Rest In Peace, Dr. Morgentaler

Dr. Henry Morgentaler died today. I don't write in this blog much at all anymore. I'm working on another project and had to set this aside. But the loss of this great man requires a few words. I need to take a moment to pay my respects.

Because of Dr. Morgentaler, I am a free woman. I have the right to decide what happens to my own body and I have the right to live and act according to my own conscience. Without this right, I would not be free. Dr. Morgentaler understood this. He believed in freedom. He believed in women. He trusted women. He trusted me.

I feel so much gratitude to this man. He bore the burden of the abortion rights movement in a way no one else did, and, I suspect, in a way no one else could. The strength it must have taken is unimaginable. In my very small role in the movement, I sometimes get tired - tired of the scorn and the name calling, the threat of violence. But if Dr. Morgentaler got tired, he never showed it, at least not in public. He went to jail to make the point that women can and must make their own decisions about their reproductive lives, their bodies and their families and their pregnancies. He was a true feminist. He lived his ideals. Even when it cost him. He fought and suffered for my rights before I even knew I needed him to, before I realized I wasn't equal, before I understood I didn't have the same rights as a man, before I felt in my heart the truth that we are all entitled to human rights by virtue of being human, and that there can be absolutely no qualifiers on that, no hedging, no conditions. Through his work and his commitment to the cause and his repeated demonstrations of courage, he enlightened me. He showed me that human rights are unconditional. Even for women.

I will always be grateful.

Moving

I'm moving. In the virtual world, I'm moving to a new web page. Come and visit me at www.janecawthorne.com.

Compared to this site, it's still pretty sparse, but over time, I'm going to shift some of this content and just live over at the new place.

Thanks to everyone who has visited me here. You can still reach me at my contact page here, or by emailing contact@abortionmonologues.com. Or you can contact me at jane@janecawthorne.com.

Thoughts on the 25th Anniversary of the Morgentaler Decision

Twenty five years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s law on abortion, finding it violated a woman’s right to life, liberty and security of the person. Canada's experience with the decriminalization of abortion proves that women can be trusted to make decisions regarding our lives, health and families without State interference or the threat of criminal sanction. 

Dr. Henry Morgentaler already knew this in 1968 when he began performing abortions in defiance of the law. He also knew that sending women to have their abortions approved by a therapeutic abortion committee, as the law of the day demanded, was an unnecessary barrier that wasted time and risked our lives and health. Finally, Dr. Morgentaler knew that doctors could be trusted to practice medicine safely and effectively and in the best interests of their patients.

Evidence supports this perspective. The Guttmacher Institute, a rigorous research organization in the area of sexual and reproductive health, finds abortion persists regardless of its legal status. The rates are highest and maternal health outcomes are poorest where there are restrictive laws around abortion and where contraception is difficult to access. Laws against abortion do not reduce the number of abortions, nor do they make women safer. In Africa where most abortions are illegal, the abortion rate is 29 per 1000 women of childbearing age. Complications from unsafe abortion result in 13% of maternal deaths worldwide. In 2010, the last year for which numbers are available, the abortion rate in Canada was about 14 per 1000 women of childbearing age. Our outcomes are better than those of countries with legal restrictions.

In Canada, although abortion is no longer a criminal matter, it is not unregulated. Doctors abide by Canadian Medical Association guidelines. Ninety percent of abortions are performed on request in the first twelve weeks and ninety-eight percent are performed in the first sixteen weeks. The procedure is safe and Canada has one of the world’s lowest maternal mortality rates from abortion. The CMA regulates abortion responsibly just as it does every other medical procedure. Only 1.9 percent of abortions happen over twenty-one weeks, and these are performed only in cases of severe fetal anomaly or where the life of the woman is at risk.

 
As the Guttmacher Institute notes, for health outcomes to be optimized, legalization must be accompanied by a sustained commitment and dedicated resources to areas such as comprehensive sexuality education and doctor training. In Canada, there is still more to do. A University of Ottawa report finds long wait times in Ontario, in part because only one in six hospitals in Canada offers abortions. Access is severely limited in rural and northern areas and abortions are unavailable in Prince Edward Island. In New Brunswick, women must still seek the approval of two doctors to have their abortion covered under the provincial health plan. This flagrant violation of the Morgentaler decision persists under successive intransigent provincial governments and federal governments willing to turn a blind eye.

