Showing posts with label womens' rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label womens' rights. Show all posts

Friday, July 25, 2008

Emma the Embryo on the Massive New Poll


Or as Fern Hill put it : 90% Don't Give a Shit
The Massive New Poll, as Campaign Life Coalition proudly calls it, was carried out via an automated demon-dialer which, according to the brand new website of the polling company CLC employed to bother people eating their dinner, "plays a pre-recorded message on a customer's answering machine, voicemail service, or even to a "live" person" :
"Do you believe abortionist Henry Morgentaler deserves the Order of Canada Press 1 for Yes Press 2 for ...."
*click*
Less than 5%, guys. You should have stuck with freeping the G&M poll.
JJ and Big City Lib investigate the various anti-choice ReformaTory relatives associated with the polling company.
And deBeauxOs at Birth Pangs explains why we should care about those associations in a chilling piece about what Operation Rescue has been up to lately.
Finally, here's a little BC history moment on Campaign Life Coalition's links to Operation Rescue :
Anti-Abortion Cop Uses Police Computer to Track Clinic Workers
Update : Buckets posts screen shots of a page from the one-day-old KLR Vu polling website -
and it's a word-for-word copy of a US polling website, which is fitting really, given that our anti-choice websites up here are often also mirror images of U.S. ones. I suppose the inability to spell "Canadians" properly should have tipped me off.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Busted!!


Conservative wingnut MP Art Hanger goes off message and lets something slip.
“I think it's a sorry day when they give that man the Order of Canada … He's not deserving of it. What has the man contributed to this nation?” asked Conservative MP Art Hanger. “Apart from providing a so-called service which I don't believe should be even offered in the nation, but is unfortunately, because we don't have a law governing the taking of life of the unborn.”
Now go read JJ.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Emma the Embryo and the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill


If a fetus is a person, then a woman isn't.
Or, if you prefer, any separate legal rights granted to a fetus as a person with the right not to be killed or injured must necessarily come at the expense of the person carrying that fetus.

In Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the word "child" appears 14 times and the phrase "unborn child" five times. Clause 5 states : "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being." (h/t Joyce Arthur)

Read that again : "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."

In Bill C-484 Endangers Abortion Rights and Women's Rights by Establishing Fetal Personhood, an excellent rebuttal to the supposed innocuousnous of the bill, Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada writes :
"Regardless of Ken Epp’s stated intent for the bill – to protect pregnant women and wanted fetuses from violence – he should realize that once enacted, his bill can be used in ways he did not intend .... By recognizing the "rights of the unborn," it creates the risk that pregnant women’s behaviour could be regulated or punished, and abortion rights restricted."
Plus, although Epp cannot be held directly responsible for the, uh, enthusiasm of his followers, their references to C-484 as a Kicking Abortion's Ass bill aren't really helping his case any.
Tuesday Update : PSA at Canadian Cynic massacres C-484 :

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Feminism is not responsible for (insert complaint here)


This has already had some of the more egregious inaccuracies and fallacies addressed. Most notably by Amanda and JJ.

At issue was the discordant assertion that the rise of feminism is somehow the direct cause of the destruction of the nuclear family. The arguments put forward are weak, to say the least, and are reminiscent of those spewed out by Mark Steyn and other such odious characters.

I urge you to read both Amanda's and JJ's take while I hit upon something else which has not yet been addressed. The conclusion of the initially linked rambling diatribe.
The rise in feminism has allowed liberties and prosperity for women which could never be understood or realized in nations in the Middle East, which labour under the delusion that a juggernaut economy can be manufactured out of the diligence of the male work force [oil-rich nations like United Emirates notwithstanding]. At the same time, it is interesting to note that extreme social conservatism in the Middle East has staved off all of the ills which come with women's liberation, like higher crime, poverty rates based on income gaps between families, divorce and psychological dysfunction, and a host of other problems. One might say that feminism has been a "necessary evil", but insofar as that it has addressed the inequities of women, the ideology has fallen far short in addressing the socio-economic inequalities it has created, and erroneously blames it on white male-European entrenchment.
What absolute rubbish.

