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 If it's not withdrawn, C-484 will just float around in Dead Bill Purgatory in perpetuity.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.

Maybe it's just me, but

doesn't this sound an awful lot like religious interference in government? I mean, SC Justice Beverley McLachlin is a government appointee, and these "42 Christian Groups" are trying to have her removed from her job. No, I don't think it's just me. I think it's a pretty clear case of religious interests butting into government in a way that -- who knows? -- might even put their funding or tax-exempt status in jeopardy if they're not extremely careful.

But never mind that. Have a look at what the Canada Family Action Coalition's Brian Rushfeldt had to say about it all:

"Brian Rushfeldt, head of the Calgary-based Canada Family Action Coalition, said McLachlin's role in the selection process of the honour, which was given to the 85-year-old Morgentaler in July amid much controversy, could influence cases involving reproductive rights that appear before the courts." (emphasis mine)

Cases involving reproductive rights that appear before the courts? Why might something like that happen? Maybe if Bill C-484 was passed?

Keep talking, you rotten douchebags. We are sooooo onto you.

Pushing their luck

Grab those Crying Towels! Oh, boo hoo hooooo! Pernicious "pro-life" dingbats with friends in high places in the US Department of Health & Human Services are finding out what happens when you push your vile madness a little too far.

Yep, good old "conscience legislation", the bane of anyone who wants safe and timely access to health care. The HHS has been considering a "conscience" regulation that would allow anti-choice doctors and pharmacists to opt out of doing their jobs procedures they don't personally approve of. Unfortunately, the fundie faction pushed its luck by adding a clause which would effectively define contraception as abortion. After meeting with righteous outrage from, well, Anyone With Their Head Screwed On, the HHS is now backing off the proposed regulation, and wants a do-over:

"HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt in a Thursday entry in his professional blog said that he wants draft HHS regulations rewritten with a narrow focus on allowing health care workers to refuse to participate in procedures they find objectionable..." [...]

"Leavitt said that HHS is "still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience" (Fox, Reuters, 8/8). However, Leavitt did not say what he meant by "practitioner conscience" or the extent to which the protection would allow health care workers to deny services."

Secretary Leavitt blogs in response to criticism here:

"An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true."

Leavitt insists the new rule is not an attack on contraception. Do we believe him? Naaaahhhh! He's busted!, and it won't be easy to pull this one off now. Furious fetus fetishists at the American "Birth Control Pill Kills" League know this too, and are blowing. their. lights.:

"Why is Secretary Mike Leavitt kowtowing to birth control companies and abortion activists?" asked Jen Catelli, American Life League director of media relations. "If he is seeking to protect conscience rights of those who want nothing to do with abortion, he needs to recognize that contraceptives can cause abortions."

Sure it does, and that's why ALL's anti-BC pill campaign in June was such a resounding suck-sess! And now, ALL because they pushed the issue, instead of getting the regressive conscience rule they wanted, they may not get any conscience rule at all. OOPS! Pushing one's luck can sometimes end badly.

"Conscience legislation" is a steaming load whatever way you look at it. A commenter at Leavitt's blog summed it up nicely:

"If I run a trucking company, and I have one employee who refuses to deliver goods to red houses due to his religious beliefs, I may try to accommodate that need by providing alternate truckers where possible to provide service to that house, which deserves service and whose business I need. But if at some point his belief issues extend to green houses as well, then there is a serious problem, which can only be resolved by his either looking for work amenable to his freely held beliefs, or by his finding a way to keep his beliefs out of my trucking business."

Take note, fetus fetishists.

That's why we call them "lying liars"

In the wake of the KLRVU debacle, it's worth remembering that social conservatives are against more than just abortion, and are equally disingenuous in how they champion their other pet causes.

