ProWomanProLife

I’ve gotten so many emails and updates on the Komen funding, that it’s been hard to keep track of who said what during which ridiculous interview. Luckily, there’s at least one article out there urging the media to do right by all the parties involved and at least acknowledge that a good number of people actually support the withdrawal of funds from Planned Parenthood.

Even if some forms of partiality are inevitable, journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story.

Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of abortion may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place. Third, that for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.

The Conservatives have neatly painted themselves into a corner on allowing any freedom of expression on the abortion debate. Sure, backbenchers are free to bring it up, but Their Leader has really done a number on this one. Why do I bring this up? Because of this column. I tend to agree with Matt Gurney:

The Tories decided to just pre-empt it all by committing to not reopen the debate, period. It was broad, and it helped silence the critics — sort of — but also painted them into a corner. They can’t really do a single thing about abortion without being justifiably accused of reneging.

He goes on to say:

There’s an argument to be made that on an issue like this, there’s a moral imperative to do something regardless of past promises. But I’m not holding my breath.

And of course there is, but our Prime Minister knew that before he started in with this “we will not re-open the debate” zombie-like meme. He could have done just as well by declaring his bias to be “we will allow for freedom of speech” (who is against freedom of speech? But he chose not to do that.)

I’m quite OK with saying that the time is not now for the political debate. Furthermore, we still need to loosen the stranglehold of radical feminism on the media. So much of what pro-lifers say, think and believe is still twisted beyond recognition, the National Post being a fantastic exception for the freedom they allow. So there’s hope, but I’d wait it out for a bit of a fairer playing field.

It’s the oldest story out there. Been there, done that. And yet, when some “enterprising” reporter gets it in his head that he wants to “expose” a crisis pregnancy centre, because he himself is pro-choice and has a foregone conclusion on what abortion counseling should look like, we’re supposed to believe it’s an exciting story.

I’m talking about this, which I just received via Twitter. CTV sent a fake client to a crisis pregnancy centre in British Columbia.

I don’t know what the pregnancy centre said, or precisely what advice they gave. I’m assuming they spoke of legitimate links to harm the result of abortion.

I do know that there are many adverse outcomes to abortion that our pro-choice media chooses to ignore.

To not give full information is to leave women open to the very real possibility that they will have more than regrets–maybe pick up an alcohol or drug habit, perhaps lose their relationship, experience suicide ideation, or suicide. Remember Emma Beck, a young woman who committed suicide after having an abortion. Oh wait, don’t remember her, because her experience is not what counts. She should have just bucked up! Turned that frown upside down! My oh my. To actually experience pain after an abortion. What a loser.

That is, in effect, what those who despise crisis pregnancy centres are saying. They want to claim that the women who lose their own lives after abortion don’t matter. They want to make out like it’s all a big deception–saying negative things about abortion. We have a pro-choice legal system, university profs, healthcare system, public funding model–if crisis pregnancy centres don’t exist to counter this, who will?

The irony here of course is that pro-choice agencies do little pre-abortion counselling at all. When they do, they too will say things like “sometimes some women have a poor reaction.” They have to, of course, because even if the American Psychological Association bungles their statement on abortion, there are, still, negative psychological outcomes after abortion hidden in their positively framed statement. Plus, the reality is out there, by women’s lived experience. When pro-choice agencies choose to ignore this or downplay it, it should be as egregious a failing as crisis pregnancy centres exaggerating the harm.

Another point I’d make is that pro-choice agencies rarely see the outcomes of their advice. Those women who do suffer don’t go back there for counselling after the fact. A woman who tries to commit suicide ends up in a hospital emergency, not Planned Parenthood.

This is about the ideological divide, at the end of the day, and not the actual words the crisis pregnancy centre spoke. In truly unbiased terms, one side ignores adverse outcomes to abortion and the other talks about them. Crisis pregnancy centres should not be targeted for doing the latter, given the euphemisms that pro-choicers use daily.

The media is responsible for disseminating information, something they have utterly failed to do on the topic of abortion. This does all women a disservice.

CTV’s report isn’t out yet, which is why the title of this post has a question mark. The reporter’s name is Jon Woodward. I haven’t seen the show (no one has) so I can’t know for sure what they will do.

When it does come out, I’ll watch with great interest. And if the result is actually a sting attack, using information obtained through fraudulent means and bolstered by the reporter’s own ideological bias, then I will call 416-384-5000 (Bell Media) and ask to be put through to the viewer complaints/relations line, and you should too.

This week a couple in Alberta welcomed into the world their second New Year’s baby in a row, their fourth child in total. The annual New Year’s baby story is usually a feel-good tale reflecting on the limitless possibility in the coming days, but in true Canadian journalistic fashion, this tale has been twisted into a warning for prospective parents and fertile citizens alike. These parents’ lives have been painted as living nightmares of drudgery that can only be fixed in the form of permanent birth control.

From the Toronto Sun,

CALGARY - Look at the pile of laundry, mounds of dirty diapers and a sleep schedule where actual sleep is only a rumour — then tell Bobbi Jo Ketcheson just how lucky she is. [...]

Ketcheson says she plans to get herself and her husband a gift too, in the form of more certain birth control. [...]

Give the sheer volume of work raising and caring for four babies, finding the time for number five will be almost impossible.

And this from CBC,

Lightning shouldn’t strike in the same place twice, the same person shouldn’t win two lotteries and people really shouldn’t have back-to-back New Year’s babies. [...]

Ketcheson said all four of her pregnancies came in spite of some form of birth control, and noted she was only hours away from signing a consent form to have her tubes tied when she found out she was pregnant with Grace.

