LPC -- Just say NO to McKenna

The Liberal Party of Canada is a progressive party, right? And that means they look out for womens' rights, correct? So they're pro-choice, no? Well, not so fast.

Those of us who were following Bill C-484 (the "Kicking Abortion's Ass" bill) expected the Conservatives to vote for it en masse, but were dismayed to find that it was actually a small contingent of socially conservative Liberals whose votes helped the nefarious thing get past its second reading.

Now Dion is stepping aside and a new Liberal leader being sought, and one of the names that's come up is Frank McKenna. It's bad enough that the Liberals harbour some socially conservative MPs, but now they're considering a virulently anti-choice leader? I concur with Birth Pangs:

"Birth Pangs readers will remember that New Brunswick is Canada’s answer to Kansas. A place so benighted that the provincial government flouts the Canada Health Act and refuses to pay for abortions unless they are carried out in a hospital with the APPROVAL OF TWO DOCTORS. A place so uncaring about women’s rights that said provincial government is being sued by Dr Henry Morgentaler — he of the Order of Canada — to secure the same rights for New Brunswick women as for other Canadian women.

And Frank McKenna had a lot to do with what is the matter with New Brunswick."

Just imagine how McKenna as Liberal leader would respond the next time another Bill C-484 comes around (and it will -- the fetus fetishists probably started lobbying for some MP to put forward another Private Member's Bill the minute the election was over). If the LPC is a progressive party, it needs a progressive leader, not a dinosaur who opposes womens' reproductive freedom. Not only that, but the LPC caucus needs to get its shit all in one bag as far as where it stands on stealth legislation that erodes abortion rights. Smarten up, Libs.

Epp on C-484: "Hell no! It won't go!"

These fetus fetishists were never ones to look reality square in the face and see what's really there, preferring instead to re-interpret the information to fit their own warped worldview. Big protests against the Morgentaler Order of Canada... 400. A blizzard of returned Order of Canada medals... 9 -- 3 from dead people. Massive poll... heh. A huge grassroots Astroturf uprising against Justice McLachlin... whatever. Their delusions go on and on and endlessly on.

So it's no surprise that upon hearing that his scurrilous Bill C-484 (aka the "Kicking Abortion's Ass" bill) is being euthanized and replaced with something more in keeping with Canadian pro-choice values, MP Ken Epp stomped his feet and threatened to hold his breath 'til he turned blue:

"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp told Sun Media. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."

So what? The thing is D.O.A. according to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and Ken Epp isn't running for office again. If it's not withdrawn, C-484 will just float around in Dead Bill Purgatory in perpetuity. It won't be lonely -- its buddy, C-537, will be along shortly to keep it company.

W00t!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"As election speculation hits fever pitch, the Harper government has cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Monday that the government will draft a new bill to replace Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, so that it closes the debate about fetal rights and focuses instead on penalizing criminals who harm pregnant women." [...]

"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives of the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights. Let me be clear. Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," Mr. Nicholson said.

"For this reason ... I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights." (emphasis mine)

WE DID IT!!!

(h/t: reality bites)

Overheard

...at the BTs discussion forum:

Why does everyone but Ken Epp think Bill C-484 is about abortion?

It's done.

Bill C-484, that is. So says the Canadian Medical Association, the latest reality-based group (a REAL group) to come out against the scurrilous bill.

It might be a little early for champagne, but I am keeping it on ice for later.

From the Hippie's Mailbox

It seems that someone found my post about Art Hanger and his big mouth worth discussing with his Conservative MP.

Fundamentalist chimps! HAHAHAHAAHA! (If you're reading, thanks for the laugh, Ed.)

Gotcha

It was with good reason that Harper distributed talking points on the Morgentaler Order of Canada award to all his MPs. Here's what happened when one of them, Art Hanger, deviated from the script and let it all hang out:

"“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.”"

Okay, let's parse this little pearl of wisdom.