I mean, who could possibly forget the feverish campaigning they did against equal marriage in the run-up to the last election? In anticipation of a socially-conservative Harper government taking the reins and rolling back the ridiculous right for gay couples to celebrate their love just like anyone else, a number of "Defend Marriage! Think of The Children!"-type websites sprung up overnight. They were all run by the same people, but the noise they were able to generate made them seem like a far greater number than they really were. Like when they freep online polls. Or conduct you-know-what kind of phone POLLS.

The methods the socons used in their anti-equal marriage campaign are uncannily similar to their campaigns against abortion and, most recently, against Morgentaler's Order of Canada -- a lot of noise being generated by not that many people. Buckets wonders if their movement can even properly be called "grassroots", or is it something else?

Fetus Fetishists Ladies' Auxiliary responds to KLRVU poll stomp

Oh dear, our relentless beatdown of the propagandalicious Klrvu poll has Andrea and Brigitte at "ProWomanProLife" beaking off:

As the girls no doubt know (but I'd hardly expect them to admit), the attention garnered by the ludicrous KLRVU poll hasn't been about the poll itself as much as the subterfuge and dishonesty surrounding it. A sham "poll" was done for the express purpose of producing propaganda -- the only irony is that anti-choicers obstinately refuse to see what's right in front of their faces.

As for where we get the idea that being anti-abortion means wanting to control other peoples' sex lives, we need look no further than the anti-contraception propaganda spewed by these same people. Given that contraception is the only thing short of abstinence that prevents unwanted pregnancy, it seems like an odd position for an anti-abortion person to take... unless... unless... bingo! Unless they wanted to control other peoples' sex lives!

Speaking of "other peoples' sex lives", I wonder if Andrea's still with the "Institute for Marriage & Family", who eventually gave up their fight against equal marriage (or so they said), but still publishes articles with alarming titles like "Bringing the State Back Into the Bedrooms of the Nation". (Yeeow! Can you say "Nanny statist"?)

Pissed off that your poll was outed as a sham? Tough. We're onto you people. Take your sanctimonious platitudes and stuff them.

Panic, MASSIVE POLL-style

After her long-winded defense of phone-spam polling on Monday, SUZANNE's been thinkin'. Today, rather than defend the KLRVU poll with backup data on its methodology, she tries to poke holes in the methodology of the Ipsos-Reid and Angus Reid polls that found 2/3 of Canadians were good with the Morgentaler OC. Too much weighting, or not enough. Over-representation of pro-abortion demographics. Then she concludes:

""The media and the left-wing bloggers accepted these polls without question, without looking at the methodology.""

Gee... I wonder why that might be. Ya think the reason we "accepted these polls without question" might be because we could find Ipsos-Reid and Angus Reid in the phone book, or on the internet, or on some roster of polling companies, or through Industry Canada, in the event that we did have questions? Or because Ipsos-Reid and Angus Reid are proven pollsters with years of experience? Or because the questions asked were unbiased? Or... I could go on, but you get the gist.

SUZANNE still doesn't seem to get that, as John Counsell said on his radio show last week, the stats mean nothing if it's not a legitimate polling company. And that has certainly not been proven. Although a website was cobbled together under duress, it still doesn't even have its own phone number, still sharing an unpublished number with LaserCut Engraving and who knows what other little cottage-industry businesses.

There's nothing inherently wrong with hiring a guy to do some kind of a poll using phone spam technology. Just don't trumpet the results as if they were anywhere near being on the same playing field as those produced by legitimate pollsters with long-standing reputations and business portfolios. They're not. That's been put to bed. KLRVU itself does a great job of explaining why we shouldn't believe their polls.

But while we're still on this increasingly tiresome subject, something that hasn't been put to rest is the question of how CLC hooked up with KLRVU in the first place. It took us days to come up with information on the company -- how did CLC manage to find them, with no phone number, no website, no listing in any business roster? Or did they just dial random phone numbers until they came up with a "polling company" that just happened to be run by the brother of one of their pet anti-abortion MPs? Serendipity?

Canada is an adamantly pro-choice country. Get over it and stop trying to prove otherwise with "polls" that are no more than lame-ass propaganda.