Since 1987, there have been about 45 attempts to recriminalize or restrict abortion through the introduction of Private Members Bills or Motions. Not one has passed, nor would one likely survive a Charter challenge. Passage of such a bill or motion would be a blow to women’s rights akin to retracting the right to vote or the right to own property.

In a report to the United Nations, The Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health describes laws restricting abortion as an abuse of state power. Such laws “infringe human dignity by restricting the freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in respect of decision-making and bodily integrity,” mirroring the finding of our own Supreme Court. The report urges all countries to end such restrictions.

Those reluctant to end restrictive laws can look to Canada as a role model. For this, we can express our gratitude to Dr. Morgentaler and all who helped him in this work.  

 

 

The Morgentaler Decision

The 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler Decision is almost upon us, and the tributes are beginning to surface. I want to share a few with you. Have a look at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's tribute to Dr. Morgentaler and leave a message if you are so inspired. Joyce Arthur of ARCC has also written some great stuff lately on the benefits of decriminalization.

When I am thinking about Dr. Morgentaler or writing about him, I often refer to an excellent biography about him by Catherine Dunphy called Morgentaler: A Difficult Hero. To me, it is the definitive text. And I was reminded this morning of a great interview with Dr. Morgentaler with the National Review of Medicine that he did on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the decision available on line.

There are tributes happening across Canada. In Calgary, there is a showing of the new documentary Status Quo? to celebrate the decision. Although the doc deals with issues beyond reproductive rights and gets us to think about all the unfinished business of feminism in Canada, it is a good choice for this day. One section of the film is dedicated to Dr. Morgentaler and the current day fight in New Brunswick, which has been the subject of this blog before. One of my favourite moments in the film is footage of Judy Rebick getting in the face of someone attempting to attack Dr. Morgentaler. She is absolutely fierce, and it is this ferocity that was necessary to have abortion decriminalized.

Many people like Judy Rebick stood with Dr. Morgentaler to change the laws in Canada. He didn't do it alone, but he was the face of the movement, the one that risked it all, the one that went to jail. He risked his own safety to keep women safe. To understand exactly what he accomplished, the best thing to do is actually read the Supreme Court verdict. It is inspiring.

My postings are getting fewer and farther between lately. I often feel I've said everything I have to say about abortion. With the temporary quiet given to us by election losses on the far right, I've not been prodded into blogging by idiotic relics of patriarchy blathering about taking my rights away. The anniversary will bring out the anti-choicers and their whines of "we need a law." Actually, we don't. Canada's experience has proven this. Nevertheless, attempts to eat away at women's rights will continue with things like Motion 408, which has to be at least the forty fifth attempt by anti-choicers to criminalize or restrict abortion since the Morgentaler decision. They've lost every battle, and they will continue to do so because women are not going to give up our rights. Unlike me, they never seem to get bored. So I can't either. And neither can you. I've said it so many times, I almost feel I have to quote myself. Without control of our bodies, women are not free.

And to Dr. Morgentaler: You showed me the way before I even knew I was searching for it, before I knew how to challenge power or speak truth to it, before I found my own voice. You showed me what my rights were. You imagined a reality for me that I couldn't yet see for myself and you fought to get it for me. You taught me what it was to be feminist. Thank you.

What Happens When Women Can't Access Abortion?

When women can't access abortion, sometimes they die. It's that simple. The recent case of Salvita Halappanavar, the Irish woman who suffered and died while a hospital refused to complete a miscarriage in progress because there was still a fetal heartbeat tragically underlines this possibility. Her death highlights what happens when health policy is dictated by religion, not science.

There is no excuse for the death of this woman. Reputable, peer reviewed, scientific research has shown repeatedly that denying women access to abortion increases maternal mortality.* Now there is a new study, The Turnaway Study, that teaches us even more.**

The Turnaway Study looked at women who were "turned away" when seeking abortions versus women who received care. It both debunked myths and deepened our understanding of some of the social outcomes of denying abortion care. For example, they find that there is no proof that women who have abortions have poor mental health outcomes or a greater risk of drug use. What they did find was that women denied access to abortions are more likely to live below the poverty line one year later than their counterparts, they are more likely to be unemployed one year later, and more likely to be on public assistance one year later. Clearly, this places a cost burden on the state.

