Archives for 2011

On May 5, my workplace is hosting a conference. Brad Wilcox and Mark Regnerus are the big name speakers, and I know they will be interesting. But I’m actually most looking forward to hearing Jonas Himmelstrand discuss family matters in Sweden.

For so long we’ve heard much rhetoric about how successful the socialist Swedish model is (particularly with regards to providing daycare for all and long parental leaves) but Jonas actually lives there and he has a different take. And has written a book about it, soon to be coming out in English.

In any event, this conference is open to the public. That’s all of you. So if you are in Ottawa on May 5, stop on by. What better way to fill your post-election hours? Early bird registration rate ends on Sunday, April 17.

This article is about still borns and how difficult it is. That is, of course, true. I just couldn’t help but think about all the aborted babies when I read this:

…[M]ost babies born still are quickly “disposed of” without being held, named or given a funeral. …These lives that will never be lived, this source of incalculable heartbreak, cries out for attention.

Babies disposed of. Incalculable heartbreak. Crying out for attention. Really? This from André Picard, the Globe and Mail health reporter who acted as a shill so that Morgentaler could get his Order of Canada.

I believe abortion is not solely a women’s issue because I think men ought to be involved with and responsible for their unborn children, too.

Others believe it because they think men have babies. No really.

I like the fact that Carleton Lifeline is looking to make positive and permanent changes to the environment students face on campus. They are asking for a judicial review of the student association’s policies. The press release below explains it all. By the way, clarifying the student union’s contradictory actions will help all students, not just pro-life students. Other student groups, for example, those who support Israel, are often the target of student union discrimination, as well.

For Immediate Release: Pro life clubs asks Court to Judicially Review student union’s decisions and policies

Ottawa—After their club status was denied November 15, 2010, Carleton Lifeline has filed a Notice of Application for Judicial Review of the Carleton University Students Association’s (CUSA) decisions and policies.

The clubs status was revoked after CUSA acted on sections 5 and 6 of their Discrimination on Campus Policy. Section 6 reads, “CUSA further affirms that actions such as any campaign, distribution, solicitation, lobbying effort, display, event etc. that seeks to limit or remove a woman’s right to choose her options in the case of pregnancy will not be supported. As such, no CUSA resources, space, recognition or funding will be allocated for the purpose of promoting these actions”.

This section is in direct contravention of CUSA’s Constitution, which declares that CUSA will “promote and assist in maintaining an academic environment free from prejudice, exploitation, abuse or violence on the basis of… political affiliation or belief” (Article 2.1.d).

Carleton Lifeline exhausted the internal appeal mechanisms, culminating in a challenge of the decision and policy in a hearing before the CUSA Constitutional Board. In a meeting that did not follow CUSA’s own protocol, and violated policies, the Constitutional Board unanimously ruled against Carleton Lifeline’s challenge.  On December 16, 2010, the Constitutional Board ruled in favour of the policies and upheld the ban on pro-life groups on campus.

Ruth Lobo, Carleton Lifeline president, stated, “Lifeline deserves to be treated the same way as other clubs. For this reason, we are asking a panel of judges to review CUSA’s decisions and policies. We hoped that we could not have had to proceed this way, but we feel very strongly that we have been treated unjustly”.

Carleton Lifeline sought to have the appeal reheard due to the Constitutional Board’s violation of board rules. However, CUSA refused. John Mcleod said, “This is overt discrimination. After our club was banned on the basis of our political beliefs were then banned from a fair hearing. The fact that CUSA cannot respect their own policies shows its inability to function as a voice for the student body”.  As a result, the club has filed a Notice of Application for Judicial Review.

I’ve been reading this article today that addresses the teen pregnancy issue and offers a solution: Give disadvantaged young girls options and purpose.

For all the noise and clatter about encouraging abstinence or handing out condoms in schools, many close to the issue are convinced that teenage pregnancy is less a matter of morals or sex education or access to birth control than it is a matter of a girl — or boy — feeling that they have a future. Or not.

“Simply put, girls with prospects do not have babies. It is not just the disadvantaged, but the ‘discouraged among the disadvantaged’ who become teen mothers,” Janet Rich-Edwards, a Harvard epidemiologist, wrote in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Some even theorize that many teenage girls don’t have babies despite being poor. They have babies because they are poor. Teen pregnancy is well established as a cause of poverty. It may also be a result of poverty.

