Bubble zones and bubbleheads

Yesterday a gratuitous 10-year waste of the court's time and taxpayers' money culminated in the BC Court of Appeals ruling that the 50-metre "bubble zones" around womens' clinics do not violate the free speech rights of the anti-abortion protesters that infest the surrounding areas:

"A Canadian appeals court on Thursday upheld a provincial "bubble zone" law that limited protests around abortion clinics in British Columbia.

The three-judge panel rejected the claims of anti-abortion activists and civil libertarians that the law violated rights of free expression by stopping protesters from talking to women entering the clinics." [...]

"Two western Canadian anti-abortion activists, Donald Spratt and Gordon Watson, violated the law in 1998 outside the Everywoman's Health Clinic in an effort to have the law struck down by the courts.

The men argued unsuccessfully that protection zone was too large and that even if it had been needed at the time it was enacted it was no longer necessary because the tone of anti-abortion protests had changed."

How totally vomitous. These two guys want to get closer to the clinic so they can bully and berate the patients... and who-knows-what else? Take pictures of staff? Record license plate numbers? Leave a bomb? These people are bugfuck nuts and they've proven time and again that they can't be trusted, that's why there are bubble zones to keep them at bay. But the contention that the bubble zone law violates freedom of speech because, waaaahhh! protesters can't get close enough to really harrass the patients, is ludicrous. By that logic, stalking laws must also violate free speech.

Nobody's telling these cretins they can't say whatever they want to say -- they just can't say it that close to the clinic. They're free to jabber and foam all they want at a distance of 50 metres.

Bubble zones exist to protect the patients. This year, fetus fetishists have made a big show about how their dear departed Bill C-484 "protects pregnant women" (which it doesn't, but that's another story) -- obviously, in their view, some women are more deserving of protection than others.

Overheard

...at the BTs discussion forum:

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

Why Canada Doesn't Need An Abortion Policy

Predictably, fetus fetishists are all a-dither over Jonathon Kay's NatPo article yesterday, wherein he explains Why Canada Needs An Abortion Policy (also known as "regressive abortion law"). He refers to a recent article of the same name published by Joseph Ben-Ami of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, which he summarizes in 8 easy-to-read (even for fetus fetishists!) talking points. Oh well, it's a nice day for a fisking (caution -- don't light any matches, multiple straw men ahead):

"1. At late stages of pregnancy, there is very little biological or moral difference between slaying an unborn fetus and slaying a delivered baby. Yet, the latter is rightly considered murder, while the former isn't even illegal."

Now that's what I call good propaganda -- an emotional hook, a little science and a little "morality"... but no facts. On those rare and tragic occasions (less than half of 1%) when late-term abortions are done, it's only because the fetus is damaged or the mother's life is in jeopardy. But mentioning this little factoid would diminish the shock and awe value of Kay's statement. Dead babies! Ack! Onward...

"2. Every other country in the world has some sort of abortion law, unlike Canada. We tend to regard European nations as the height of social liberalism. Yet their laws are actually quite strict when it comes to gestation limits on abortion. France, for instance, permits abortion on demand only until the 10th week of pregnancy. Is this really a case where we're right and the whole rest of the world is wrong?"

The short answer to that question is "Yes, Dumbass, this really is a case where we're right and the rest of the world is wrong," and one element of proof is that in spite of their draconian abortion laws, France's abortion rate is higher than ours. You were saying...?

"3. Creating a law to regulate abortion does not hinge — as some high-school debating types presuppose — on the existence of fetal rights. Even if one supposes that a fetus has no rights whatsoever (a radical, but admittedly widespread position in post-religious Western nations), that does not mean society has no right to protect a fetus. After all, we protect all sorts of things that have no rights — including trees, wetlands, endangered insect species and heritage buildings. If we extend protection to those things in certain cases (notwithstanding the offsetting rights of affected property owners), why would we not protect an unborn child, in certain cases, notwithstanding the offsetting rights of a mother?"

It's astonishing that I have to keep pointing out that all these "other things we protect" aren't inside anyone's body. A bit of a difference there, no? NEXT!

"4. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court of Canada never declared that the government had no right to regulate abortion — nor did it claim that a fetus had no rights (though it has claimed that a fetus is not a "person"). All the Supreme Court did, in its 1988 Morgentaler decision, was strike down a regulation system that was unpredictable, badly administered, fragmented and out of date. Nothing in Canadian constitutional law or supreme court jurisprudence would prevent Parliament from creating a new law that oultawed abortions after, say, 14, or 16, or 18 weeks of gestation."

No, nothing at all would prevent the creation of such a law... if political self-preservation wasn't an instinct the government possessed. In addition, we all know that any law that was put in place would only open a can of legislative worms anti-choicers would quickly take advantage of in their quest to make abortion completely illegal. (Then they'd start on contraception.) NOBODY wants that. Moving right along...

5. The number of women who have died as a result of botched, back-alley abortions in the immediate pre-Morgentaler era is surely exaggerated when people casually debate the abortion issue — though it is definitely not zero. (I don't see this as a winning argument — since all you need is one truly horrible example in this genre, graphically described, to win on this point. But Ben-Ami is likely correct that the pre-Morgentaler death toll from botched abortions was probably only about one a month, a tiny fraction of the number of viables fetuses aborted post-Morgentaler.)

This is so vile I'm not even sure what to say: not enough women died from back-alley abortions to make abortion rights worthwhile? Jonathon, your misogyny is showing. Asshole.