Some countries get it. France recently decided to make abortion a free service for all women, something that will inevitably save the country money. Although I would never argue the case for abortion simply because it saves the state money, the fact that it does is good. But we can't pick and choose which human rights to support by their cost. Denying human rights always has a social cost.  Steven D. Levitt makes the case in Freakonomics that Roe v. Wade resulted in a decrease in the crime rate. Again, a good outcome, but not one that would comprise the main part of any argument I made supporting access to abortion.

To me, the most troubling finding of the The Turnaway Study is that women denied access are more likely to live in violent and abusive relationships one year after being turned away. They did not enter these relationships in the intervening year; they were less likely to escape them. Getting an abortion allowed women to get out of violent relationships more easily.

As reported before in this blog, laws criminalizing abortion have such terrible results for women that UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health condemned them on October 24, 2011, calling them an abuse of state power. That's what the situation in Ireland looks like to me.

We are fortunate in Canada. We have no law on abortion. In spite of recent rallying cries by anti-abortion zealots such as MP Woodworth and his cohort, we don't need a law. Canada's experience with the decriminalization of abortion proves that we don't need a law. The twenty fifth anniversary of the Morgentaler decision is coming up this January. Canada has a generation of women who have never known anything but a society in which abortion is a medical matter, not a legal matter, and the sky has not fallen. A recent poll shows Canadians understand the benefits of this policy on our society and the majority of Canadians support unrestricted access. It's time we take the message of this success story to the world.

--------------
Notes:

*(See any number of studies on the Guttmacher site, which has a whole section related to abortion, here.) 

**(The Facebook Site linked to above has a ton of information. To keep it a little more brief, see this article by Annallee Newitz. It also includes a link to the whole study.)

Review from Vernon

They say never to read your reviews, and I obviously don't do it too often. This is a review from a production that happened months ago, in Vernon BC. I finally read it today. It's really pretty good, and I wanted to share it with you.

Of course, we always like our good reviews, and again I have to thank Jessika LaFramboise and the cast and crew of this production at the Hub Arts Collective for their hard work.

Here is the review by Graeme Higginson. If you're thinking about a production, this should help you decide and give you a good idea of how the play is taken up by the audience.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-hub-arts-collective/reviews-by-graeme-higginson-the-abortion-monologues/263764340401858

Another interesting note from the Vernon show. The producer provided me with quite a few stories after the fact. One was that a local anti-choice group was pretty stoked about protesting the play. They were contacting her, making sure the show would go on because they really wanted to protest. I found it interesting that the lines of communication were so open between the two. Good to know that civility reigns in Vernon. Two of the anti-choice group's members watched the play the first night and took copious notes. In the end, they decided not to protest. Interesting. This pleases me. When we listen to the voices of women (even if they are fictional) rather than the polarized talking heads that usually take up so much of the public space on this issue, understanding develops. It's harder to hate someone you know, or feel you know. This is how change happens.

Video Clips from Missoula, Montana

The fine people at the Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana staged a production of The Abortion Monologues on November 1, 2012. These four video clips capture a little of the night. I want to thank everyone involved in the production for their hard work in bringing my words to life so beautifully. There was lots of money and awareness raised. It warms my heart. It really does. Enjoy the clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9e3gQPh_d8&feature=BFa&list=ULM9e3gQPh_d8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlsSXmyCsO8&feature=channel&list=UL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5G45QrsfDk&feature=channel&list=UL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4O7C4-DLss&feature=channel&list=UL

And to all of my friends in the United States, good luck today.

How to Change Minds and Save Women

This morning, I read this remarkable blog post by a woman who used to be "pro-life" and has denounced the movement. It's very long, but so worth the read.

Libby Anne describes how she grew up in the pro-life movement, and in so many words, how her education was circumscribed by it. Out in the larger world during her sophmore year at college, she came across an article in the New York Times that explained how banning abortion and contraception does not end abortions, but in fact increases unwanted pregnancies and abortion and brings harm to women. She went to the studies cited by the NYT and read them. She realized she had been sold a bill of goods. Not only that, she realized the inconsistencies in the movement and how their stance against contraception is really about controlling and punishing women, not saving babies. The blog post is far reaching and a scathing indictment of the pro-life movement. Libby Anne is still no fan of abortion, but now looks at the issue from a pro-choice perspective and espouses pro-choice goals.