Lisa Piscopo, a Colorado Children’s Campaign researcher, said she suspects many teen pregnancies among disadvantaged kids aren’t accidents.

“I believe girls choose to have babies when they don’t have a vision of any other options,” she said.

That’s something we should all agree on. While I don’t adhere completely to some of the articles’ finer points, it seems, at least in Colorado, people are finally addressing the why behind teenage pregnancy instead of focusing solely on the how. It continues,

In 2009, a University of Chicago study reported that by age 17, one-third of young women in foster care reported having been pregnant. By age 19, that proportion had risen to nearly half. The study’s author, Amy Dworsky, found that as many as one third of girls interviewed for the study said they wanted to become pregnant. It’s likely, Dworsky told a congressional panel in 2009, that those girls want “to create the family they don’t have or fill an emotional void.”[…]

“And they’ll ask, ‘Why wait? Wait for what? I’m not going to college.’ “

This letter, by one Thomas Ross of Calgary, longs for the day when people will begin “thinking rationally.” Here’s his view now:

A seed is not a plant. An egg is not a chicken. A fetus is not a human. A fetus does not become a living human until after birth when it takes its first breath of air. Before that, it is a parasite living in its mother’s environment and feeding off of her nutrients. You cannot murder something that is not living; that would be like if I stabbed a pop can and was arrested for assault. I long for the day when people realize it is not their business to tell others what they can and can’t do in their lives, and start thinking rationally. Sadly, I think we will all be long gone before anything like that happens.

Thomas Ross, Calgary

 I cannot tell a lie: I laughed out loud when I hit the “thinking rationally” part.

I believe with this story about giving Mother Earth the same rights as humans that she is getting a raw deal. Really, since humans don’t have the right to life across the board, what confidence can “Mother Earth” possibly have?

I’m almost prepared to say that any guy who voluntarily signs up for this should indeed not reproduce:

Animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is offering up a free vasectomy to a man who recently had his pet neutered. Calling the contest a “two-fer,” the group is offering up one vasectomy – a reimbursement of up to $500 once the procedure is confirmed – so “one lucky man be reproduction free, free of charge, just like his pooch or feline friend.” …The men must also answer the question, “Why should PETA neuter you?” and tell the judges “how his sterilization will most benefit both humans and animals.”

 

“How his sterilization will most benefit humans and animals?” It would be uncharitable to go into all the reasons.

The last time there was a federal government shutdown in the US was 1995.

Today’s conflict is again over health care, with the headlining debate over defunding Planned Parenthood. Though this is a meager, financially speaking, part of the proposed 2011 budget cuts, it has a heavy emotional weight with the voting population. Last night, it was proposed that the Planned Parenthood rider be separated from the budget proposal.

Durbin later qualified his statement. He told reporters that negotiators had mulled the possibility of separating the Planned Parenthood rider. He said he did not know whether House Republicans would accept the compromise.

“We’re hoping,” he said. “[There’s] a procedural way to deal with that.”

Last year, $75 million of Title X funding went to Planned Parenthood affiliates, which Republicans object to and attempted or are attempting to remove from the fiscal year 2011 budget. Planned Parenthood provides abortion services but can’t use federal money for them. Republicans argue there’s no real way to segregate the private dollars dedicated to abortion services and the federal dollars backing other areas of care.

That disagreement was major stumbling block in negotiations for most of Thursday and Friday.

No one wants a shutdown, but I don’t want the funding issue to be put on the back burner either. While it’s not a lot of money in federal terms, the principal idea is certainly not democratic. Planned Parenthood receives federal money to provide a service that the federal government should really be providing themselves in order to allow citizens the shape the service. Some states have had success in regulating Planned Parenthood, while others have been threatened with costly lawsuits and have been unable to “have their say” about clinic procedures, even though their citizens’ tax dollars are funding the organization. There’s something fundamentally wrong about that. I don’t want a shutdown, but I don’t want to stop talking about Planned Parenthood.

Whether or not he becomes President, it is always nice to have influential figures who declare themselves publicly to be pro-life.

I saw the headline and thought rather cynically that he is only doing this because a Republican nominee running against President Obama pretty much has to be pro-life to win. But then I read the story linked above, and it would take a lot of embarrasing backtracking to undo some of the statements he’s made. I’ll take it as good news.