Happily, this CTV article with video properly refers to baby Grace as a “bundle of joy” and closes,

…the family is enjoying their latest New Year’s baby, clipping out the articles about their amazing story from local newspapers and pasting them into what will be a very interesting baby book for little Grace Olivia Ketcheson.

Having back to back babies is difficult. I often refer to my first year with our newborn and 1 year old as “the toughest year of my life,” but it’s easier if you have the rest of the world in your corner telling you to stay positive.

I’ll be on “The Rick Howe Show” on News 95.7 radio in Halifax at 5:15PM AST talking about the recent March for Life and other life related issues. You can click here to listen live. I’ll admit I’ve never done anything like this before, so if anyone has a rabbit’s foot or recently found penny I’d be happy to take it off your hands!

____________________

Andrea adds: Way to go, Jennifer. I’ve heard you speak before and I know you’ll do splendidly.

From The Guardian,

Isabelle Caro, a French actress and model whose emaciated image appeared in an Italian ad campaign and whose anorexia was followed by other sufferers of eating disorders, has died aged 28.

For at least the last decade, young girls in search of something to be a part of have been lulled into anorexic culture. I won’t link to any of the Pro-Ana/Pro-Mia websites, because medical studies have universally shown that simply viewing the sites can result in lower self-esteem.

They lure the impressionable and persuade them that the Pro-Ana community is providing caring and nurturing advice.

[...]

A study published in European Eating Disorders Review exposed healthy college girls with no history of eating disorders to 1.5 hours of pro-ED sites and they showed decreased caloric intake the week following their exposure.  Some participants admitted using techniques and tips they viewed on the sites and had “strong emotional reactions” up to three weeks after the study.

It’s easy to blame the fashion industry for these unhealthy ideals, promoting images of increasingly thin women, but we could just as easy blame the myth of “choice” for the epidemic, a product of a world view that sees the self as a decision one makes as an isolated individual.

What to do? How to act? Who to be? These are focal questions for everyone living in circumstances of late modernity – and ones which, on some level or another, all of us answer, either discursively or through day-to-day social behaviour. (David Gauntlett, Media Gender and Identity, Routledge, 2002)

The Pro-Anorexic community claims the disease is a “lifestyle choice”, that this choice should be respected by the medical community and their family and friends.

Pro Anas who defend their anorexia not as a disorder or an affliction from which to recover, view it instead as an accomplishment of self control and a part of their identity and one that defines them to a very significant extent.

It’s difficult for me, as a women myself, to see others conned into the belief that something so terrible, menacing and deteriorating for them is something to be respected. Sound familiar?

I’m always grateful for sources of news beyond the mainstream. The more the merrier when it comes to media, I say, and somehow, by checking all the sources, we *may* get a true sense of what is going on.

In any event, check out LifeSite’s new look.

This story starts with hubby sending me a link to this:

A Muslim religious channel in Britain is being censored after allowing presenters on air to condone marital rape and violence toward women, and for calling women who wear perfume in mosques “prostitutes.”

The U.K. Daily Mail reports that in one program, the host told viewers that it was “not strange” and “not such a big problem” for a man to force his wife to have sex.

The U.K.’s T.V. watchdog, Ofcom, ruled the Islam Channel breached the broadcasting code in five different programs between May 2008 and October 2009.

At first, I must admit, I was rather confused. Weren’t we just told marital rape was impossible under Islam? I must have misunderstood.

And then I went googling around for fun, to see who was picking up the story (yes, looking for outraged feminists – no, didn’t find none… so far), and below is a screen capture of what I found. Look at the list of headlines (and news sources), and see if you can correctly identify each outlet’s bias. It’s a fun game!

Marie Stopes International runs one of the most aggressive marketing campaigns I have ever encountered, from TV ads on abortion to youth-friendly JibJab style cartoons depicting sexual scenarios, from World Cup themed vasectomy ads in cabs to the latest SexFactor (playing off the uber-popular UK talent show, The X Factor).

MSI, in their efforts to become the primary source of contraceptives, reproductive surgery and abortions, have now taken it upon themselves to be the first to “educate” the children of Manchester about the birds and the bees.

Marie Stopes International is hosting SexFactor for 200, 15 year olds from local Manchester schools to give them all the facts about how to avoid unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and sexual assault.

SexFactor will be a fun, interactive day with workshops on sex and relationships being held at the Lancashire County Cricket club today.

[...]

Louise Brennan, Clinical Lead at Marie Stopes International’s Manchester clinic said:

“The research is very clear; where sex and relationships education is taught in conjunction with contraceptive services, young people are more likely to delay their first sexual experience, practice safe sex and are less likely to have an unplanned pregnancy or contract an STI.

“Many of the students attending SexFactor, previously have not received any sex or relationships education. So this is about arming young people with the information to protect themselves against unplanned pregnancy and STIs, to respect each other and to have the skills and knowledge to have safe sexual relationships.

“We have received requests from teachers to visit their schools to teach sex and relationships education because students have become pregnant. Many teachers are telling us they don’t feel they have the training or information to properly teach comprehensive sex and relationships education.

“Marie Stopes International calls for the Government to make the teaching of sex and relationship education compulsory and to fund the proper training of teachers, but in the meantime we are helping local schools.”

School boards are elected by their communities. MSI, as a non-gvernmental organization, answers to no one but themselves. So is it really about teaching children to “respect each other” (which I find difficult to imagine for 15 year olds at an event called SexFactor), or is it about getting them familiar with the brand name?

Some folks are trying to organize an electronic debate on abortion, here. It’s in French, but I don’t know whether the organizers would agree to have an English component if asked.