Archives for 2011

So the Advertising Standards Council has a pretty funny ad campaign out these days. One of the TV spots shows a teenage girl climbing out of her window at night. In walks her Dad and she says, “I was going to the library…” Then the lights start flashing, music starts playing and some funny looking men come out dancing. Altogether quite funny and the punchline is that just because you dress something up, it doesn’t make it true.

Oh Advertising Standards. I saw this and was reminded of a time when the Advertising Standards Council dressed something up to take a truth and make it untrue. Yes, it’s true, when it comes to things abortion-related I have a memory like an elephant. An elephant, I tell you. (In other areas, God Help Us All if I lose my iPhone and am expected to actually show up to any appointment of any kind. Or work. I digress.)

Back in May 2008, the Advertising Standards Council rejected ads from Life Canada which showed a pregnant woman and stated that in Canada, an abortion can be had throughout all nine months of pregnancy. This, they found to be deceptive, which stands contrary to the facts as stated in Canada’s lack of an abortion law of any kind, and statistics, as put forward by Statistics Canada, which shows hundreds of late term abortions are conducted annually.

So join me, friends, in remembering an ad campaign that was completely truthful, but because of ideology, or the abortion distortion, or [insert dancing men, disco lights and the soundtrack from Saturday Night Fever] got pulled by the Advertising Standards Council.

A walk down memory lane and a new slogan was born. Just because the Advertising Standards Council disagrees, doesn’t make it untrue.

We’re all aware of some of the awesome powers of baking soda combined with vinegar. It bubbles, it unclogs sinks, and years ago when I became pregnant I replaced all my highly toxic pre-made household cleaners with home-made baking soda scrub and vinegar spray. I felt much safer knowing myself and my new infant weren’t ingesting dangerous chemicals off the kitchen table or (in baby’s case) off the floors. But nothing had not quite prepared me for the No ‘Poo revolution.

What is No Poo?

For folks who aren’t familiar with the idea of No ‘Poo, it’s a haircare regimen that involves washing and conditioning your hair without any harsh chemicals. The cheapest, easiest way to do this is with our old friends baking soda and vinegar.

Why do I love No ‘Poo? Well, aside from the obvious fun of saying it, there are 3 reasons.

1. IT’S CHEAP! A box of baking soda costs me less than a dollar, if I buy in bulk it costs even less. Apple Cider Vinegar is around 2 dollars for a small bottle, again bulk is the better bargain. These last me about a month for general household cleaning AND my family’s locks. I even use the baking soda as face wash and the vinegar as toner (a little goes a long way!). For parents, having items that can multipurpose is a must, and the more affordable it is to have and raise children the better.
2. IT’S SAFE! Baking soda and vinegar have been around for hundreds of years. They’ve been tried and tested far longer than any beauty product on the market today. Not only are they better for Mother Nature, but they lack irritating chemicals, like sodium lauryl sulfate. Last February CBC ran a documentary entitled The Disappearing Male that claimed our use of synthetics was effecting the male reproductive system and “may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development”. And last but not least…
3. LESS MONEY FOR BIG PHARMA. Oh yes, Johnson & Johnson make a lot of money on baby shampoo, and they make even more money with their reproductive control products (offered at any Planned Parenthood). For every $10 face wash, shampoo or conditioner I don’t purchase, it’s less money in their pot. And thankfully, with the dream team of baking soda and vinegar, this doesn’t mean I have to live in smelly protest. No ‘Poo for Life anyone?

Who thinks of sending people dressed up as a pimp and a prostitute into a Planned Parenthood clinic to ask for advice? Lila Rose does, that’s who.

So here we have on tape a Planned Parenthood counsellor giving the pimp advice on how to run his business.

It’s a bit surreal. Starting with the pimp being so very concerned about his underage sex slaves but definitely ending with the Planned Parenthood counsellor giving him advice on how to skirt the law and ensure his non-English speaking 14-year-olds can still get abortions without a problem. She tells him she wants as little information as possible. Sounds like the hallmark of a very fine counsellor to me.

___________________

Update: Always good to read a pro-abortion take on things. For example “forced abortions for victims of human trafficking” translates as “reproductive freedom for the disenfranchaised.”  Enjoy.

___________________

Update No. 2: And the Planned Parenthood staffer in the video gets fired. This is good news. There’s truly no excuse, however, for the writer in my first update above, who defends her behaviour.

Abbotsford Right to Life is hiring. For more info, check their web site.

___________________

Update: Apparently Thrive Ottawa is looking too.

You’ll recall back in November that the student association at Carleton University banned the pro-life club. One of their fearless leaders, Ruth Lobo (pictured above being arrested by Ottawa City Police, handcuffs and all, because she expressed pro-life views on campus) challenged that decision.

Sadly, the club remains banned.

Yes, more of this please.

PICTURES OF KATLYN GUNN’S little girl line the walls, cover the fridge and top the tables. Her baby’s name — Kylie — loops across her inner wrist, a tattooed reminder when the child isn’t in her arms.

“She’s my everything,” the 18-year-old Dartmouth mother says. “If I didn’t have her, I don’t know where I’d be.”

Perhaps the same could be said of where she actually is — a unique apartment complex, once a 1950s parochial school, tucked away behind a Dartmouth church.

These days, it’s a sanctuary of sorts for young single mothers like Katlyn. And the staff of volunteers guides the girls to far greater life lessons. Like how to bond with their babies, how to balance their chequebooks, how to rise above the people or places or behaviours that have been keeping them down.

The non-profit Supportive Housing for Young Mothers (SHYM) opened this 14-unit dwelling in October 2007, after extensive renovations funded by the federal government.

The organization bought the building — owned by Halifax Regional Municipality and used as a storage facility — for $1.