It is no big leap to realize that those chanting anti-contraception, anti-abortion and anti-women ideas also attack liberal arts education, the kind of education that demands we do the deep thinking and investigating that Libby Anne does in this blog post. This morning, Margaret Wente, the Globe and Mail columnist recently embroiled in a plagiarism scandal, made another slash at what she labels "faddish academics." Writing again about the ills of liberal arts, she attacks Queen's (one of my alma maters) as a place that is "obsessed with the politics of gender, race and speech." She writes, "Its liberal arts courses offer the usual faddish attention to race, class, gender, oppressed groups, colonialism and the sins of dead white males." Yes, it does, and with good reason. The sins of dead white males and inattention to gender, race, class, oppressed groups and colonialism result in poor thinking, thinking that fails to challenge and change so called knowledge that is really just prejudice and opinion masquerading as fact.

I've been busy with other things lately, and not attending much to this little blog, this abortion-specific forum. Libby Anne's post makes me realize that although I am bored with repeating the same old arguments, arguments that I have known and understood for decades, again and again, the effort is not wasted. It is an educational service.

Speaking of educational services, I want to thank the Blue Mountain Clinic, NARAL, and the Concord Feminist Health Center for productions they are doing of The Abortion Monologues this month. There have been a few productions leading into the US Presidential election, all attempts to get people thinking about supporting choice and supporting women. Thanks for your faith in the play as a vehicle for getting there. Yes, it's all about education. And thanks to Libby Anne for reminding me of that.

Thoughts on Sex Selection and Abortion

After their defeat with Motion 312, the back door attempt to criminalize abortion, the antis are apparently trying again. They are introducing a motion to condemn sex selection, and I would imagine, in doing so, they aim to ban abortion in cases of sex selection. Again, they are stepping way back in the process so the motion seems innocuous. But is it? They think they have found the feminist Achilles heal. They have not.

 

In my play, The Abortion Monologues, there is a monologue delivered by a character who is having an abortion because she is having a girl. She talks about being at a women’s centre and telling the worker there that she is having an abortion and they tell her she doesn’t have to do this, that in Canada, it is acceptable to have a girl and no one can force her to have an abortion. The character explains that her husband and his family are unhappy and that she is also unhappy about having a girl, about letting them down. The point is, her beliefs are their beliefs. She knows what she knows. She wants the abortion. She wants the support of the women at the women’s centre in this choice.

 

The character is sad this has to happen, but she knows it has to happen. She knows more than anyone what it will be like for this girl to be born into this family at this time. She knows how this girl will suffer in her life. The girl will suffer as she has suffered. Although it “should not” be this way, and girls “should” be as welcome as boys, in fact, they are not.

 

As women, when we decide whether or not to continue our pregnancies, we deal with what is, not with what should be or what is theoretically palatable. This woman knows she cannot provide for this child in some way that matters, in some way that matters to her.

 

Is it any different than knowing one cannot provide economically for a child and choosing an abortion for this reason? No. Will we tell the woman of no economic means that this is not a good reason to have an abortion? No. We all know we wish it weren’t so, that in a perfect world all women would be capable of supporting their families, but in our world, the imperfect world, they are not. Women still earn much less than men and have less steady work, work in lower paid part time jobs and without benefits. We lack affordable and decent child care. These are issues we all know about.

 

Is it any different than knowing one cannot provide for a child that will have significant and potentially devastating medical needs? Perhaps there will be serious challenges that will likely consume the family's time and income, leaving little left for the other children. Will we tell this woman that this is not an acceptable reason for having an abortion? No. Again, we all know that in a perfect world, the needs of every child, no matter how specific, how costly, how out of the ordinary they may be, would be met. But in our imperfect world, they are not. Again, we deal with what is, not with what should be. 

 

Meanwhile, we do not stop striving to make the world a place where these factors no longer matter, where every child’s needs are met, where something like economic constraints do not have to become part of the choice.

 

Ultimately, when we factor out all the “reasons” for abortion, whether they be economic or social, there will still be abortions. What happens when we only have women left who choose abortion because they simply don’t want to have a child? Do we tell these women that this is not a good reason? That this is selfish? No. We would not do this.

 

The whole line of thinking that some abortions are done for reasons that are more valid than others, because someone was raped, for example, is problematic. Any woman can choose an abortion for any reason, and she doesn’t have to tell us what it is. It's none of our business. 

