I certainly have not forgotten that it is election day in the United States of America. I am eagerly awaiting the outcome just like everyone else who is vaguely interested in politics. If I were American, I’d be concerned about any number of issues, primarily debt, overspending and foreign affairs, but I certainly did like this little video reminding American voters not to forget the life file when they enter the ballot box.
[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StS3nUpDNqc]
If you do a search for “408” at this House of Commons Hansard link, you will find Niki Ashton’s commentary on Motion 408. This motion (not a bill) decries female sex selection as being contrary to women’s equality in Canada. And yet, Niki Ashton find a way to parcel this up as being against women’s rights. Which made me think of this song:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express the concern and outrage I am hearing from Canadian women across the country. They have raised their voices to say that when the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin awarded medals of honour to anti-choice activists he crossed the line. In the Conservative Party of Canada, the anti-choice movement has found a powerful ally. Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner, both convicted criminals, represent a major threat to our hard-won reproductive rights. Every time they violate the provincial injunctions to keep women safe, they give strength to those people who think women deserve to be harassed, assaulted and even physically harmed when they seek health care in Canada. For the member opposite to be honouring this kind of behaviour is nothing short of outrageous.This is not the first instance of a Conservative war on women’s rights, but the latest in a pattern of anti-choice actions. From Motion No. 312 to Motion No. 408, we are witnessing just how far the Prime Minister will allow his caucus to push back the clock on a woman’s right to choose.
I have watched Charmaine Yoest on YouTube and she was calm, cool and collected as well as cheerful in face of a hostile media pile up against her.
So I like the title of this New York Times Magazine article.
Liked this part, too, because I relate to it:
When she’s at one of her children’s baseball games or crew regattas and a parent asks about her work, she tries to deflect the question. “I tend to say, ‘Oh, gosh, it’s Saturday, it’s sunny — have you seen any good movies?’ ” she told me. After that, she’ll say she works at a nonprofit. If pressed further, she sticks to her TV talking points. “I explain that we work on moving forward legislation about informed consent, and making sure women get the best standard of medical care — the things most people agree on. So there’s a parallel between our public strategy at A.U.L. and my private discussions.”
Just used this strategy the other day, when I was out at a concert. Oh gosh, do we really want to talk about what I do? This music is great!
But what I don’t like about the article is an underlying sentiment that somehow she is nuancing talking points when she speaks about how abortion harms women:
Yoest put her arm around her daughter and finessed the slogan a bit. “We’re fighting Planned Parenthood to protect women,” she said. “When those babies aren’t born, that is a loss for their mothers, and that’s part of why they need a chance to live.”
It gives me the impression that the reporter cannot believe that Yoest would have a truly held personal conviction that abortion is worth fighting because it harms women.
Lines like this: “None of this, however, means that Charmaine Yoest is a moderate. For all her emphasis on women’s health, her end goal isn’t to make abortion safer,” really betray that bias. I imagine when I return to finish reading the article, I’ll be frustrated by this, but return I will.
(As a side note, I just went to hear a seminar about how to counsel women in reproductive loss, which includes abortion as well as miscarriage, infertility, stillbirth and hysterectomies. Very elucidating, and I hope to write up a wee summary soon.)
A good post about just who is involved in the pro-life movement.
CNN thinks it’s this:
Which, quite frankly, doesn’t bother me too much, because if you go around with a camera for long enough, you’ll find someone having a bad day, for sure.
But those of us involved in the pro-life movement see a lot of this:
\
And that is, indeed, what CNN doesn’t want you to see.
I’m really glad to hear that these crisis pregnancy centres in BC are standing up for themselves.
The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice Action Network, in B.C. Supreme Court.
Many groups raise money to purchase ultrasound machines, believing that women who see these images will be unable to deny the existence of their unborn children. I’ve had two physicians visits so far and a positive pregnancy test result at home and from the lab, but I have to say that irrespective of all the morning/day/night sickness and fatigue I didn’t feel pregnant until I saw my 11 weeks and 3 days gestation child during my first ultrasound three weeks ago. This feeling, that I felt the hospital and even my own physicians, had tried to utterly stifle just couldn’t be stopped after seeing two spindly little legs, a pair of wiry arms, nodding head and a fluttering beating heart on the ultrasound monitor.
The waiting room for the ultrasound has no photos of pregnant women, no medical diagrams of a baby in utero, no images of babies or children whatsoever, and uses only the word “fetus” on any signage posted throughout the lobby. In fact, at this specific hospital, no children under the age of 12 are allowed into the lobby without an additional adult and are forbidden from the ultrasound room entirely. I’m sure this makes it difficult for women like myself who have other children to even attend their ultrasound, as the hospital offers no child care services.
