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.

Today we have a treat from a guest writer, Naomi Lakritz. Naomi will be known to many of you, as she was a columnist with the Calgary Herald for so many years. Her perspective is so valuable. Enjoy.

I am pro-life. That means I can be dismissed as a far-right Christian fundamentalist, correct? Sorry, you lose. I am Jewish. I am on the left on some issues, right of centre on others. It depends on the issue. I’m not predictable. But you are predictable, aren’t you? Because I know that since I am pro-life, you won’t allow me among the ranks of feminists, will you? Feminists are required to be pro-choice.

Permit me to disturb your blinkered thinking, but I am indeed a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work and all the other causes feminists hold dear. Except for one. I don’t believe in destroying unborn humans. But as for everything else? Not only am I a feminist, I have done all the things feminists applaud women for doing. I raised three children alone after dumping an emotionally abusive husband, when the children were 7, 2, and 8 months. I never had a single weekend to myself all those years of child-raising because said husband moved across the country and couldn’t be bothered with his children anymore. Which, in every way, was a blessing. While raising those three kids as a single mom, I worked full-time as a journalist. I have spent more than 30 years working at daily newspapers and I rose to the top of the heap to be a nationally known columnist and member of the editorial board of a major metropolitan daily newspaper for the last 18 years. And during those three decades in journalism, I saw, and angrily deplored, plenty of instances of sexism in the business. It infuriates me when women are treated as inferior to men.

Oh, and I’m sorry to shatter another stereotype you may be harbouring, but I must mention that even though I was a single mother, none of my children ever got into any trouble. They grew up into responsible, highly moral adults and contributing citizens. The two oldest are professionals in their respective fields, the youngest is studying to be a paramedic.

But back to my pro-life stance as a feminist. I find it ironic that anyone who is pro-choice is considered to be progressive. I don’t see the act of dismembering unborn babies as a progressive thing to do. It seems quite regressive to me. In fact, it’s barbaric. Babies do not suddenly acquire the quality of being human the day they are born. They had it all along. Life is a continuum and we mothers, of all people, should be acutely aware of that fact. The fetus whose first feeble kicks could be felt around 15 weeks into pregnancy was already a fully-formed individual before that; all that remained for it was to grow. That unborn baby becomes the infant crying with colic at 3 a.m., then the toddler taking his first steps, the five-year-old picking a grubby fistful of dandelions for mom, the 10-year-old on skates with NHL dreams, the teen with the purple, spiked hair, the serious college student, the adult out in the working world. This was always the same person, moving along the continuum.

There should be no discussion about when a fetus can feel pain, when it is “viable”, or at what stage in pregnancy it becomes sentient and aware of itself. Or at least, there should be no such discussions in relation to deciding when abortion is permissible. Those things should be relegated to the study of embryology for its own sake, and I suggest that we will never know how or when sentience occurs.

Pregnancy is about the life of a new human being. Bottom line: You don’t kill human beings.  I am a feminist who is pro-life. There is nothing incongruous about that statement.

Naomi Lakritz is a former columnist with the Calgary Herald and the Winnipeg Sun. She is the owner of Naomi Lakritz Editing Services.

Naomi Lakritz, feminist and pro-life

I find claims that Trump won thanks to sexism or misogyny very frustrating, for some of the reasons I outline here. How is it that one of the wealthiest, most successful and powerful women in the world is suddenly a victim? She lost on her merits. Women who believe there couldn’t be any reason other than a glass ceiling may consider some of these arguments.

Ultimately, there is sexism in declaring misogyny the reason for Clinton’s loss. If Hillary Clinton lost because she is a woman, could it not be said that her many prior wins were likewise because she is a woman? Where biological sex is the cause of failure, must it not also extend to being the cause of success? I’d say no to both.