Meanwhile, we do not stop striving to make the world a place where little girls are as wanted as little boys, where the systemic discrimination of women is a thing of the past. As we all know, taking away a woman’s right to control her own body, to be fully informed and make fully informed choices, is not a way to do this.

 

Demanding a woman give birth to an unwanted girl to make some sort of anti-sexist point is to sacrifice her will for ideology. It is as coercive as demanding she abort the girl, also a demand that sacrifices her will for ideology.

 

We assume, and I think we assume wrongly, that women who have an abortion for reasons of sex selection do so unwillingly. To impose our ideas on another woman’s life is patronizing. We can’t know. We don’t need to know. Again, it’s none of our business. As always, the pregnant woman is the best person to make this choice about her own body and her own family. No one can take this away from her. To do so would be truly sexist.  

 

The motion will undoubtedly allow racism into the argument. We will see the dreaded "White Man's Burden" argument rear its ugly head. Someone will suggest it is the place of "Canadians" to teach "Others" how to live. I have no problem asking "Canadians" to be exemplary. To do that, let's clean up our own backyard and make sure Canadian women have true equality and that we bring an end to the kind of systemic discrimination that leads to girls being worth less than boys. But let's not pretend we have this figured out already. We don't.  

 

Our bottom line has to be to let the woman decide. Always. There is no feminist dilemma here. Only sadness that our world is still so imperfect and that we are so far from achieving equality.

 

 

M 312 and Jason Kenney: What Kind of Fuckery is This?

In the immortal words of Amy Winehouse, "What kind of fuckery is this?"

I don't think this blog has left any stone unturned in M312 Shenanigans, but since today is the vote, something must be said to mark the occasion.

We know that Stephen Harper uses the rights of women as a bargaining chip to speak to his base. This is clear. We know that the Conservatives say one thing and do another, and as my mother always told me, actions speak louder than words. Today, I'd like to concentrate on just one MP, the vitriolic Jason Kenney.

Jason Kenney will vote for Motion 312. This should come as no surprise given his history. He has been anti choice forever. He was involved in threats to sue his Catholic University in California for not being Catholic enough. That is actually one of my all time favourite things about Jason Kenney. He has an ego big enough that he thinks he can direct the Catholic Church. Un-fricking-believable. When I didn't like what the Church had to say, I left it. I didn't try to make it over in my own image.

But the Conservatives are all about makeovers. You will recall that Mr. Harper said we wouldn't recognize Canada when he was through with it. This has turned out to be true. My Canada was one where the government had no business in the bedrooms of the nation, and I liked it that way.

But in a democracy, the blame (or responsibility) for what government does lies as much with the voter as with the government because, at least for now, we are the government.

Anyway, to get back to my point, we all know that Mr. Harper has said that  a vote for this motion is a vote against the government. So Mr. Kenney will be voting against his government. Can we expect to see him demoted to the rank of back bencher? Highly unlikely. No, don't be fooled. Both he and Mr. Woodworth are doing Harper's dirty work for him. They are speaking to the base while Harper gets to pretend his hands are clean.

Meanwhile women get to be continually reminded that our rights are up for debate.

Tonight at 6:00 watch carefully for what your own MP does and remember this the next time you vote. See who shows up for women's rights and who stays away. See who represents you and who does not. Keep a list. Then check it twice when the next federal election comes up.

In my neck of the woods, a by-election in Calgary Centre will arrive soon. Remember the treachery. Remember who stood up for women.

Notable Canadian Women Oppose Motion 312

I'm one of a whack of "notable Canadian women" who have signed an open letter opposing Motion 312. You can see it here. I can't tell you how happy I am to be on the same list as women such as Maureen McTeer, Abby Lippman, Penny Kome, Judy Rebick, Heather Mallick and so many others who have inspired me for so many years. This made my day.

But we all know, any woman could sign that letter, and of course all women are encouraged to do so. Copy it, put your name on it. Send it to your MP. We are all notable Canadian women. Add your name to the list.

Misogynists: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

That's how I feel about a certain segment of Americans and their misogynist blathering these days. It's too loud and it's too close. It hurts my ears, my head and my heart.

Their woman hating ways are bound to have an impact on Canada. It is still too soon to say what that impact is going to be. The impact might be positive, affirming of women's rights and equality. I think that Canadians will see the hatred being spewed at women and decide they don't much care for it. I think it will show us how important it is to be vigilant and make sure our politics don't turn into religion.
Speaking of which, Motion 312 is around the corner. I was delighted to see the Radical Handmaids come out with a drinking game for the debate. Good to treat it like the joke that it is. I think if I were to use this game watching the RNC, I would have had alcohol poisoning by the end of the night.