Hanger, clearly a fetus fetishist, is against the award being given to Dr. Morgentaler because Dr. M has provided abortion services. Further, Hanger states that abortion shouldn't be "even offered" in Canada, but that it "unfortunately is" because "we don't have a law governing the taking of life of the unborn", a clear nod to Bill C-484.

Got that? Shorter Art Hanger: "Abortion is only available because we don't have a law like Bill C-484."

That's the first time I've seen an MP admit, openly and on the record, that Bill C-484 would affect abortion rights at all, let alone nullify them. I wonder if Artie realizes he's making a liar out of his fellow Conservative MP Ken Epp, who's long insisted Bill C-484 has nothing to do with abortion?

(Slightly off-topic, there's a poll on Dr. Morgentaler on the same page as that Globe & Mail article I linked to. You know what to do.)

UPDATE: Or maybe Epp doesn't care...

Ho-hum

Another day, another fetus fetishist sticking his nose in someone else's private parts. Here's our old buddy Tim Bloedow from Christian Government (haters of me, Mike, Dave, CC and EG), commenting on the justifiably paranoid response of pro-choicers to Bill C-484 (aka the "Kicking Abortion's Ass" Bill). Bloedow shrieks:

I love this unlinked, unsubstantiated comment: "BQ MP Nicole Demers, who Maclean's recently reported as having procured four abortions of her own babies"... "Having procured" -- like she hired a hit squad. And just what business is it of Tim Bloedow's and his whacked-out readership's anyway? What is the point? The only point I get out of it is that he's an asshole!!!

CoD Bloggers -- Antonia joins the fray!

Antonia speaks. You listen.

UPDATE: That was the Star (MSM!) article -- now, for your further reading pleasure, the Broadsides Blog Post.

Dion vows to kill Bill C-484

Looks like Bill C-484, the Kicking Abortion's Ass bill, might be getting an asskicking of its own:

"Stephane Dion vowed today that Liberals will block passage of a Tory bill that some fear might re-open the dormant abortion debate.

"I want to give my word to all the women of Canada that the Liberal Party of Canada is against to reopen woman's right to decide as a debate," the Liberal leader pledged.

Dion made the promise during a news conference at which he also announced that a Liberal government would create a commissioner for gender equality. The independent officer of Parliament would be tasked with analyzing the impact on women of all government programs and policies.

The "unborn victims of crime" legislation is a private member's bill proposed by Edmonton Tory MP Ken Epp, which would make it a crime to take the life of a fetus against the will of the mother.

Although the bill specifically exempts abortion, pro-choice advocates fear it would give legal status to the fetus and would, thus, be a step towards recriminalizing abortion.

Dion indicated that he shares the view that the bill would reopen the abortion debate and vowed: "We will not allow that to happen.""

Finally, Dion seems committed to actually blocking this nefarious piece-of-shit bill. If I were a little more cynical, I might point out that March 4th would have been a better time to make this announcement, but I'll take victory where I can get it.

Kicking Abortion's Ass bill supporters: bye-bye, dickheads!

UPDATE: And Birth Pangs is already on the case.

(h/t reality bites in the comments)

Your concern is underwhelming

This "ProWomanProLife" blog is fast becoming one of my favourite resources for anti-choice idiotisms. Today Anti-Choice Andrea links to Bread n Roses to make some kind of moronic point about opposition to Bill C-484:

"So there was a demonstration in Montreal against Bill C-484 yesterday after all. Read about it, here.

Many carried grisly signs; others opted for clever slogans such as “Epp, Harper: Je fais ce que je veux avec mes oeufs,” (What I do with my ovaries is up to me.) After the rally, protesters marched down the hill to Berri Square.

I say go to town, you and your ovaries–it’s more unborn babies I’m concerned about. And when you can’t tell the difference, what you really need is a biology lesson."

Yeah. And if you were really concerned about "unborn babies" *sob*, and not just wanting to stuff your nose in someone else's crotch and dictate how they use it, you'd be recommending contraception to cut down on unwanted pregnancies, not buying into steaming, stenchified bullshit like this.

