ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts / Political

What the California crisis pregnancy centre court decision really means

by 3 Comments

I have noticed that there is a lot of misinformation being spread about the NIFLA v Becerra decision that was recently released by the US Supreme Court. (Case in point, this statement.) So let’s set the record straight:

The impetus for the NIFLA v Becerra case was a 2015 law passed in California. Colloquially referred to as the “Reproductive FACT Act”, this law mandated that pro-life crisis pregnancy centres provide information to their clients about how to access a state-funded abortion.

Contrary to the claims of some (pro-abortion) news outlets, this case was ultimately not about the issue of abortion. Not really. While the case involved this Californian law that sought to control the actions of crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), the crux of this case had little to do with abortion, reproductive rights, or even CPCs.

The truth is that this decision focused squarely on one key concept: free speech.

In his concurring statement in the NIFLA v Becerra decision, Justice Kennedy wrote the following:

Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what the entire NIFLA v Becerra case was about. Because, while this Californian law was lauded as a glorious advancement in women’s empowerment, the reality is that it was merely masquerading as an initiative to protect reproductive rights. Behind its thinly-veiled feminist veneer, this law had a much more sinister goal: namely, ushering in the reign of ideological totalitarianism.

You see, this Californian law sought to force CPCs to promote abortion to their clients. Perhaps you, like me, find this deeply offensive because you believe abortion is morally reprehensible. Or perhaps not. But even if you and I cannot agree that abortion is morally wrong, that is beside the point.

The real danger in this law was that is sought to destroy free speech. It sought to enforce the perspective of a select few on the entire population of California.

So the Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v Becerra was not a victory for pro-life groups. It was a victory for all individuals. Because this victory was ultimately a victory for freedom of speech. And, had the Supreme Court not intervened and struck down this law, the freedom of speech of all individuals – pro-life and pro-abortion – would have been jeopardized.

Perhaps the most ironic fact of all is that, even as pro-abortion groups rage about this outcome, they directly benefit from this decision. After all, it is free speech that has shaped our society in such a way that we are even able to express our displeasures with a Supreme Court decision or have a respectful debate about abortion at all.

So, regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion – whether you are a radical pro-abortion feminist or whether you, like me, believe women deserve better than abortion – June 26th, 2018 is a day for all of us to remember with grateful hearts. Because, as Martin Neimöller so eloquently stated, limitations of freedoms will inevitably affect us all.

 

And they call this “feminist”

by 1 Comment

The Canadian budget document, #YourBudget2018, is easily one of the more patronizing government documents I’ve ever read.

So I wrote this column about it in the National Post.

Imagine with me for a second that the budget focused so much on men. Imagine that Budget 2018 referenced men 708 times instead of women. Men — we need to coax you into nursing! Men — not enough of you are kindergarten teachers! Men — don’t take time off with your children when they are young! Men — you can’t choose more paternity benefits — these are “use it or lose it” for women, only! If that sounds pushy, it’s because it is.

Welcome to the world of “feminism means what I say it means,” courtesy of our current Liberal government.

Successful social movements are inclusive

by 5 Comments

This article from late January by Michael Gerson gets at some important angles on the abortion debate that I had not thought about before.

It is the antiabortion movement that appeals to inclusion. It argues for a more expansive definition of the human community. It opposes ending or exploiting one human life for the benefit of another. There are heart-rending stories that prevent the simplistic application of this approach. But most of the antiabortion men and women I know have the genuine and selfless motivation of trying to save innocent lives.

Inclusion and expansion instead of exclusion and autonomy–are just some of the concepts he gets at. Worth reading.

Social inclusion, for all. (Including people in wheelchairs at running races.)