UPDATE: Someone from Angus Reid weighs in at SUZANNE's:

"Suzanne,

Please don't fall into the "bigger is better" trap. Angus Reid has conducted surveys on a wide variety of topics (including two that showed support for Bill C-484) and called 21 of 22 parties within the margin of error in five provincial elections using its online panel.

It's not a quesiton of contacting 13,000+ Canadians or dialing a million numbers. It's about the quality of the sample and the options available to respondents.

From a methodological standpoint, the problems with what we have seen from the KLRVU poll are:

a) No breakdowns for age, gender, household income, education or federal political preference. All we have are percentages of respondents who said "No". We can't tell if only men, only women, or even if minors answered this poll.

b) Apparently, no "Not sure" option. A poll must give a respondent the option to state that he or she does not know, and the pollster must register these answers.

c) Misleading press release. The question used is: "Do you believe abortionist Henry Morgentaler deserves the Order of Canada?" Yet the press release headline reads: "56% Oppose Morgentaler Order of Canada." A person may feel that Morgentaler does not deserve the Order, but that is not the same as actually voicing opposition to the fact that he will get it.
MCG | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 10:39 am | # "

Sounds reasonable. Shorter SUZANNE's response:

"LALALALALALA I can't heeeeeeear yooooooou, Angus Reid Pollster!"

Are we done here? Yep, I think we're done here.

Okay, this is just weird

Answer me this. How did this:
sneak into a website that's all about this:
???

MASSIVE POLL -- the beatdown goes on...

Okay, there's no doubt that the bell has rung on the MASSIVE POLL's credibility, given that after 7 days, in spite of relentless hounding, we were unable to beat any backup data or explanation of the poll's methodology out of its supporters. And no, "Duh... 150,000 households were called..." doesn't make the "methodology" cut. Geez! It's safe to say that the MASSIVE POLL has been completely and utterly, totally and thoroughly discredited, and lies in flaming ruins.

However, there's always someone who wants to run back into the inferno to save the family goldfish, as Lifeshite ably demonstrated with its retaliatory article about the MASSIVE POLL yesterday. But "Pro-abortion bloggers!" and "blatant media bias!" unfortunately don't make up for backup data which is the only thing that might possibly prove the poll's legitimacy. It's not much to ask -- it's the same information that comes with any legitimate poll, massive or not.

But unlike last week's news about the massive poll, which was feverishly blog-bursted, not many conservative bloggers seem interested in picking up yesterday's news about how "blatant media bias" sunk the poll. In fact, some of them are a little torqued about the controversy around the MASSIVE POLL, and they want answers. From FD:

Wow! Phew. Good synopsis of the MASSIVE POLL scandal there, including links to the clips from the Counsell show that buckets posted. Good questions. Now stand back, here's the first response:

To "shorter" that response: "But Mom, THEY (and their activist judges) DID IT FIRST!!!" D'oh!

BBW breaks silence on KLRVU: "LALALALALALALA!"

Finally! We were starting to think that maybe SUZANNE had taken a Vow Of Silence on the MASSIVE POLL scandal -- yes, scandal, because until there's some proof of how the results of this "poll" came about, that's what it is, a Scandal of monstrous proportions (okay, now I'm hyperbolizing... but Mom, they did it fiiiiiiirst....).

In response to the many questions about the poll's legitimacy, SUZANNE has posted what amounts to a defense of IVR automated surveys. Although this obviously doesn't answer the actual questions, to be fair, she's indicated that she'll address other points of contention in future posts. (Which we'll be waiting for.) However, it's surprising that she didn't answer CC, who was first out of the gate with what seems to be the simplest question of all:

"How do you know all of the above? Seriously, how do you know, beyond any doubt, that all of the above is exactly what happened? Please try to answer that question without resorting to, "Because they said so.""

Exactly -- how does anyone know, without seeing the poll's backup data, that the poll happened as indicated in the CLC press release? Or for that matter, that the results were reported accurately? Because KLRVU said so? Wrong answer. The Right Answer would be something like: "Because I have a copy of the backup data right in front of me, and can email it to anyone who's interested".