I used to live in the Middle East. Clearly the author of the above passage has never even been there. Presumably the author is talking about Arab states with a dominant Islamic culture since Israel's reliance on its relatively liberated female population to sustain that nation is greater than that of many western cultures.

The only thing restraining women in the Middle East is men. They do it using a grossly misinterpreted religious text and punitive laws intended to subjugate women. There is a women's movement throughout the region and they take great risks in an effort to break down the barriers imposed by a brutal patriarchy. They rely heavily on association with western women's equality movements to sustain themselves since, as exemplified by the last link, exposure often results in savage punishment.

... nations in the Middle East, which labour under the delusion that a juggernaut economy can be manufactured out of the diligence of the male work force [oil-rich nations like United Emirates notwithstanding].
Where are we talking about here? That is a dangerous generalization.

In the "oil-rich" Mid-East the bulk of the labour force is not native but imported foreign labourers. In other Mid-East countries a large number of women work. And the only juggernaut economies are the oil states. A few are even starting to recognize that women need to be included at all levels of society. Bahrain, for example, when no woman was elected to parliament during the last national vote, appointed six women to the Shura council.

Kuwait has had universal suffrage, including women, since 2005 and was the third of the Persian Gulf states to appoint a female cabinet minister.

Oman, a country I am very familiar with, has had universal suffrage since 2003 and has three female cabinet ministers. Women occupy all levels of the civil service and (oh geez, brace yourself) are not permitted to cover their faces in public office. (Yes, the country is has an Islamic canon of laws; No, the law is not being broken).

What is it that is not understood or realized in those states?

At the same time, it is interesting to note that extreme social conservatism in the Middle East has staved off all of the ills which come with women's liberation, like higher crime, poverty rates based on income gaps between families, divorce and psychological dysfunction, and a host of other problems.
Really?! With no elaboration or source there is very little to support that belief. In fact, I'd go so far as to call that false. Again, a generalization

Would you like to see income gaps between families? Go to Saudi Arabia where the princes are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer as the per capita GDP is shrinking.

Do you really believe that comment on "higher crime"? Let me show you Syria.

Divorce? Do you think you have the answer to that? Let me take you for a trip through Yemen.
Under Shari'a-based law and social custom as practiced in the country, men are permitted to take as many as four wives, although very few do so. Legally the minimum age of marriage is 15; however, the law largely is not enforced, and some girls marry as early as age 12. In 2001, the Women's National Committee proposed an amendment to increase the minimum age for marriage to 18.
Notice which group is trying to have law written to prevent female children being compelled to marry. Yeah, those damned feminists again.
Shari'a-based law also requires that the wife must obey the husband. She must live with him at the place stipulated in the contract, consummate the marriage, and not leave the home without his consent. Husbands may divorce wives without justifying their action in court; however, courts routinely mandate lengthy reconciliation periods prior to granting the husband's petition for divorce. A woman has the legal right to divorce; however, she must provide a justification, such as her husband's nonsupport, impotence, abrogation of the marriage contract (for example, violating guarantees regarding her education or employment options), or taking of a second wife without her consent. A woman seeking a divorce also must repay a portion of her bride price, which creates an additional hardship.
So, divorce doesn't happen all that much. I suppose the above is what you were referring to. Isn't that a pleasant state of affairs.

Of course, places like Jordan have solved the problem of divorce. Just kill the bitch.

Let's get into the psychological dysfunction that is apparently so high in the west because of feminism and which the author insists is lower in places where the feminists haven't had their way.
Self-immolation is the terrible choice of hundreds of Afghan women every year. Trapped in unhappy marriages or hemmed in by a conservative Islamic society, they take an appalling escape route: dousing themselves in household fuel, closing their eyes, and striking a match. Most are between 16 and 20 years old, say doctors.
Suicide. By fire. Think about that... just for a sickening minute. Then tell me how much the ills of women's liberation have been staved off.