I'd also like to point you to a new and informative article by our friend Nick van der Graaf about how Canadian women won our exemplary right to abortion on demand, how Canada became the only country in the world where there are no legal restrictions on abortion at all, or in other words, how abortion came to be understood not as a legal matter, but as a medical matter, a matter between a woman and her doctor. Written for an American audience, I think this article could teach Canadians quite a bit as well.

And in the run up to the American election, many groups are doing what they can to educate and inform. Some are using The Abortion Monologues to get the word out and I couldn't be happier about that. Performances are being organized in Montana and New Hampshire. If you want details, stay tuned. I will post ticket information as it is made available to me.

Consequences of Unsafe Abortion

There is a special supplement out of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics dealing with the consequences of unsafe abortion that we can all add to our reading lists.

Unfortunately, before long, we'll be able to do a study of the impact of unsafe abortion in the United States, I suspect, as abortion becomes increasingly difficult to access with new draconian and ill-informed laws. It is as though the members of the right are trying to out do each other in their frenzy against women.

News stories are coming forward though, one off examples of terrible repercussions of ridiculous laws. One that is haunting me is about a teenage pregnant girl who died after her chemotherapy was delayed because it might cause her to abort. This is what happens when legislation is passed against abortion under all circumstances. Women die. Another story that is haunting me is one from Arizona, where state legislators have determined that pregnancy starts from the first day of your last menstrual period, effectively two weeks before conception. Pregnancy starts two weeks before conception. Hmmm. So a woman is always pregnant, or potentially pregnant except while menstruating, or at least on that first day. Which means, if we follow the illogical logic of the misogynist Republicans to the end, that women can NEVER have control of their own health.

It hasn't come to that yet, but I can see how it might. The fact that I just wrote that sentence scares me.

But the remarks of imbeciles like Akin help us in a way. They bring forward stories that indicate how bad things really are, already, even before Akin opened his mouth. This is a story of an American woman whose rapist attempted to get custody of the child that resulted from the rape. And beyond the borders of the United States, the remarks remind us that although they may be (for a while at least) considered outrageous in the US, they are pretty typical in other parts of the world where women face this kind of misogyny all the time. See this great op ed by Gail Collins for more about that.

And they remind us not to let the fetus fetishists like Woodworth, Trost, Kenney and the like get control of the agenda in Canadian Parliament. Remember to speak out against Motion 312. Apparently, Conservative anti-choice MP Colin Carrie (Oshawa) has come out in favour of the motion. Write him a letter if you get a chance. He can be found at colin.carrie@parl.gc.ca. And if you don't know what to say, here is a good sample. Write again to all the anti-choice MPs. Or just speak from your heart. Tell them that it is your right to control your own body, to determine your own health care. Tell them that their actions are misogynist. Define the word for them. Chances are, they won't know  what it means.

The good and the bad - Vernon show and Motion 312

This should probably be two blog posts, but here goes. 

Here's a little press from the upcoming Vernon show from the Vernon Morning Star. Nice to see, in spite of the fact they got my name wrong. Maybe I'll be June for the rest of the month and see what that's like. 

It might not be a bad idea. Being someone else is sometimes appealing, especially when the going gets rough. I won't get into the grimy details, but the going is a little rough right now. I try to take time every day to remember the positive, remember all the things for which I am grateful. 

That's true on the repro rights front too. In spite of the ridiculous motion 312, good things are happening. Maybe good things are happening because of the motion. And wouldn't that be grand? A big ironic pie in the face to Woodworth and his ilk. For example, the Canadian Medical Association came out in strong support of women's rights and against the misogyny of Motion 312. (Hey, new name: The Misogyny Motion). Read about that here in the Globe and Mail.  By the way, the next hour of debate is scheduled for September 21 with the vote being held on September 26. As DammitJanet says, another six weeks of fetus fetishists and prayer ahead. Ug. But again, on the bright side, we'll have another six weeks for others to support the rights of women. 

