Archives for 2009
Brigitte Pellerin is still swish
She was swish last year, she’s swish this year again. Except that this year, I like to think I helped out on the swishiness factor, because I went dress shopping with Brigitte.
The event is Politics and the Pen, a fundraiser for The Writers’ Trust, and writers are paired up with politicians to host a table and entertain folks. Our very own Brigitte is one such writer–(you did know she’s written books, on top of everything else, one of them is here)–and so she will be the witty and charming hostess with the mostess at a table tonight. She says wine always helps–and where doesn’t it, I ask–however Brigitte is charming enough all on her own.
__________________________
Brigitte blushes a bit: Actually, Andrea was my good-luck charm. It’s a very fine dress we found (any dress that makes a girl look thinner than she is is worth its weight in platinum). Which, come to think of it, is almost what this one cost… But hey, at least my hair will not cost as much as this.
__________________________
Andrea is a good luck charm and is also secretly hoping to borrow said dress should the need arise. But don’t think of that now. I’m going swimming and playing hockey tonight. No word of a lie. Some of us are swishy, others are sporty (wait a second, Brigitte is both…)
When you work in an abortion clinic…
…you are the furthest removed from being “unbiased” that you could possibly be. The simple fact that you work in an abortion clinic means you don’t see anything at all wrong with women killing their unborn children. In fact, you likely view it as “compassionate”–again, not unbiased at all. They are encouraging women to be completely distant from their own child, from their own bodies in which the child is living so that they can experience a short-term relief from what could be a bigger, broader problem.
“Accurate information” I’ll grant you–is hard to come by in this area–again, those working in an abortion clinic are not well-placed to offer it.
No, being “pro-choice” does not mean being “unbiased”. That’s all I’ll say about this letter to the editor from the director of a (the?) Calgary abortion clinic:
Dr. Stanislaw Iwanicki’s letter is a prime example of the anti-choice movement’s conceited attitudes. He makes the tiresome mistake of equating pro-choice with pro-abortion by saying women should be counselled by an unbiased third party. Pro-choice is the unbiased position.
It means you believe women should be free to choose to continue a pregnancy or terminate it. Pro-choice counsellors are respectful of the decision-making process and provide accurate information to women. They do not seek to influence through scare tactics and junk science as pro-life doctors and pro-life counselling agencies do. Pro-choice counsellors would never refuse referrals or assistance to a woman choosing to continue her pregnancy.
Refusing to refer or assist is unethical; a practice engaged in by those who lack respect for women and their reproductive rights.
His patronizing suggestion of a time out to “allow the patient an opportunity to reflect upon her decision” dismisses women’s intelligence and moral agency.
It is ignorant of the decision-making process women go through when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, the wait times to obtain abortions, and the counselling they receive prior to the procedure. His criticism of doctors who have the courage, skill and compassion to provide abortions can easily be redirected back to those me-first, anti-choice doctors who abandon pregnant women who choose to terminate their pregnancies–after billing for their services, of course.
Celia Posyniak, Calgary
Celia Posyniak Is Executive Director Of The Kensington Clinic.
Yet another reason to remain faithful
In Australia, extra-marital relationships can lead to “divorce” litigation:
Mistresses can now claim income maintenance, property and even superannuation funds under the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), dubbed the “mistress laws”, which were passed by the Senate last November and came into effect today (March 1).
The main objective is to remove same-sex discrimination from the Family Court system, but they have left the door open for a raft of de facto relationship claims.
The laws declare that de facto couples who satisfy basic criteria – such as being in the relationship for at least two years – will be treated in the Family Court in the same way as a married couple. It also applies to same-sex couples.
The laws will change the way property is divided by enabling the court to consider the “future needs” of partners, as it does for married couples.
Men or women who have a second relationship outside a marriage are now liable to legal action in the Family Court should the second partner decide he or she deserves income support or a share of assets. This is particularly the case if a child is involved.
Who is in jail for life?
No pro-lifer I have ever met wants women to go to jail for having an abortion. This is ye olde refrain of the virulent pro-abortion side. (I think the average pro-choicer gets it, by the way, and are aware that “sending women to prison” is not high on the pro-life list of priorities.)
What I find infuriating is that those who go to jail over abortion these days are pro-lifers offering other options on the sidewalk outside clinics. (Remember Linda Gibbons.) In Canada, it’s because of bubble zone laws. I assume the States has them too–and in fact I personally know one decent, non-violent, generous man with a wife and small children who went to jail for sidewalk counselling. (He preferred jail to a criminal record.)
Since when is offering options a crime? Today it’s pro-lifers who actually spend time in jail because of abortion–forget the baseless accusations that that’s where we supposedly want to send women for having one.
(h/t The Ruth Institute)
________________________
Andrea clarifies: The title is a pun, one I didn’t notice before publishing. The sentences are not “for life,” but these people go to jail because they are in favour of life, and against abortion…
If not your responsibility, then whose?
A rather horrifying piece about date-rape drugs being more widespread than thought. Highlighting once again the dangers of getting too close too fast to people you barely know – and leaving your drink unattended. But also of the incredibly bone-headed idea some people seem to have of mixing bizarre drugs they know little about with too much alcohol.