When you can't tell the difference between that which is your business and that which is not, what you really need is a lesson in basic good manners. I've got one right here on the sole of my boot, want a closer look? Imbecile.

Justice for Unborn TV Sets

In their never-ending and fruitless quest to patch together some credibility for the nefarious Bill C-484 (aka the "Kicking Abortion's Ass" bill), SUZANNE and friends have come up with a new analogy that they believe demonstrates the bill's "common sense". To wit:

"Let's say some guy is on his way from WallMart (sic) carrying a brand new big screen plasma TV. As he walks to his car, a criminal approaches him and hits him on his arm with a metal rod, breaking the bone. Of course, there's no way the guy can hold a heavy TV set with his arm broken, so he drops the box, and the TV gets smashed. What crimes should the assailant be charged with in this case? Would it be sufficient to charge the guy only with causing bodily harm or should he be charged with destruction of property as well?"

Party-pooper that I am, I feel obliged to point out that the "victim" in this little scenario is still the guy who got attacked, not the TV set that got smashed in the commission of the assault.

And so it goes with Bill C-484: the victim of an assault on a pregnant woman is always the woman first, the TV set second. And since the TV set isn't a person, it can't be a "victim of crime". This is where a bill like C-543 makes so much more common sense, since it allows extenuating circumstances (like a smashed TV set or a miscarriage) to be considered when assigning the punishment for the crime of assault.

D'oh! NEXT!!

Keep those non-answers coming

Anti-choicers are always nattering and jabbering away about how we "need" Bill C-484 to "protect a woman's right to give birth", yet when asked to explain just exactly how it would protect... aw hell, I don't have to tell you:

Hmm. Seems to me I've done this post before, haven't I?

Required reading

Must read: PSA delivers an outstanding in-depth smackdown, punch-out and asskicking to Ken Epp's defense of his nefarious Bill C-484. Go quickly now, quickly!

Epp: C-484 isn't about abortion, but if it ends up that way, so what.

Oh, I'm boiling over now. Yeoww! I just read an editorial that ran a few days ago in the Ottawa Citizen, written by MP Ken Epp, sponsor of the nefarious Bill C-484 (aka the Kicking Abortion's Ass bill). In the article, Epp wondered why pro-choicers would be so anxious about his harmless little Kicking Abortion's Ass bill. He huffed:

"There is something seriously wrong with our system when the so-called "right" to end a pregnancy takes away another pregnant woman's right to have her wanted baby protected in law."

Fetus fetishists foamed and frothed and cheered, and who could blame them -- that's one of the greatest PR slogans since "Coke Is It". Short, emotive and completely devoid of substance. That's why those who support this odious bill are never able to respond when asked to elaborate on just how Bill C-484 protects a woman and/or her fetus. No substance, no answer forthcoming.

Here's the substance, baby, the meat of the matter: Bill C-484 does nothing, diddly, squat, nada to protect a woman's wanted baby, and any rhetoric about the "protection" this bill provides is nothing but a steaming load of bullshit of the highest order. All C-484 does, and all it was ever meant to do, is give the fetus post-mortem recognition as a victim of a crime. From there it's a short hop to fetal personhood rights, and then the contentious issue of whose rights trump in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

But we know all that. We're onto these people and what the bill is really about. It was something that at first anti-choicers made little effort to hide... until they figured out it wasn't politically expedient. After a lot of backpeddling, unringing of bells, and insisting that C-484 wasn't reeeeally about kicking abortion's ass, no, not at all... and get a load of Epp in the Citizen article:

"So they are opposing this bill because it recognizes some value in the unborn child (in that it can be the victim of a crime) which might lead to some Canadians changing their minds about abortion (which also deals with the unborn child).