Ideological purity test to receive funding for interns

by 4 Comments

Discussed the government’s requirement of an ideological purity test (I support “reproductive rights”) in order for small business and not-for-profits to receive funding for summer interns with John Oakley on AM 640 yesterday. Very pleased he took the issue on. Less pleased with my meandering replies here but the gist is this: The Charter is intended to protect conscience rights, not transgress them. And while the Liberals want to stick it to anti-abortion groups, they are in effect creating a chill for all charities who will not check that nebulous box saying they support “reproductive rights.” Many a church or NGO hired interns to help with basic stuff for low-income Canadians–things like summer camps for kids who couldn’t otherwise go, etc. Also, just as a side note, “reproductive rights” needs to be very much challenged as a term, something the media rarely does.

Draconian new bubble zone law

by Leave a Comment

Draconian new law, supported by the Opposition. This stands as the moment in which I fully decided that it’s over my cold, dead body that I would vote for Ontario’s “Conservatives,” in spite of how bad the current government is for my home province of Ontario. We are all (pro-life or pro-choice) a little less free now.

Indeed, the act makes illegal any “act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means” within 50 metres of a clinic (or other permitted distances, not exceeding 150 metres). As written, having a conversation a few blocks away from an abortion clinic that the state deems insufficiently enthusiastic about abortion could make you liable to prosecution.

Pro-life feminists: What can we do?

by 5 Comments

We are not alone, strong, pro-life women! Got this note a couple of days ago. I’ve sent a reply already but then I realized, others may have thoughts to add. Can you write me, via Facebook comment, direct message or email–what you would advise?

How do I get my voice heard? Or, more accurately, my opinion. I am a pro-life feminist, and feel that our current government does not think that’s a credible position.

I would appreciate your advice on how to affect cultural change that I feel strongly about, without a platform to preach from, and without missionary zeal. I’m a full time working wife & mother, completely without any political affiliation, but strong opinions on humanity and compassion.

I’ve contacted my local MP, who directed me to the Status of Women Committee head. Not terribly helpful.

Please weigh in! If we figure out how she can make change then we can all make change!

Women deserve better than abortion.

 

“Yes, You Can Be A Pro-Life MP And A Feminist”

by Leave a Comment

By this point, everyone has a take on Rachael Harder-gate. Lots of folks have written well on the topic, and let me just say, I’m grateful for the very reasonable pro-choice people out there, who get why walking out of a Parliament Hill committee like some high school clique is the wrong direction for democracy. This is my pro-life-and-proud-of-it take on the topic. Being pro-life doesn’t mean being weak. It doesn’t mean being subservient to men or anyone else. It doesn’t mean denying choices. It means one recognizes the beauty of women, including her reproductive capacity. Being pro-life says it is not right, just or equal to ask women to make a choice that involves getting rid of her children.

Read more here. And feel free to leave a comment at Huffington Post. I know countless pro-life women–countless!–and now is the time for our voices to be heard.

Being pro-life is, in reality, a feminist position. A woman-friendly world should be able to accommodate women’s fertility, with things like flex work time for mothers, different work rules for pregnant women and having much higher expectations of fathers. (Incidentally, Planned Parenthood used to understand this, running an ad campaign in the ’80s that showed a man with a pregnant belly. The caption read, “When your girlfriend gets pregnant, so do you.”)

In the feminist pro-life world, pregnancy and children should not be a threat or an inconvenience — indeed, “women deserve better than abortion” is the slogan of Feminists for Life. It’s a twisted definition of equality that asks women to give up their children by undergoing invasive surgery. Men don’t have to do that, and neither should women.

If I were a betting woman, I’d bet Rosie the Riveter was pro-life.

 

A very narrow view of women’s “equality”

by Leave a Comment

Some Liberals walked out of a committee meeting on Parliament Hill today because Rachael Harder was nominated as Chair of the Status of Women committee. This is the quote from an NDP MP, Sheila Malcolmson:

The chair is the spokesperson for our work and it’s impossible for a spokesperson of an all parliamentary committee where reproductive choice is at the foundation of women’s equality, for her to be able to communicate and articulate our work,” she said after Tuesday’s meeting.