Let's take the last line of the offending post.
One might say that feminism has been a "necessary evil", but insofar as that it has addressed the inequities of women, the ideology has fallen far short in addressing the socio-economic inequalities it has created, and erroneously blames it on white male-European entrenchment.
Necessary evil? Oh those goddamned feminist nazis! Let's chalk that turn of phrase up to a Freudian slip and then conclude this properly.

Feminism hasn't created socio-economic inequalities. Over the course of centuries, feminism, which didn't start with the end of WW2 or with the cancellation of Leave It To Beaver, has always benefited society. Feminism has the effect of highlighting the worst of social ills and correcting them for women, men, children and sometimes, animals. A British soldier of today would still be living the life of his 18th Century antecedent if it hadn't been for a feminist.

What the author of the offending post fails to recognize and admit is that it has always been male dominion which the men have sought to retain. Feminism threatens that and that alone. As Amanda so aptly pointed out:
Keeping women in familial servitude served a lot of men very well, and there’s no doubt that there’s going to be some moaning that this privilege is fast fading, but it’s a matter of priorities. Women’s rights trumps men’s comforts and pleasures, and all the hysterical language describing the latter as “broken families” doesn’t change that.
So, no, Raph, we don't agree with you... at all. You might want to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect while you're wiping yourself off.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

In Ohio, if you poke it, you own it.


Via Feministe we get word of one stunning piece of legislation being formed in the State of Ohio.

Remember the Putative Father Registry issue in Virginia? Well, sure enough, Ohio has one too, and its supposed purpose is identical to that of Virginia's. (Emphasis mine)
The Putative Father Registry has been established to determine the identity and location of an undisclosed putative father who may have conceived a child for whom an adoption petition has been or may be filed in order to provide notice of the adoption to the putative father.
Adoption. Get that? It's all about adoption.

Now, you'll remember, back in that post about Virginia's Putative Father Registry, I raised the ugly specter that this may well be about more than adoption, as in perhaps to skirt the privacy precedent established in Roe v. Wade and make it about abortion.
And, if you try to secure an abortion, we already know who you are!
But, that's just me. I'm a suspicious person. Except that when it comes to Ohio, I was right.
Led by Rep. John Adams, a group of state legislators have submitted a bill that would give fathers of unborn children a final say in whether or not an abortion can take place.
Because if anyone needs their rights protected when it comes to a pregnancy, it the father! It gets, shall we say, worse.
As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.

Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.

Bad... wot? No, don't get all enraged yet. We're not done, and there is more coming.

In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
So... at least a woman would not be required to get the permission of her attacker to abort a rape induced pregnancy. How civil. She needs the permission and concurrence of the police!

Let's sort through this a little. This proposed legislation requires the father to grant permission for the woman, whom he claims to have impregnated, to have an abortion. If he disagrees with her desire to terminate the pregnancy, she would have no say. If she disagrees with his position, she still has no say. The man's decision trumps the decision of the woman.

How is that fair? Well, because he's a man; she's just a slut. He gets to decide; she gets what's coming to her. And don't forget: he's registered!

This proposed legislation also lends itself to unbelievable potential abuse. As EF at Feministe points out:

It’s not encouraging choices, it’s encouraging either (a) nothing at all because people in healthy relationships already talk about unplanned pregnancies or (b) abuse and manipulation. Let’s guess which is more likely.
Because, if after discussing whether the pregnancy should continue, there is no resolution, the prospective father does not just have a "say" in the matter; he has absolute dominion over the woman and a state ordained veto.

It will be interesting to see how far this proposed legislation goes. Ohio has recently elected a liberal-leaning legislature and has a liberal Democratic governor.

