Comments this week have been posted, here.
Archives for June 2008
A tempest in a teacup
So there was a demonstration in Montreal against Bill C-484 yesterday after all. Read about it, here.
Many carried grisly signs; others opted for clever slogans such as “Epp, Harper: Je fais ce que je veux avec mes oeufs,” (What I do with my ovaries is up to me.) After the rally, protesters marched down the hill to Berri Square.
I say go to town, you and your ovaries–it’s more unborn babies I’m concerned about. And when you can’t tell the difference, what you really need is a biology lesson.
____________________________
Tanya adds: If the journalist had checked with the translation department, he’d have known the sign said ‘I do with my eggs whatever I wish.’
She gets her eggs fertilized, after which point it’s no longer an egg. If she’s seeking an abortion, did she wish to fertilize that egg? Likely not. So has she really done what she wished with her eggs? Seems the opposite is true.
Her sign should have read: “I do what I don’t mean to do to my eggs”
____________________________
Andrea adds: Thank goodness Tanya is on our team. For correct translations and the accompanying acerbic commentary.
Planned Parenthood: Not so much emphasis on the parent
Planned Parenthood tirelessly opposes every parental involvement law now in effect and works diligently to prevent new laws from passing.
In states like Pennsylvania, teens need parental consent to have a legal abortion. To get around involving their parents, teens may apply for a judicial bypass. Philadelphia lawyer, Barbara Bailey, has “shepherded more than a thousand teens through judicial bypass since the early 1990’s.” Watch the full video.
I don’t see teens who have good, healthy relationships with their parents coming for a bypass. They tell their parents.
In other words, this translates into more parents hearing about what’s going on in their teenage daughters’ lives. Where this type of parental involvement law doesn’t exist, any girl the least bit squeamish about telling her parents she is pregnant (thus admitting she is sexually active) can bypass that whole awkward conversation. That teen can march right into a Planned Parenthood clinic and have herself an abortion, go home and cry for 2 days, having now increased six fold her risk of attempting suicide. She’s also twice as likely as her peers to start abusing drugs or alcohol.
35 states have parental involvement laws. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 40 percent of teen abortions take place with no parental involvement. I’d be curious to know the stats. How many girls who have fair to excellent relationships with their parents offer up their intention to have an abortion when they are not legally required to do so? As a parent, wouldn’t you want to know?
Some argue parental involvement laws create more problems than they solve.
Really?
Allowed to operate, but no funding
So this Toronto Star article says there was a vote today at York University and pro-life groups will be allowed to operate but won’t receive funding. All that negative publicity for them to achieve pretty much the status quo (I mean really, how much money did pro-life groups ever get?) and a one hundred per cent guarantee that “anti-choice” groups will be back with a vengeance, next year. (Have a great summer.)
The York University student council has voted in favour of a motion to ban funding to anti-abortion groups on campus.
The controversial decision means that groups promoting anti-abortion ideas will not be reimbursed by the student union but will still be allowed to operate on campus, said Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students.
“This policy does not apply to religious organizations,” said Massa. “It only applies to groups whose sole purpose is to spew anti-choice rhetoric on our campus.”
Eight members of the York University student council voted unanimously for the decision on Sunday afternoon.
______________________________
Tanya adds: So first, we have to prove that being pro-life is not just a Christian point of view. Then we have to be religious in order to be allowed to be pro-life. Tell me that’s not self-propagating! “Welcome to York U, where you may not practice free thought, but are excused from the norm if you ascribe to antiquated religion, in which case we are forced to exercise tolerance.”
From Andrea, with love
I’m posting my letters to Gilary and Hamid of the York Federation of Students, and to Mr. Tiffin, the VP of students, regarding my dismay over their attempts to ban pro-life clubs on campus. “From Andrea, with love,” was not, incidentally, my chosen sign off. But it sounds like From Russia, with Love, making an afternoon of letter writing into a James Bond affair. How exotic.
Dear Mr. Tiffin:
I am writing to register my disapproval of the recent attempt of the York Federation of Students to silence those who oppose abortion on campus.
The recent and ongoing attempts of the York Federation of Students have been of great interest to me—especially given the flawed justification for the ban. I started ProWomanProLife.org in order to provide a voice for those many, many women who are pro-life because they are pro-woman. Abortion is not a woman’s right. Equality for women on campus, as elsewhere, is not contingent on access to abortion. I represent hundreds of women across Canada who are against abortion, precisely because we are in favour of women’s rights.
There is a growing body of research to suggest post-abortive women do not fare as well as other women who have not had abortions. There are higher rates of depression, depressive episodes, suicide, suicide ideation, alongside a host of other negative repercussions, physical and mental.
The health and welfare of every woman, especially vis-à-vis high abortion rates for those who are of university age, should be of grave concern to the York University administration.
I would encourage you to ensure that the pro-life side is given fair treatment and equal funding alongside all other clubs and positions at the university. And I would challenge you to publicly support these pro-life students—if not in the name of life, if not to support true equality and true rights for women, then in the name of freedom of speech.
AND
Dear Hamid and Gilary:
I am writing to ask you to reconsider your views on pro-life groups on campus.
I started ProWomanProLife.org in order to provide a voice for those women who are pro-life because they are pro-woman. I believe ours is a unique approach to the abortion debate.
Why? Firstly, we are pro-life precisely because we are pro-woman. Secondly, I am not interested in legislative action. Rather, I am interested, as my web site explains, in seeing abortion dwindle and decrease in Canada because that is what women choose. Thirdly, we are a non-religious group. We are made up of a team of nine bloggers now and I encourage you to log on to the site, and comment where you see fit. I welcome any and all comments, negative or positive. Each woman is able to blog with maximum freedom of expression and as a team we represent the breadth and depth of what “anti-choicers” can look like.
We are convinced at ProWomanProLife that women are not served well by abortion, this based on good, peer-reviewed research. We believe that women can get better, and indeed, deserve better than abortion. And we believe that women ought to be able to discuss this issue with the maximum freedom of expression.
So it is with great sadness that I realize, were a student chapter of ProWomanProLife.org to develop at York University, it would be banned.
I would encourage you to reconsider your view of so-called anti-choice groups on campus. Tolerance can only exist where there is disagreement—certainly you would not ban every conflicting view. I believe that pro-life clubs on campus can only serve to strengthen the type of strong community you seek to foster at York University.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 6
- 7
- 8