My apologies, people! I’m terribly self-centered! Natalie did a FANTASTIC job last night under difficult conditions (I personally think as someone who has done a lot of media that speaking to a reporter in the lobby of the House of Commons is about as nerve-wracking as it gets) so please return to this link and watch her. There are a bunch of links to the right of the video box but they are labelled clearly.

While I hope the Woodworth motion passes, every time the question comes up we win. That’s my take on it. Win or lose, we win. And the other side knows that. Yesterday was a bad day for them.

I’d actually, in spite of the ever present bias in favour of the pro-choice side, like to thank CTV for taking the issue on in a thorough manner. Bias against us is one step up from ignoring the issue. The wisdom, yes, wisdom!, of Saturday Night Live is always with me (“we have hit rock bottom, there is nowhere to go but up!”–Two wild and crazy Czechoslovakian brothers) so be of good cheer.

Filing under “women’s rights” because as everyone who reads this site knows, abortion does not confer rights or strength on women, but rather is degrading, hopeless and hurtful.

She’s using the F word. F for feminism. Clever.

Now she’s moved on to how the Conservatives are destroying gender equality.

__________________

Update: Women ought to have the right to choose, she says. To define their destiny. So many euphemisms, so little time.

__________________

Update 2: Niki Ashton: The issue. Was. Settled. In. 1988. (Well then, that settles it!)

__________________

Update 3: Now Niki is speaking for all women. Oh dear. A thought just occurred to me: All those who passionately advocate for abortion are alive. We’ve heard that before, but it really does strike me as true in this moment.

Terrible arguments! Abortion will always be with us, says he; it cannot be eliminated. “It’s part of the human condition.”

This must be the PMO’s spokesperson as he is now detailing how this is a private member’s motion, not a government bill.

I feel strongly that her objections are not really worth detailing for you. Highly political. She’s claiming the Prime Minister is responsible for this and going back on his word about not re-opening the abortion debate.

______________________

Update: Now she’s talking about fetal viability. She’s saying that its at 20 weeks. Pro-lifers in the UK might like to use Hedy Fry to speak to reducing the number of weeks in which abortion is legal there.

______________________

Update 2: Saints preserve us from more references to The Handmaid’s Tale. Oi ve.

MP Stephen Woodworth did an admirable job of presenting his case. Now it is the opposition’s job, I suppose, to tear it down. MP Françoise Boivin is claiming the motion has no respect for women’s rights.”It is a fundamental assault on women’s right to choose,” she says.

To choose what, I suppose, would be my question.

I continue to listen. I don’t find her as annoying as I thought I might, but neither do I find her arguments compelling.

_____________________

Update: She’s getting ridiculous now “are we going to get involved in the lives of women who are substance abusers?”

_____________________

Next day update: The transcript of the discussion can be found here.

I had the opportunity to discuss MP Stephen Woodworth’s motion about the definition of a human being on CTV this morning. Click here to check it out.

Natalie Hudson Sonnen has this in the National Post today about Canada’s shoddy abortion statistics.

One would think that pro-lifers and pro-choicers could band together on this, given that knowing the numbers is a neutral idea. One would think, but one would likely be wrong.

It’s an odd sort of feminist activism that calls on women to crochet, knit or sew in 2012. Yes, pro-choicers want you to engage your sewing talents to create plush uteri (my new plural for uterus). This is the response of pro-choicers to the suggestion that a committee discuss when life begins. Quaintly traditional, that. Not that I have a problem with tradition. Heck, I wish I could knit, crochet or sew. It’s a lost art. But if I had that gift, I would not be making female organs.

The debate on Parliament Hill happens tomorrow. Read about that, here.

Be there or be square. Pick your workshops and register, here.

I’m going–what other kind of incentive could you possibly need? (insert the “I’m joking” emoticon here. Not about going, for that is entirely true. However, about me being a reason for you to go. That part is a joke.)

Oh, “women’s rights.” Pretty soon those two words will have no meaning at all. Just a wee note to let Ms. Boivin know her concept of “women’s rights” doesn’t match up with mine:

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to denounce certain government MPs’ attempts to criminalize abortion. Of course, they know that their approach is extremely unpopular with women, who hate it when men try to tell them what to do with their bodies. That is why these members are drawing inspiration from the Republican Party and using roundabout ways and bogus motions that are based on pseudo-science. Let us be clear: this will not work. Canadian women have a right to access abortion and this backwards-thinking government cannot take that away from them. Our party has always defended women’s rights and we will continue to do so.

I am particularly bemused by her reference to “pseudo-science,” I might add. Pseudo-science like this?