on the second-wave feminists to reconcile with their own roots.”

The evolution of thought came in the 1960s and the “Sexual Revolution” with its strong emphasis on “so-called reproductive rights.” That launched this second wave and took the women’s movement on a hard turn away from its roots, said Mrozek. It led to a splintering of the movement, with a “lack of a common cause because it has left behind its classical liberal roots that would allow for freedom to prevail.”

Second wave feminists silence pro-life women, where they should be embracing their own pro-life roots.

A slightly re-written version of the Convivium article by Faye Sonier and myself posted on Huffington Post. I’m grateful for their willingness to engage both sides of the Canada Summer Jobs debatedebacle.

There are many hostile thoughts below the piece. Few of them constitute an actual argument, however. Very few engage the thinking in the piece, or mention the concept of competing rights. And God bless the lone man for stating over and over that abortion is killing and therefore not a choice. Wouldn’t you know it–he gets slandered for being backward because he is Muslim (which incidentally, the rude commenters are guessing at. It may be a reasonable guess, because he comments under the name Muhammed, but we don’t know this for sure.)

Witness the grosteque face of “diversity” among those who pat themselves on the back for being “progressive” and “tolerant.”

There are, in fact, numerous democratically legitimate arguments against declaring abortion a right. In the early days of the abortion debate, “the clump of cells” argument worked. Not so in an ultrasound era. In the early days of the abortion debate, stigma was attached to having a child “under the wrong circumstances.” Not so today. Surveys and polls today consistently show more women than men lean pro-life. Abortion, an issue that was supposed to be “settled,” is as hotly contested as it ever was.

Just not to our bold “women’s rights” campaigner of a prime minister, surrounded by “yes” women in an apparent echo cabinet. Saying a falsehood over and over doesn’t make it true. Naming abortion as a right doesn’t make the choice any better.

It’s a choice, so that bulge in her belly? It could be anything, really. We just can’t be totally sure. Until she tells us. Got it? Got it. 

Ruth Shaw and I argue in this piece that we shouldn’t limit freedom of speech or association without solid evidence.

Bubble zones on public property in front of abortion clinics set a bad precedent. What do they mean for other law abiding and peaceful protests? What about protesting a corporation violating good environmental practices, or an embassy infringing on human rights? Recently, Indigenous protestors erected a teepee on Parliament Hill. Significantly, they placed it where the power and action is, and were allowed to do so.

Meanwhile, I’ve finally gotten a response from the Ontario Auditor General on how we can all contribute to the public consultation process. Long story short, they essentially aren’t having one.  I’d suggest writing in–if you like you can use the piece linked to above for talking points. Here’s the response I got in full.

Thank you for your email requesting to participate in consultations with respect to the development of “safe access zone” legislation.  This legislation would protect the safety and security of patients at health care facilities that offer women’s reproductive services.  I appreciate that you have taken the time to write to me on this important issue. 

 As you may be aware, on May 29, 2017 I announced a plan to introduce a bill this fall that would, if passed, provide for the creation of “safe access zones” at specified health care facilities.  These zones would help ensure that women across Ontario have safe access to health care services, and that their privacy and dignity are protected when doing so.

 My ministry is working over the summer to develop a legislative proposal that strikes the right balance.  Additional information about the proposed bill may be found here: 

 news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2017/05/protecting-a-womans-right-to-choose.html.

 I would encourage you to provide your views on the proposed legislation in writing.  Once the bill is introduced, there will be opportunity for further comment and debate as it moves through the usual legislative process.  

I like profiling these women as I find them. This woman wrote a piece in the New York Times, of all places. 

The ugly truth is that the women’s movement has morphed into a giant abortion-rights lobby, demanding abortion far beyond the Roe v. Wade trimester construct. For someone like me, who has done a lot of soul-searching over the years, ultimately coming to believe that life begins at conception, I’m no longer welcome in the women’s movement. Women who oppose abortion are deemed contrary to the very idea of equality. Being a feminist in 2017 equals zero tolerance for anti-abortion views.

I really relate to her insofar as a) the marching women did not want me to join, as a pro-lifer and b) I’m not sure what they were marching for. As this writer puts it:

All that a “movement” could responsibly achieve, has been achieved. My 32-year-old daughter doesn’t know the meaning of “girls not allowed.” Now, it is up to individual women to lean in, step up or walk through the doors opened by and for us over the last 40 years. 

Cleta Mitchell is a Washington lawyer.