What else is happening for which we can be grateful? Planning is in the works for a magnificent reproductive justice day in October. I'll give more details in the future. Would this have happened without the challenge to our rights posed by M-312? Who knows? Maybe. The anniversary of the Morgentaler decision is sparking some actions and this may have come about anyway, although the timing is maybe a little different. It's good to see so many young activists getting involved. 

In spite of the current life difficulties, I've written an essay for an upcoming book edited by Shannon Stettner on choice. I am really looking forward to seeing this one in print.

And then there is the lovely Jessika LaFramboise, bringing my show to the heartland, Vernon, BC. Jessika contacted me after seeing the show in Calgary in 2010. She had just had a baby, and had, in the process, become an even stronger advocate for choice. The same thing happened to me. Although I had always been pro-choice, after I had my daughter twenty years ago, my belief that women must be able to choose this path of their own free will became even stronger. To look at the beautiful child I had and try to imagine raising her without knowing that every fibre of my being wanted her, chose her, would do anything for her... well that was unthinkable. Parenting is not a job to be done by half measures and without total conviction. And it's not something that's easy to run away from. We can't just change our names and pretend that baby isn't ours. No, we are in it for the long haul. We must choose it - not be thrown into it by an accident or a failure of birth control. We must know when the going gets tough (and it always does in parenting) that this was our choice. 

So sending lots of love to my little girl, now a grown up, and doing so well. Another thing for which to be grateful. Like me, she has the right to choose. Like me, she is in charge of what happens to her own body. There is a lot to be grateful for in that. 

This Is My Body

There is a great new campaign, This Is My Body, originating in the US with this fantastic video.  Now it has a Canadian counterpart. This is one to watch. 

I'd like to dedicate a monologue to the infamous members of the secretive pro-life caucus. Yes, that means you, MPs Woodworth, Trost, Kenney, et al. This is MY BODY, NOT YOURS. When will they get it?

This is a great time to submit, what with the fetus-centric Motion 312 coming back to haunt us very soon.

I am delighted to see these projects calling out the misogyny in the myriad ways some try to bully and blame women and control our bodies. And I'm delighted by the last lines of the American video. It's almost a manifesto, and there's nothing I love more than a good manifesto. (Maybe a good rant. Maybe I love them both the same.) Go think about it. And then submit.

M312 Update

Same old, same old. The fetus fetishists are still at it and cluttering up Twitter with their attempt to criminalize abortion and the women who have abortions.  There is a good post from the unrepentant old hippy which is worth a read. The hippie makes some excellent points, especially around what the "real goals" of "reopening the debate" are. Don't be fooled for a minute: the only people with anything to gain from this are those who find fetal rights are more important than the rights of the woman carrying the fetus, the people who want to bring an end to abortion and a woman's right to control her fertility, to reproduce consciously, and to take care of her reproductive health safely.

As the date for the return of this issue to the House approaches, don't forget to contact your MP and have your say.

The Abortion Monologues in Vernon BC

Great to see that theatre86presents is putting on The Abortion Monologues in Vernon, BC. Look for it August 23-25th at The Hub Arts Collective.

Why not add a little reproductive rights theatre to your summer?

M 312 news

I'm on vacation and took a moment with some rare Internet access to check in on M 312 and the state of abortion politics. It looks as though the big anti choice crapavan ended with a whimper and not a bang in Ottawa on July 1. From what I understand, the fetus mobile was no where to be seen.

I checked in with Dammitjanet's blog http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/ (sorry, can't seem to do links here in the wilderness) and got some interesting news. She and the unrepentant old hippy have been in a twitter war with the Woodworth Wanks, challenging them to name the "experts" they would use to consider when the sperm/egg combo is human. Apparently, they have no idea.

Further, the pro M 312 faction is becoming a laughingstock for blocking prochoice commenters from their twitter feeds while at the same time calling for debate. If you want to follow the fun, check out the #m312 and #nodebate hashtags or start following Dammitjanet.

Now, for me, I have no hesitation blocking anyone who annoys me. Life is too short to deal with professional fetus fetishists, at least one of whom seems to have made my conversion his personal mission. (Note to Mr. Crazy, you get further with kindness than threats. At least that's how it works in my world.) But it is ironic that those demanding debate are blocking pro choice folk. The M 312 faction are using their summer extension though, and are out there drumming up business. Take a second to write your MP again.

Apparently, while I have been away, Chantal Hebert suggested that the loss of Lee Richardson and the odious Bev Oda from cabinet leaves two less pro-choice members, and this is worth noting. Sorry, I don't have the link handy for that, but you can find it if you need it. Back to the wilderness now.

