We may never find out what happened or why. Read the story and shake with horror like I did. Then remind yourself that it is not a crime in this country to kill a viable child who isn’t born yet and throw the remains in the garbage.

The woman who is charged with concealing the bodies of three babies in a London, Ont. basement is believed to be their mother, reports say.

According to a charge sheet filed by police in court, investigators estimate the infants died in the years 2001, 2002 and 2006.

Jennifer Sinn, 32, faces three counts each of concealing the body of a child and offering an indignity to a dead human body. Court documents reportedly identify the woman as the babies’ alleged mother.

The remains were found on Saturday by the woman’s boyfriend, who told neighbours he found bloody blankets in a box in the basement.

He also said his girlfriend had been carrying around the boxes for two years, neighbours said.

I firmly believe that decades from now, many theses will be written about the peculiar form of Palin Derangement Syndrome that keeps cropping up, even now, when she’s been effectively marginalized (until 2016, anyway.) Here, in a bit of what they would recognize as an ironic development if they were sufficiently self-aware, feminists are dealt a good dressing-down for their silence on Palin-bashing by white male classical scholar Victor Davis Hanson in The Corner:

Letterman attacked in crass sexual terms both Palin and her daughter: Two of the rhetorical cornerstones of the feminist movement used to be zero-tolerance for sexual slurs by men alleging promiscuity (“slutty flight-attendant look”), and jokes about something as serious as rape (e.g., Palin’s 14-year-old daughter “knocked up by Alex Rodriguez”). David Letterman, who has become ever more creepy in his dotage, on both counts proved a boor — and receives only silence?

_____________________

Brigitte disagrees some: I don’t believe Sarah Palin is marginalized, and certainly not until 2016. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I don’t think so. For the people who fear her (those who suffer from PDS), the future is bleak.

But it’s more than just fear. Some of this anti-Palin behaviour (much like anti-Bush behaviour except more vicious and sexually explicit) cannot be explained rationally. How do you explain feminists not rising to the defence of a 14-year-old girl when a powerful older man “jokes” about her like that?

_____________________

Andrea adds: Just this past weekend I was asked why I liked Sarah Palin so much, beyond the life factor. These friends–all exceptionally good people–gazing at me with faces filled with a mix of confusion and concern, actually, as in how on earth can our good friend Andrea feel this way? In return, I ask only this–what’s not to like?

Great column in today’s Post, about the dangers of induced abortion, especially with regards to premature birth in subsequent pregnancies and the risks associated with that:

Given the accessibility of these studies to abortion providers, if I were the mother of a post-IA, PTB [preterm birth] infant or toddler with autism or cerebral palsy, and had not been informed as a matter of regulatory course of IA’s [induced abortion] risk for a future PTB, I’d be angry. Litigiously so.

Perhaps it’s time we stepped back from the ideological “whether” of abortion, and introduced the evidence-based “whither” of abortion into the national discussion. As an ice-breaker, we might begin at legal abortion’s beginning by asking why, uniquely amongst surgical interventions, suction abortion — the most common method — has never been animal-tested, a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code for research ethics in human experimentation.

Abortion on demand: empowerment — or bamboozlement — of women?

_________________________

Andrea adds: Oh that Barbara Kay–if only she would stop engaging in pro-life fear mongering. As we all know abortion is the safest procedure one could ever get!

Seriously though, people involved in the pro-choice movement genuinely believe this “abortion is safe” sentiment to be true. Ie. they are not informed, so they can’t possibly offer information to women seeking advice. I’m going to sound a lot like a feminist when I say this, but women’s health really has been so substantially politicized in this regard that one can’t get simple answers. The pro-choice people–those who meet face to face in the clinics with women getting abortions aren’t aware of the body of literature and view any awareness as a pro-life conspiracy. The other point is that abortion and any health effects on women is a substantially under-researched topic. We’ll never know when and how complications exist if we don’t connect the dots between a visit to a private abortion clinic and subsequent trips to the hospital. It’s really quite devastating when you think about it.

________________________

Rebecca adds: I am not so sure that workers in abortion clinics – the doctors performing them, the counsellors advising about them – don’t know about these studies. I have had conversations to this effect with people who’ve filled these roles and others in the elective abortion business, and none of them are dumb, or fail to stay current on the research.

They tend to take one (or more) of three attitudes toward this work.

1) “The research is based upon faulty premises, or carried out in poor faith, since the researchers clearly have “an agenda”.  This is nonsense; clear methodology discloses what the premises of a study are, and if it’s a solid approach to sound data, the intention of the researchers is irrelevant. But there is lots of evidence of people choosing to believe nonsense when it backs up their position.

2) “Women are in acute distress when they seek abortions. They know that all medical procedures carry some risk, just as all medications do, and belabouring this point to women in distress is a disservice to them.” This runs contrary to accepted practice in every other aspect of medicine. Short of an emergent life-or-death crisis, informed consent must always be obtained before any treatment is carried out.

The fact that this isn’t always followed scrupulously, and that far too little counselling about the risks and benefits of routine treatment is provided, doesn’t excuse failing to inform women seeking abortions of the demonstrable medical consequences of that choice.

3) “Women are in acute distress when the seek abortions, and don’t need or want to know if there is a long term cost to the short term cure they so desperately want.” It hardly needs to be said that, were this attitude taken toward women seeking any other form of elective or urgent surgery, it would (rightly) be decried as sexist, patriarchal and offensive.

This blog post is not new, but a friend who is a teacher forwarded it to me:

It is far better to not be in a relationship, wishing you were in one, than to actually be in one, wishing you weren’t. Be willing, I pray you, to be single for the rest of your life, if that’s what it takes to not settle for second best; as that would be far better than marrying a man who cannot love you.