My family doctors had both asked “Was this planned?” and “Is this a wanted pregnancy?” in front of my accompanying 4 and 5 year old daughters, even though my file must indicate that I practice Natural Family Planning and am Catholic (as they offered me birth control options after the birth of my second child). All these attempts had been made to pretend that there isn’t someone other than Jennifer Derwey and her desires involved in this process, but an ultrasound image assails those accusations. It’s an emotional experience that I’m grateful for, even the third time around (and the good news is that ultrasound machines are getting an awful lot cheaper).
Interesting story. One woman’s journey from pro-choice to pro-life. I note it took her years, which sounds reasonable.
Another interesting thing is the lack of freedom of information on the pro-choice side. Years ago I called pro-life orgs and pro-choice orgs asking for information about the development of the baby in utero. The pro-choice org said and did nothing. The pro-life one promptly mailed a package filled with pamphlets. It is utterly absurd to claim to support a woman in her “choice,” except when she is wondering about what is growing inside her. Which might well include the vast majority of women.
Over the years I’d heard many pro-lifers say things along the lines of, “If you’re engaging in the act that creates babies, you might create a baby; if you are absolutely certain that you’re not ready to have a baby, avoid the act that creates babies.” The pro-choice movement dismissed such statements, often sneeringly, as being overly simplistic and even oppressive. Yet is it not true? Now that I had taken a look under the hood of the pro-choice worldview, I came to see this as yet another example of pro-lifers respecting women enough to tell them hard truths that they may not want to hear, but need to hear. And far from blowing women off with pat answers, as I had always imagined pro-lifers did, when I took a closer look at that movement I found it to be quite realistic about the complexities of life, and surprisingly understanding that things don’t always work out the way they’re supposed to.
I actually spoke to Linda Gibbons on the phone this past week. It was a call that left me both inspired and somewhat shaken.
Inspired because she was such a passionate, eloquent spokesperson for freedom, for children not yet born and for those who have already died and for women. All at the same time. In fact, some of the most touching moments in our short conversation were when she spoke of the women she speaks to in prison who are largely there on drug and prostitution-related charges. Linda tells them not to label themselves: You are not a prostitute. Or a drug dealer. In short, she is instilling value and worth into these women’s lives, who then look for her when they come back to jail. I’m simply not doing the conversation justice in this post. And to be perfectly honest, I had not mentioned the conversation on this blog because I want to see if I can publish something about her in the mainstream press before I publish the whole conversation here.
But I was also shaken because encountering someone who is both in and out of jail with regularity but wholeheartedly embracing the passionate call on her life is something I cannot describe. In that conversation I felt far too comfortable in the manner that I fight for women, the unborn and freedom in Canada. What am I giving up? What should I give up? What am I called to do? As I spoke to her it was as if a prophet had stepped out of the pages of the Bible. I don’t mean to place her on a pedestal; there were things she said I disagreed with as well. But these were minor points in the context of a bigger conversation that was absolutely awe-inspiring.
Remember Linda Gibbons in your prayers if you pray, because when I asked her what would help her most in her struggle she said it would help “if I had greater faith.”
November 4 is coming right up and it marks the closing event for 40 Days of Life in front of the Bank and Sparks street abortion clinic in Ottawa. Starts at 7 pm and there will be prayer and hymn singing and general encouragement, I am told. Which every pro-lifer engaged in the fight against abortion could use, I’m sure.
I didn’t realize until today just how angry I am at this mealy-mouthed, utterly lame, irrational excuse of an argument from someone who claims to be in favour of civil liberties. Alan Borovoy wrote this piece as general counsel emeritus of The Civil Liberties Association of Canada. This association, from what I can tell, is apparently happy that we have political prisoners in Canada in the person of Linda Gibbons, who, for no reason whatsoever, has spent close to ten years behind bars. This purported excuse of a civil liberties association has, to my knowledge made no attempt to defend Linda, who has been IN JAIL for walking on a public sidewalk. What a third-rate excuse for civil liberties this is, that lets Canadians go to jail for the simple act of totally and completely peaceful protest.
A total and utter shame.
Fortunately, my friend Faye addresses some of Mr. Borovoy’s nonsense here, as does Kelly McParland. Three cheers for both of them.
No cheers for a “civil liberties association” that isn’t worth the paper their business cards are written on.
PS. If I’m wrong and they have defended Linda Gibbons, anytime now would be a good time to let me know about that and the mea culpa post will be immediately forthcoming.