Although all the victims believed they were covertly slipped drugs by their assailants, and met the medical criteria to support such claims, study author Janice Du Mont says they “can’t say with certainty that that was the exact scenario” in every case (drug tests were not included in the CMAJ data).
While many could have “unwittingly ingested a ‘date-rape drug,’ ” she notes others might have “inadvertently contributed to their own incapacitation” by mixing voluntarily ingested pharmacological substances with alcohol.
Du Mont, a scientist at Ontario’s Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto, believes this supports the need for a public awareness campaign that not only warns of the dangers of combining drugs and alcohol, but also educates men that people who are intoxicated are incapable of consenting to sexual contact.
“It should not all be women’s individual responsibility to prevent sexual violence,” says Du Mont.
Look. I understand partying – certainly I remember its most salient features (some of it was even fun). But if you’re a single girl going out alone (or with a “friend” who abandons you the minute a guy gets her attention), then for crying out loud don’t mix drugs and alcohol. If that’s not a recipe for disaster, I don’t know what is. And while most guys I know would not take advantage of a highly intoxicated young woman, I would not want to trust that all the random guys in the random bars are like that. After all, the kind of guy who would take advantage of a highly intoxicated young woman tends to hang out in places where highly intoxicated young women are. It’s so basic it’s threatening to give me a headache. You can have public awareness campaigns until you go blue in the face and it won’t matter as long as young women continue to put themselves in ridiculously obvious dangerous situations. I realize it’s not fun having to police your drink when you go out. But given all that we know about these drugs, what other safe options are there, assuming “staying home watching TV” isn’t one of them?
Is this the UN’s definition of ‘freedom of speech’?
Came across this article on Slate.com. I’m really not one to slam the Islamic faith, and certainly not using blanket statements. I agree with the idea that generalizations are equivalent to blatant ignorance. And one thing I hate to be is ignorant.
It goes beyond not wanting to come off as a redneck. I actually know many Muslims. I am friends with Muslims. I have Muslim family members. (So please spare me any comments about how I should be more supportive of initiatives towards religious tolerance.)
The Slate.com article links to the UN General Assembly Resolution in question (A-RES/62/154). Little known fact about me: I love reading UN resolutions. This one was particularly entertaining. Especially page 3.
… everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs…
Are you really allowed to use the terms ‘without interference’ and ‘legal limitations’ in the same sentence? Well, they are the United Nations. I guess they can say whatever they want. You and I, on the other hand…
Don’t drink the water
We’ve visited this issue before. Seems new concerns about birth control pill hormones leaking into the water supply have again arisen:
Experts believe the hormone could be getting into drinking water and affecting men’s sperm counts. They say sewage treatment does not remove the chemical entirely from drinking supplies, although the water industry insists there is no evidence of a risk to health….
One study by the Medical Research Council found that Scottish men born since 1970 are 25 per cent less fertile than those born 20 years earlier – and that fertility is continuing to drop by two per cent a year.
Of course, other chemicals may be responsible, for we are increasingly discovering that we are surrounded by ‘gender-bending’ substances.
Many pesticides and plastics, for example, contain chemicals that disrupt the hormone system. (emphasis mine)
And it seems going ahead with broad water filtration programs is out of the question since the process of filtering these chemicals out of the water contributes to global warming. (Good grief!) So buy your water today… in glass bottles, I guess.
_____________________
Andrea adds: All these environmental crises, economic crises, everything is a CRISIS! The average guy is going to reach for something in a bottle and it won’t be water. I think I need a drink too.
Solving the credit crunch
This made me laugh out loud. Great satire is hard to come by:
THE ANSWER to all our problems is staring us in the face. It may even be quite literally staring at you, right now, across the breakfast table.
So put the paper down, stare back and ask yourself a selfless question.
Does the woman in your life really need a job?
Admittedly, this is not a fashionable question. From Iceland to Australia, men are blamed for causing the credit crunch, while a more feminine approach to finance is proposed as the solution. …
It would be ludicrous to suggest that women should be sacked purely to give men their jobs. In many cases, their jobs should be abolished as well.
This modest proposal is also somewhat unfair. Some of us live alone, and were all women to be canned, the single ones would suffer.
(Hey–is this even the craziest suggestion to “fix” the economy? I think not. Wish the billions shovelled into the money hole was satire too.)
If it’s a matter of per cents…
This letter in today’s Post on side effects of abortion:
The Hippocratic Oath urges all health professionals to “do no harm.” Thus, it seems unusual that Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson states that women need access to legal abortions, considering that “women who deliver [a baby] have a 10%-15% chance of developing a major depressive disorder.”
Has the professor not heard of the independent Ontario study of induced abortions published in the American Journal of Medical Quality in May, 2001? It revealed that in the first three months after an abortion, a woman falls victim to a four-times rate of hospitalization from infection, a five-times rate of hospitalization for psychiatric care and a five-times rate of hospitalization for another surgical procedure.
Dr. Andrew Caruk, Kitchener, Ont.
Though for me, taking the life of your own child, punches more weight than medical complications later on. (Not so for those who want abortion available because it “saves women’s lives” and that’s where this letter does good by pointing out abortion is not without medical complications.)
Still, every procedure has risks–and even if abortion were made 100 per cent risk-free, I’d still be 100 per cent against it.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- …
- 81
- Next Page »