But how is that a justifiable reason to oppose this bill? Is it right in a free and democratic society to try to control how and what people think? If people of their own free will decide to rethink their position on an important issue, why should we try to suppress that..." (emphasis outragedly mine)

Busted!, Mr. Epp. Take your execrable Bill C-484, along with your sanctimonious horseshit about "protecting wanted babies in law", and stuff it. Oh and by the way? Reproductive choice isn't a "so-called" right -- it's every bit as much my right as the right to self-ownership and self-determination. Take your "so-called" and stick it, too, up your so-called ass.

Bill C-543 makes more sense

Liberal MP Brent St. Denis (who voted against Bill C-484) has introduced private member's bill C-543, a bill he says closes the doors left open (to an attack on abortion rights) by the odious C-484:

"MP Brent St. Denis moved to introduce a private members’ bill, C-543, saying that C-484 “left too many unanswered questions and too many doors were left open.”

St. Denis told the House of Commons, “For those of us who are pro-choice, but did not want to go down that road, I have created a simple bill, which would provide judges with the ability to increase the penalties for those who would knowingly assault or abuse a pregnant woman.”"

This is similar to what pro-choicers have been suggesting in lieu of Bill C-484 -- the recognition of a pregnant woman as a different victim category, with harsher penalties for assaulting them. That would address the loss of a pregnancy without making the fetus the aggrieved party ("unborn victim") and putting a woman's right to self-determination on the line. With harsher sentencing, it would certainly "hold accountable" anyone who causes the loss of a pregnancy, which is what supporters of C-484 have been saying all along is all they want.

One would think they'd be ecstatic with this bill -- yet they're not, and in fact consider it "a bill to counter" C-484.

If Bill C-543 holds accountable those who cause the loss of a pregnancy, you have to wonder what exactly Bill C-484 supporters think it "counters". Oops.

As the marchers marched outside

something interesting was going on inside the House of Commons, as the totally non-abortion-related Bill C-484 was being discussed. Opposition is building, it seems.

Commenting on the march, stageleft notes the number of Catholic school kids in attendance. No surprise there, it's a free field trip out of class, and a credit just for attending this little shindig. What's not to love? They bring them in by the busload. (Although if I were a conservative, I might be bitching about what my tax dollars are being spent on -- marches for causes I disagree with and who knows what all else?)

And there's another reason that I wouldn't regard student attendance at the March for Life as proof positive of the rock-solid "pro-life values" and vestal purity of those kids from Our Mother of Perpetual Persecution High (School). According to "chastity speaker"(?) Dawn Eden, if the ones from Holy Cross Catholic School are typical, they are Wild Sex Beasts, and where Wild Sex Beasts go, contraception and abortion surely follow. After Eden's less than successful speech at HCC, her website was deluged with angry messages from the kids, like this one:

"I'm a catholic and i absolutely love having sex... does it mean im a bad person? No, i think that chastity should be up to the person, I believe in making my own decisions on my lifestyle, based on what i feel is right its called cultural relativism."

and

"You are a SLUT!! You're not a virgin! Face reality. PS- Just because we wear short skirts does not make us whores! Many of us are still virgins and wear short skirts! ALSO, a lot of us LOVE SEX!!!! So what?! You're just making us want to have sex more. So just shutup cuz no one cares about your life."

But that was last week. Those young ladies were probably "marching for life" yesterday. (What they did after the march is nobody's business but their own. *wink*)

Liesite, doing what they do best

The definitive word on the odious Bill C-484 is handed down by lifesite, which claims that "Canadian lawyers support" the bill:

Do these people never stop the lies, obfuscation and weasel words? "Canadian Lawyers"? Two law professors can hardly be characterized as "Canadian Lawyers", which would seem to infer that the entire Canadian legal profession is in unanimous support of Bill C-484. For that matter, the use of the word "support" is pretty suspect. Neither of the professors quoted in the article has stated whether they support the bill or not, they've only offered opinions on its' constitutional validity.

Oddly, since it's one of the major bones of contention about the bill, the professors haven't opined on whether it could open the door to "fetal personhood" (or if they did, it wasn't included in the article). Both professors noted that C-484 could be used by some to "advance an agenda", that it was possible a lawsuit might proceed to that end, but unlikely it would be successful. Unlikely -- not certain.

