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.

It’s not too late to call your MPP about Bill 28 if you are concerned. There’s information here about how to do just that.

More to the point, it moves care of children into the domain of contract, and out of the realm of relationship. As such, Bill 28 codifies the commodification of children. We have been moving in this direction for a while, with the separation of having children from the sexual act, the introduction of a third party’s parts and the use of surrogates (whether or not they are paid). When parents had children in a relationship, and cared for them, too, the children knew where they came from. Bill 28 does not provide for a registration of who the biological parents actually are, leaving children with an existential crisis of never knowing where they came from as a matter of routine.

Et voila. A compilation of solid, scientific research shows in different areas, a good marriage helps your health.

Here’s my op-ed about this topic in the Vancouver Province.

Still, the sad reality is that in failing to acknowledge, publicize and act on this research, we are failing to give all people, married or unmarried, the care they deserve.

Furthermore, for a culture where marriage is often denigrated, advertising the good marriage advantage offers hope for those who are considering marriage alongside the already married.

I see it as coercion and wrote about this for the Financial Post, here.

Canadians might assume family policies aim to help families. Certainly, in the last election campaign, “helping middle class families” was a phrase laid on thick — like BBQ sauce at a summer rib fest.

But any government policy can just as easily be a way to help government. And there appear to be strong notes of this in a recent federal Department of Finance briefing note called “The impact of childcare support on women’s labour force participation.” The note reveals a lot about how and why any government, and specifically this Liberal government, aims to “help families.” It may not be in the way families think.

Me in the Financial Post today about gender quotas. Kathleen Wynne is introducing them for Ontario but in other parts of the world quotas have not achieved what they were supposed to:

A book about the Nordic experience released in May 2016 punctures those hopes and should be cause for reconsidering Ontario’s path. The Nordic Gender Equality Paradox by Nima Sanandaji assesses gender-equality programs and plans in Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Specifically in Norway, the evidence from studying quotas show neutral or negative results, both for women’s advancement and company performance — the two areas we are told will most obviously benefit.

What we learn from Sanandaji’s research is that the effects of quotas in Norway were far from positive. Norway introduced quotas requiring 40 per cent of board members of public companies to be women in 2003. This became mandatory for all companies in 2006. Of 500 companies affected, about 100 made “difficult but legal” changes in corporate structure to circumvent the new legislation. Share prices, he writes, dropped 3.5 per cent after the quota legislation was announced. More to the point, quotas had little to no effect on women’s pay, or women choosing to enter the business world.

21 days ago I forgot to cross-post this piece, which went up on National Newswatch. Not terribly popular to mention, but we do need more children and what’s more, Canadians say they’d like to have more.

A Nanos Research survey released June 1 by Cardus Family reveals that Canadians want to have more children, but feel there are too many deterrents.

Though no politician would ever come out and say that Canadians should be having more kids, the reality is that the workforce needs it, the tax base needs it and as it turns out, this recent survey says, it’s what Canadians want.

Peter Jon Mitchell and myself are co-authors. But this is just a picture of me.