In the meantime, Ohio State Representative John Adams and his eight co-sponsors should really consider that hobby I was talking about in an earlier post.

More from Melissa, Scott and Echidne

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Birth control denied to Montana woman... by a Canadian company



I could have taken Jessica's posting as another example of some Christian fundamentalist wacko stepping outside the bounds of reality and foisting his/her insane superstition on the public. This time it was in Great Falls, Montana where the owners of a Snyders drugstore refused to fill the prescription of a 49-year-old woman for oral contraceptives. Instead of her pills, (which she uses for medical reasons other than birth-control, and that doesn't matter), she got a note:
When she went to the pharmacy counter, she received a slip of paper signed by the pharmacy owners (Stuart Anderson, Kurt Depner and Kori Depner) stating that the pharmacy would no longer fill birth control prescriptions.

Adding insult to injury, the note goes onto say that they pharmacy will "continue to serve your prescription needs with utmost care and trust." The customer, who happens to be a 49-year-old woman who is unable to conceive and uses birth control for a medical condition, called the pharmacy and asked one of the owners why the pills were being discontinued. The owner told her that birth control pills are dangerous for women.

This is the judgment of a so-called health-care professional. What is actually happening is that Anderson and the Depners are shoving their personal brand of religious bullshit over the counter disguised as a safety concern.

That they would have the unmitigated gall to suggest they are health-care professionals is beyond the pale, until you realize that the same kind of thinking goes right to the top of the US health care system.

I could have, at that point just passed it off as one of those head-shaking moments. Women having their rights removed by some no-account, Christian dominionist pharmacist running an independent drug store in Great Falls. These are the same people who, if they are not permitted to impose their own religious beliefs on others begin to scream "persecution!". And all the while they persecute and endanger others while cloaked in their own superstitious nonsense.

I could have passed it off as one of those things that percolates up from the United States while muttering, "Damn. I'm glad I don't live there." But that would be to deny that Maria Bizecki got away with it in Calgary and still claims to be a health-care professional in Canada.

So, I looked a little deeper into the Snyders situation. Believing I would find nothing of any significance from an independent pharmacy in Montana, I was more than a little surprised to discover that Snyders is actually a fairly large chain of drugstores and is a well-known operation in the upper midwest of the United States. Snyders operates over 100 stores. Some are corporately owned and some are independently operated. The independents are franchises which must carry and dispense products in accordance with company rules. The owner of the Snyders chain of corporate and franchise drugstores is the Katz Group of companies.

And there's the kicker. KatzGroup is actually... Katz Group of Canada. The Snyders drugstore chain is owned by a Canadian retail pharmacy giant, constituting the fifth-largest drug retail operation in North America. Katz Group owns a major portion of the Canadian retail drugstore market with some highly recognizable names including Rexall, Guardian, IDA, Drug Trading Company, PharmaPlus, The Medicine Shoppe, Herbies for Drug and Food, Meditrust Pharmacy and the computerized pharmacy dispensing system, ProPharm, along with the entire Snyders Drugstore chain in the United States.

Katz Group is one of Canada's largest privately-owned companies, controlled by founder and chairman Daryl Katz. I doubt very much Katz has anything at all to do with the behaviour of Anderson and the Depners in Great Falls, Montana. By doing nothing to change that behaviour however, Katz Group is condoning the actions of the Great Falls Snyders drugstore and are complicit in denying health care to a person seeking it.

Whenever I have read this kind of story I have always wondered what the next step of the moralizing religious freaks will be. Will they, out of a sense of moral hauteur, substitute a worthless placebo for the actual prescribed drug?

I would be worried about that. So much so, that I won't do business with any pharmacy that is in any way related to the events in Great Falls. I'll go down the street, even if I have to pay a little more.

And, I'm going to let Daryl Katz know what I'm going to do, by sending an email to his company headquarters right here. If you decide to do the same, include this link.