Climenhaga exposes more Wildrose Anti-Choice shenanigans

In a great post on his blog, Alberta Diary, David Climenhaga exposes more Wildrose shenanigans about abortion. Kevin Kinahan, former candidate in Lethbridge-West has been explicitly anti-choice in the past, calling for an end to funding abortion. Have a look at Climenhaga's excellent post here. My thanks to David for continuing to dig, even after the election is over.

Both Wildrose and the Federal Conservatives try to have it both ways on abortion, remaining anti-choice to thier base while pretending to be neutral or pro-choice to the rest of us. Here is yet another example. Like David, I wonder how long this page will stay on the internet? Any bets?

The delay of M-312: What does it mean?

In my ongoing series on what to expect while we’re expecting Motion 312, here is some more information, specifically about the delay in the second hour of debate and the vote. 

You will recall that the second hour of debate had been scheduled for June 7 with a vote for June 13. All indicators were that this motion was an embarrassment to the government and Mr. Woodworth’s attempt to re-open the abortion debate would fail miserably. In fact, a June 6, 2012 article in the Globe and Mail reported that a vote in favour of the motion would be considered a vote against the Prime Minister and Tory MPs were being urged to quash it.

That article had likely already gone to print on the night of June 5 when word came out very late that night that the vote was going to be delayed. The word was Mr. Woodworth was having a family medical emergency. In an email to supporters he explained that his mother was ill and added, “The new arrangement has personal benefit for me.”

The “personal benefit” he receives from the delay is that he gets the summer to lobby. According to Miriam Rycroft, Policy and Stakeholder Relations Officer with the NDP, Mr. Woodworth’s office is trying to book meetings with some of the male MP’s about M-312. The request for meetings states that he wants “to better educate his colleagues on the real issues within the bill.” He goes on to say that, “some issues have been distorted by the media and are not well understood.”

I think Canadians understand what’s going on with your motion just fine, Mr. Woodworth. Do I have to excerpt Gordon O’Connor’s speech against the motion in the House again?

Woodworth may be hoping to gain momentum from anti-choice activities happening over the summer. The fetus-mobile blood and guts road show isn’t winning any friends from what we can see, so I think this effort will fail.

The note that he is specifically approaching male MPs is telling. Apparently, as with his GOP brethren to the south, Mr. Woodworth thinks men are better able to think straight about women’s bodies.

But having said all that, the process undertaken to delay the motion seems a bit convoluted and needs a second look. Normal protocol would be that the House Leader’s office would deal with scheduling private member’s business. But this is not how it worked in this case. Mr. Woodworth swapped his motion with a Liberal to get the timing changed, which seems to indicate his request to delay the motion was turned down by the House Leader’s office already.

I have always found it mystifying that in spite of the Prime Minister’s insistence that he wants this issue buried, it lives on. I have wondered before on this blog if this means Mr. Harper slipping a bit in his control-fest. Did Woodworth do an end run around him by going to the Liberals for the switch? Possibly. But it is also entirely possible that the Conservatives are putting on another show and doing an end run around us, using another private member’s bill to appease their base on an issue that is not supported by the majority of Canadians. With the delay, they make the Christian right wing anti-choice base of the party happy, while at the same time being able to deny responsibility for the delay and the continued presence of this issue in the public. Good Game. Looked at from their side, this delay has a bright side both for the MP and the PM. But looked at from the pro-choice side and the side of the vast majority of Canadians who are pro-choice, every day this motion hangs around is another day for us to remind ourselves that this government is perfectly willing to put women's rights up for debate, to play politics with our health and our security, and raise the spectre of recriminalization.

The important thing to know is that the anti's haven’t given up on this. For the pro-choice side, this means we can’t get complacent. Continue to email your MPs and get petitions signed, knit wombs, and plan your actions. It’s not over.

Meanwhile, I'm still reeling from the Omnibus Budget Bill. Talk about shenanigans. I wouldn't put anything past this government. If you aren't already, follow ShitHarperDid on Facebook and search the hashtags #denounceharper and #blackoutspeakout on Twitter for more about the C-38, F-35s and other letter number combinations that will get your head spinning and make you wonder what kind of tin-pot dictatorship Canada is becoming thanks to Mr. Harper.