“Reproductive choice” is a euphemism. Here, it refers to abortion. So now we have this clear admission that the Status of Women ministry only represents pro-choice women. I’d be glad to see the whole committee fall apart and Status of Women defunded. I, for one, do not need special representation in Parliament, especially not by people who don’t represent all women, but only a subset of women.

And “reproductive choice,” is not the foundation of women’s equality. Those who make it so do a disservice to all women.

Rachael Harder, MP

Women writing about abortion who don’t regurgitate talking points

by Leave a Comment

Sometimes I hear pro-choice advocates on the radio and they say things like “abortion is a settled issue.” Perhaps they believe that. Meanwhile, the only reason they are on the radio is because it’s a very heated, live issue right now, particularly in my town of Ottawa, and not at all settled.

I have not seen any video footage outside the Bank Street abortion clinic. There are reports of harassment and intimidation. I am a pro-lifer who is against harassment and intimidation, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I’d like to know more about what has happened in front of the downtown Ottawa abortion clinic. I confess I pass by once in a while and haven’t seen anything. That’s not to say there aren’t problems. It’s only to say that I need more information other than what the clinic itself provides, given the heated nature of anything to do with abortion. If they have video footage, it would be great if they released that. They’d have the support of the pro-life community in curtailing violence, harassment and intimidation, that much is true.

Christie Blatchford writes about this issue in measured tones. She refers to what we on the pro-life side know as the “abortion distortion” without using those words. The abortion distortion happens when valid health information that would help women make informed choices is suppressed because it appears to be “pro-life.” And it happens when authorities use “an elephant gun to kill a flea,” as Blatchford puts it, which is what is about to happen as regards ensuring there is no harassment or intimidation outside abortion clinics.

This much is true:

But if she and Gibbons were members of Black Lives Matter, or the Tamils who about eight years ago blocked a ramp to the Gardiner Expressway, or almost any other protest group in this country railing about almost any other issue, they wouldn’t be being carted off to jail with such alarming frequency.

Indeed, the pro-choice memoir we all need

by 3 Comments

I read this piece and thought, yes, it’s the pro-choice memoir we all need right now. I actually agree with the Globe and Mail writer, Denise Balkissoon. 

The hallmark of the abortion movement can never be compassion to the child. It will never be that. Abortions take the life of that child without asking, without concern and without anesthetic. That’s why the start of this column is most curious: 

A pregnant teenager learns that the fetus she is carrying will be born without a functioning circulatory system. At no point will it be able to breathe for itself – there is no way that it can live. The teenager decides not to terminate the pregnancy, telling her obstetrician that she is “praying for a miracle.”

Twenty weeks later, the teenager gives birth. In a new memoir, the doctor, Willie Parker, writes of his “horror” watching the newborn’s immediate, inevitable death. “Born at term, the baby could feel pain … ” Dr. Parker writes. “She must have felt all the anxiety and panic that would accompany suffocating to death.

“In this case, an absolute reverence for life led to a situation that, to my eyes, consisted of nothing less than pure cruelty.”

Pro-choice people ask us to swap the cruelty we can see for the cruelty we can’t see. There is no evidence that taking the life of the unborn child in the womb is less cruel. The result, after all, is exactly the same, it’s just we saw a little bit less. 

When I miscarried at nine weeks, the hands of this new person were clearly evident. Tiny, perfect fingers, thin, transluscent. Real. Hands like the ones I’m using to type right now. 

So bring on the memoirs that describe how and when a man draws his line in the sand about when he can end the life of a baby versus when he can’t. It gets us all talking about the reality that is abortion. Killing kids ain’t no form of compassion–and that’s all the pro-choice movement has. That’s what they defend. I’ll wait for a miracle any day of the week. And hope for a doctor who isn’t negligent in providing pain relief after birth, if such a thing is sadly needed. 

Meta