"6. Given the manner in which social revolutionaries are changing the face of bioethics, it is only a matter of time before an enterprising lawyer or activist judge is able to get an infanticide suspect off the hook on the grounds that (as described in point #1, above) what he did was little different from late-term abortion, a perfectly legal practice."

Ah, finally, the slippery-slope argument... that, once again, neglects to mention the crucial difference that a fetus is inside (and attached to) a woman's body, while an infant is not. Complete and utter bullshit. MOVING ON...

"7. Our lack of abortion law makes a mockery of efforts to discourage immigrant Asian families from selectively aborting female fetuses. Canadian doctors and their oversight bodies condemn such practices as "repugnant" — but their admonishments carry little moral force: If our laws permit mothers to abort their unborn children at any time, for any reason at all, why should they listen to the men in white coats just because their motivation happens to be tied to the child's sex?"

Okay, now the bullshit's getting thick. Kay tacitly (and probably inadvertently) admits that doctors are policing their own practices without the help of legislation when it comes to sex-selection abortion. So why the disconnect between that and late-term abortion, or other abortion scenarios that might be contraindicated by a doctor? And how on earth would a law give a doctor's orders more "moral force"? All a law means is that state thugs back the doctor's decision. AND finally, this little gem:

"8. And if it is fine to abort a fetus because of its sex, why not because it suffers from a genetic abnormality — even a mild one? Or because it is has some gene linked to ... well, take your pick of socially and medically undesirable traits? A free-for-all abortion policy is a necessary, and in some cases sufficient, condition for parentally-administered eugenics."

Kay must be a skier because he sure likes that slippery slope! His final point is the one where all abortion "debates" end (in frustration at the stupidity): eugenics. Parents intent on creating a master race will abort their "imperfect" offspring, egads. Again, if that ever became a trend (and that's a pretty big "if"), the decision is in the able hands of the doctors, who've proven they need no help from the state to make the appropriate medical decisions.

Ya know, if the government had put an abortion law in place 15 or 20 years ago, it probably would have been lamely accepted as a tie-up of the legal loose ends left by the Morgentaler Decision. If a law was to be created, that would have been the time to do it. But serendipity (and that nasty instinct of political self-preservation) allowed us a 20-year experiment in "lawless abortion"... and we proved it works. Given that abortion rates have steadily declined without the imposition of any regressive laws, women and doctors have proven beyond any doubt that they're more than capable of policing themselves, and that Canada doesn't need an abortion law. Putting a law in place now would be akin to fixing something that ain't broke.

Be careful what you wish for.

The Morgentaler dealio last week was truly a gift to editorial writers, coming as it did during a week when they'd otherwise be writing articles like "The Top Ten Reasons Canada is So Great" (one of which is: no abortion law). Not surprisingly, some are having a hard time letting go of such a rich motherlode of outrage.

This week Macleans, for no apparent reason other than to milk the controversy and stir the pot, ran an article by Andrew Coyne entitled "It's time to talk about abortion". (Dr. Dawg has a more in-depth analysis of Coyne's loquacious little wag-o'-the-finger.)

Coyne has problems with the fact that abortion has existed in a legal vacuum since the old law was struck down in 1988 by R v. Morgentaler. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do authoritarians. There's lawlessness going on! Laws! We need laws!

Other than anti-choice crackpots, I can't understand why anyone would harbour such a burning desire to legislate abortion. Not only is each woman's reproductive business her own and nobody else's, but somehow we've done just fine without a law. Better than fine, actually.

Proponents of legislation will clutch their pearls and jabber querulously about late-term abortion, but late-term abortions make up less than one-half of one percent of all abortions, and are only performed in dire circumstances. A law wouldn't change any of that. "But what if someone decides to abort a 9-month fetus!!? For conveeeeeenience!? It's not illegal, so they can!!!" the nutters will shriek and swoon. What if? In the extremely unlikely event that someone would want to do something so bizarre, good luck finding a doctor who'll do the procedure -- no doctor in Canada would do it. Authoritarians don't like this but, the truth is, women and doctors police themselves and make all the right decisions, themselves, without the state's helpful intervention.

But then the freaks on the fainting couch will reach for the smelling salts and, like Coyne, they'll gasp: "But alone among developed countries, Canada has no abortion law!!!"

So what? What makes the other countries right and Canada wrong? They just haven't had the chance to see how well this lawlessness thing works, that's all; Canada is something of a pioneer in that respect. Through sheer disinterest on the part of Canadian citizens and lawmakers, we've had a 20-year experiment which has proven conclusively that we don't need an abortion law. Nope, women aren't aborting 8-month fetuses, women aren't using abortion instead of contraception, and hot damn! the abortion rates are dropping. It seems to me that the rest of the world should be taking their cues from us, not the other way around.

Of course, there'll always be twisted authoritarian creeps who have darker reasons for wanting to legislate the womb; those rotten douchebags who can't wait for the day when women are punished for having non-procreative sex, and they won't rest until they see an abortion law. To them I say (in an ominous tone): be careful what you wish for. We've been far too long and far too successful in getting by without a law. Any "national discussion" on abortion law at this point could well end with abortion rights enshrined, locked in and secured in a way that's untouchable.

Which, the more I think about it, seems like a worthy goal.

UPDATE: Mr. Coyne's argument for allowing the state into the wombs of the nation takes a well-placed boot to the nads from Dave...

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...

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.