A few days ago there was a barrage of little news stories that said "opposition is building to the controversial bill" as people become more aware of what it's really all about. Now we have two cherrypicked legal opinions saying "Nothing to see here, move along". Conicidence? Or Damage Control!?

Surrounded

Here's an interesting little item about a proposal to remove "Plan B" (aka "morning after") contraception from behind the pharmacist's counter and onto the drug store shelves:

"Canadians could have the most liberal access to the morning-after pill in the Western world, according to critics of proposed changes to how the drug is sold here.

An expert advisory committee has urged that the single-dose version of Plan B be available off the shelf at pharmacies, without women having to consult a pharmacist first. The recommendation would mean people could buy emergency contraceptives much the way they can Aspirin or vitamins."

"Emergency contraceptives would be more readily available here [under the proposal] than in any developed country," said Janet Cooper of the Canadian Pharmacists Association.

"I'm not sure how comfortable the general public might be if a 14-year-old could just walk in, pick it up off the shelf, buy it, not have any interaction with anybody and come back a month later and do the same thing. That's not in that girl's best interests."

Ha. If the Canadian Pharmacists Association is so pissed about it, maybe it's time for them to get a better leash on their members who won't do their jobs. Until such time, putting Plan B on the shelf is a brilliant idea. No more farting around trying to get the thing from a pharmacist who may or may not dispense it, depending on his "religious beliefs" or on how much of a judgmental prick he feels like on a particular day.

But let's act fast, because we've also got legislation in the works that might protect that pharmacist's right to be a judgmental prick -- another goofy Private Member's Bill, Bill C-537. Bill C-537 would allow health care personnel to opt of procedures that go against their religious beliefs, instead of doing what they should have done in the first place: make a different career choice that wouldn't put them in that position to begin with. The Catholic Civil Rights League is ecstatic about it, and you know that can't be good:

"The Catholic Civil Rights League welcomed the introduction of Private Member’s Bill C-537, April 16 by MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon – Wanuskewin) to protect conscience rights of health care workers.

Introducing the motion in Parliament, Mr. Vellacott said it “would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person’s religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.” Private members’ bills do not often become law. This is the third Parliament in which Mr. Vellacott has introduced a bill on this topic."

The third time!? It must be the season for recycling failed socially-conservative private member's bills and giving them another kick at the can. Bill C-484 was another legislative retread that returned from the void to take a run at becoming law. Two anti-choice bills: one from the procedural side, one from the provider side. If I was paranoid, I'd be starting to feel surrounded.

Opposition Is building...

...finally. The story of the Quebec Federation of Specialist Doctors voicing their opposition to Bill C-484 was blogged yesterday at Birth Pangs, but momentum could be building. In the last hour I've seen two news stories on TV about what's described as "opposition building to the controversial Bill":

"One of Quebec's powerful doctors' federations is joining the opposition to a federal bill that would make it a crime to kill a fetus, fearing the law will be the first step to criminalizing abortion.

"The back-door objective of this bill is to set in motion a long legal saga that would in the end give rights to the fetus," said Gaétan Barrette, head of Quebec's Federation of Specialist Doctors." [...]

"Barrette said there is no need for a new law and that judges can use their discretion to impose harsher sentences for brutal crimes."

But Edmonton Conservative MP Ken Epp, who brought forward the private member's bill, said critics are missing the point of his proposed legislation.

He said it's about protecting women who have chosen to have their children.

"She wants to give birth to that child, she wants to give it life, and love, and look after it, and it just isn't right [for] some third person to come in there, and by criminal assault, to take that choice and that baby away from her.""

(Note Epp's sly co-opting of the word "choice", something I mentioned in a previous comment thread.)

No, it isn't right for someone to take that choice away. Since it's the woman's choice, any law intended to deter and protect should obviously target the woman, not the fetus. Anyone who doesn't accept that has another agenda.