And I thought that is good advice for girls/women, who, at times make bad choices with precisely the opposite idea–that it is better to be with someone, no matter who it is or how they treat you, than to be alone.

_____________________

Véronique adds: That’s always my piece of marital bliss advice whenever I’m asked by a single person: don’t settle. Marriage is a lot of work even when the person is your dream-come-true so imagine being married to someone who leaves you lukewarm. As the mother of 4 daughters, I have sympathy for arranged marriages on a theoretical level (as in: “In theory, I would like to spare my daughters the pain of marrying losers by choosing their spouses for them.”) But I think that in today’s age of instant gratification and Hollywood romance, the odds are tightly stacked against long term commitment and the inevitable grind of living in close proximity with someone else. Being swept off your feet is a must, in my humble-but-somewhat-educated opinion.

_______________________

Rebecca adds: A friend called Tanya (not our Tanya) told me this, a decade ago, and it stuck with me.  “You are created a cake, a whole, perfect, delicious cake that is enjoyable all by itself.  Now with the right icing, a delicious cake becomes even better.  But the wrong icing is not only unenjoyable in its own right, it spoils your enjoyment of the cake.  It is far better to be a delicious cake without icing than paired with the wrong icing.”  Silly, but it gets the meaning across very well.

Put another way, being lonely when you’re single is unpleasant. Being lonely when you’re in a bad relationship is worse.

So only yesterday did I finally read the Colby Cosh piece about Tiller and abortion. I had some thoughts on it and wondered about how to express them this late in the game. Today’s Post has a rebuttal from my friend Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, which provides the perfect opportunity.

First of all, I believe people like Colby Cosh and Stephanie Gray should meet. I think there’s something to be said for having a coffee to talk about these things. It’s easy to write condemnations of pro-lifers, and it’s easy to condemn libertarian columnists. But Stephanie is a fun, friendly person. I have never met Colby Cosh.

When I read Colby’s piece, I actually thought it had more to do with Christian hypocrisy, in so far as Colby thinks all pro-lifers are religious Christians and furthermore, that all those who call themselves Christian actually are (which they may or may not be). There is a vast swath of people who call themselves Christian and do nothing about abortion, which I believe runs contrary to the Christian faith. Then there’s that tiny fact that you need not be religious to be anti-abortion.

But I also believe Colby Cosh wants me to go out and murder abortionists about as much as he wants abortionists to tear a 32 week old fetus limb from limb, i.e. not at all.

So I think he asks a valid question: if Christians were truly Christian, would we have this problem on our hands? Of course, if we didn’t have blasé and dispassionate libertarian journalists, would we also not have this problem on our hands? But somehow those who claim the ground that they stand for higher standards, but then do nothing, come away looking worse.

This is not the bulk of pro-lifers. This is certainly not Jim Hughes and Stephanie Gray, those Cosh charges with hypocrisy. But if you are already cynical of pro-lifers motivations, i.e. view them as being sanctimonious, preachy prigs who talk a big talk but don’t walk the walk, then you’ll be more inclined to view supposed profferings of sympathy for the death of a murdered abortionist as nothing more than (unnecessary) platitudes.

The thing is there are good pro-lifers out there to be known, if you want to know them. And they aren’t all religious. And they certainly aren’t all sanctimonious. Stephanie, for example. Not sanctimonious–a powerhouse with conviction, gumption and character in spades. For those who care to see it, that is.

Apparently, I need it to be the perfect Bond Girl. Well, I also need a few other things, like turning 26 again, but, um, why ruin an otherwise perfect Sunday morning? After all, I do have longish dark hair and I can talk Southron some…

Academics who set out to discover what makes the ideal Bond girl found that apart from having long dark hair, she is likely to have an American accent – and to carry a weapon.

[…]

Their report says: “The women of Bond are eternally attractive. Their typically slender body type … is unchanged over time.

“The women of Bond continue to be portrayed in a rather limited and sex-stereotyped manner. The ultimate penalty for a woman in a Bond film – death – seems to accrue from promiscuity and daring to threaten the ultimate iconic masculine hero, James Bond.

“This study provides further evidence of the continued sexualisation, marginalisation, and disposability of women within Bond films. The Bond films glorify the sometimes chauvinistic persona of Bond.

Whadayamean, sometimes chauvinistic? It’s not like we hadn’t noticed, you know? Bond is Bond, and those of us who like him like him anyway, so there.

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada’s report (my day job) about the cost of family breakdown was released last week. In case you are interested.

An article about it yesterday, by Brigitte’s husband and one by Rebecca and I from Thursday in the Post, in case you want to read more about it. I also appreciated Lorrie Goldstein’s piece in the Sun chain.

Whew! I’m glad everyone’s fine. I sure wouldn’t want to try that:

A woman admitted to Montreal’s Royal Victoria Hospital for an induced birth was forced into a do-it-yourself delivery last month, with only her non-medically trained common-law partner to assist.

A hospital official said Wednesday that an investigation is under way.

[…]

At about 5 a.m. on May 13, medical help failed to appear even after Karine Lachapelle’s water broke.

Despite attempts to summon help by partner Mark Schouls, who was pushing a nurse-alert button with increasing frequency as Lachapelle’s contractions became more intense, the two delivered their new son, Kristophe, entirely on their own.

Lachapelle pushed the child out past his shoulders and face down, allowing Schouls to get a grip and pull the newborn the rest of the way out, he recounted.

There were no complications, and Kristophe was crying loudly within seconds.

The boy, born at full term weighing six and one-half pounds, remains healthy and perpetually hungry, Lachapelle said Wednesday.