Single mothers aged 16 to 24, mostly teenagers, live in most of the units, although two units are set aside for staff, one of whom is a permanent resident. The girls stay for up to two years, occasionally longer. Most have no place else to go.

Katlyn used to live in group homes.

Former resident Amanda Young used to be homeless, going from friend’s house to friend’s house — and spending a month at a Halifax shelter with her now 3½-year-old son Jordan — until she came here.

“For one reason or another, they’re not able to live with their families,” says SHYM executive director Wendy Fraser. “Those reasons can be anything from financial, to capacity of the family, to mental health or drug and alcohol issues.

“There’s not really any one scenario that would fit for any of them. The common denominator is that they were young and didn’t have family that was able to provide the support they needed.”

So says this piece. Add your grain of salt in the comments.

Despite the long push for more equality in parenting duties, new research suggests that mothers and fathers may actually get along better when parenting roles are divided along more traditional lines -that is, when fathers back off caregiving duties, such as feeding and bathing, and put more effort into playtime.

Researchers at Ohio State University looked at 112 middle-class couples with four-year-old children. Researchers looked at how involved fathers were in play activities and how much they took part in caregiving.

They also observed parents working together to help their children perform certain tasks, such as building toy structures or drawing pictures.

Families in which fathers were more involved in play activities had more of what researchers called supportive interaction between the two parents.

In contrast, more of what is described by researchers as “undermining behaviour” was seen among families in which fathers do more of the caregiving.

Undermining behaviour was seen in statements such as “that’s a stupid idea” made by one parent to another, or taking separate approaches to helping their children.

It is unclear why the study yielded the results it did, but Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, a professor of family science at Ohio State University and one of the study’s co-authors, suggested parents may be subconsciously bothered when parenting roles conflict with their pre-conceived ideas.

From the mother’s point of view, it could be a function of “maternal gatekeeping,” she said. “For mothers, maybe, it’s hard to give up some control to the father. That could be a total social effect, but there could some sort of biological underpinning to it.”

The sex of the child did make a difference in the study’s findings.

With boys, the father’s involvement in play proved to be even more beneficial to the parents’ relationship.

On the other hand, fathers’ caregiving did not have a notable negative effect when it came to girls.

“Maybe fathers just feel more confident to participate in rearing their sons,” Prof. Schoppe-Sullivan said.

“If the mother is doing something with the son that he doesn’t like, the father feels like he should say something, or he has more of a role. Whereas with girls, it may be that the father lets the mother do more what she feels is best.”

Anne-Marie Ambert, a retired professor of family studies at York University in Toronto, said it makes sense that relationships would be good between couples where the father plays with the kids.

“Mothers are probably very appreciative when fathers

play with children, because it does take the children off their backs,” she said.

“Also, it’s very good for the children; the children are more active.”

She said it is less clear why having fathers involved in the caregiving would cause problems.

“You would think that caregiving from the father would make mothers much happier.”

A longish but extremely touching piece on why we have children. Get a cup of coffee, settle in, and enjoy.

____________________

Andrea adds: What a piece.

We have no choice but to give ourselves for our children, but we learn that in giving ourselves we receive our selves. In the frailty of this little form that called such an immense love out of me, this bundle of winsome life and running legs and embracing arms, I share in the quintessentially human condition of loving recklessly what is fragile, fleeting, and at risk. There is nothing for it; I cannot help myself. Even at thirteen months, my daughter was sweet and vulnerable and of immeasurable sacred worth. She was not perfect, but she was everything that was good in me, and yet so much better, the highest art I had created, my only true thing in a counterfeit world. She was my little girl.

…but death and taxes. That’s right, it’s tax time again. It’s possibly my least favorite time of year, as I have to file as an ex-patriot not one but TWO tax returns to various scary acronyms (IRS, CRA). Not to pat my own back, but I’ve become something of a North American tax wizard (no, I am not taking requests to file other people’s taxes). But while I don’t fear my own audit, I do hope the accountants have their red pens primed for looking at the tax payouts on a federal level.

Remember that revolutionary slogan, “No taxation without representation!” Well, for many people, that tyranny is just what happens with each and every paycheque. Organizations, like Planned Parenthood, have received billions of tax payer dollars over the past 20 years.

As my pro-choice friend once told me, “It’s okay if you’re pro-life, so long as you don’t object to anyone else having an abortion.” Even with this flawed logic it’s clear, even to pro-choice individuals, that the large population who object in the US and in Canada shouldn’t be paying for the procedure.

From Minnesota,

The people of Minnesota have never voted to pay for abortions with state money, and neither has the state Legislature. Taxpayer funding of abortion was imposed upon us by a wrongly decided court case known as Doe vs. Gomez in the mid-1990s.

Now it is time for the Legislature to represent the will of the people by passing a ban on taxpayer-funded abortions, and for Gov. Mark Dayton to allow the ban to become law. We know that Gov. Dayton supports abortion; he always has. But many who consider themselves “pro-choice” acknowledge that using tax dollars to pay for elective abortions goes too far.

Funding abortion seems especially unwise at a time when the state faces a massive $6.5 billion deficit. Paying abortionists to kill unborn Minnesotans is an expense that we simply cannot afford, and that unborn babies can live without.

According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, taxpayers bought 50,869 abortions at a cost of $15.6 million between July of 1994 and December of 2008.

[…]

I know the argument will be made by the other side that poor women ought to have the same access to abortion as rich women. But if we really want what’s best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them, not offer them abortions.

______________________

Brigitte wonders: Am I the only one who noticed the slogan buried in this story? “Abortion: An expense unborn babies can live without.”

Yesterday I posted about the new Danish study showing that abortion does not cause mental health problems. Today, Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a reputable psychologist who has been engaged in this debate for years, comments. Worth reading the whole thing.