The defense of IVR technology is beside the point. The question is how legitimate is an IVR poll, done by a company that's been as hard to nail down as Jello to a wall? The issues around KLRVU alone have been enough to de-legitimize the poll, and that's without even considering the gory details like the question that was asked (skewed), and the methodology (a mystery). This is not a hard concept. CFRA's John Counsell gets it, and said as much on his program last week. But never mind that -- the poll got the results that SUZANNE and her fellow travellers in CLC wanted to see, and that's where it ends for them.

Counsell pointed out on his show that not one mainstream media outlet had picked up the news about this poll; it was reported on lifesite and anti-abortion blogs, period. The media reported on the Ipsos Reid and Angus Reid polls, so why wouldn't they report on the KLRVU poll? Maybe because they wrote it off as invalid when they had trouble finding out anything about the company who conducted it.

So the questions remain. How can anyone know that the information released about the MASSIVE POLL is true? Where are the details explaining the poll's methodology? Why has KLRVU been simultaneously described as a new company, a 2-year old company, and a company operated by someone who's been offering research services for 2 years (a subtle difference from being a company which has been offering those services itself)? How did CLC find KLRVU in the first place, given that there was no way to track it down?

I'm not holding my breath for answers. I am, however, holding my nose as the bullshit around the MASSIVE POLL piles ever higher, and the acrid stench intensifies.

KLRVU/CLC -- What Counsell said

The MASSIVE POLL story has sprouted little legs and is starting to run around AM talk radio. Buckets has posted clips from Thursday night's John Counsell radio show on CFRA 580 in Ottawa, and it's getting ugly. Counsell, who describes himself as a "passionate supporter" of Campaign Life Coalition, questioned not only KLRVU, but the poll itself. Via buckets, the money quotes from Counsell:

"Why even do a poll and publish the stats if the polling company is questionable? It does more damage than good. And [I am] a supporter of campaign Life Coalition!"

and

"Campaign Life Coalition has to do some damage control in telling people who KLRVU is, what other polls they've done in the past. … The stats mean nothing if this is not a legitimate polling company."

Yeeeowtch!!!

The second quote was from a discussion Counsell was having with "Wanda", a representative of CLC. There were a couple of interesting things in that convo -- among them Counsell's assertion that the credibilty of CLC, KLRVU and their poll are "taking a beating" and "getting creamed" on the internet because of their inability to prove the legitimacy of KLRVU, and by proxy, their poll. "The left-wing pro-abortion blogs are carving up Campaign Life because of what looks like a bogus polling company!" says Counsell. (Heh.)

And how did Wanda respond? Like any good little propagandist: "150,000 households were polled..." yada yada yada. Counsell interrupted her to say "The stats mean nothing if it's not a legitimate polling company!" But that didn't stop Wanda from bringing it up again a few seconds later: "150,000 households..." only to be interrupted and brought back to reality again. Listen to the clip -- Wanda is quite instructive in demonstrating the kind of mentality we're dealing with from these people. Just keep repeating the propaganda, over and over and over and over and...

Something else: In the first clip, Counsell tells his audience the question that was asked in the poll, with one subtle difference -- he stumbles over the word "abortionist", and instead says "Doctor Henry Morgentaler". Maybe he recognizes that the wording of the question itself undermines the poll's credibilty?

Anyway, the upshot of it was that "Wanda" was supposed to "make some phone calls" to CLC on Friday morning... and I'm sure she did, just as I'm equally sure we'll never know what transpired during those calls. ("Dive! Dive! Dive!")

I want the CLC's honchos to either prove the poll is legit by providing its backup data, or issue a very public mea culpa and admission that the poll is meaningless. I think we've more than established that the appropriate response to the queston of the poll's credibility isn't "Because KLRVU said so". We're listening, CLC... and remember: the truth shall set you free.

(image from johncounsell.com)

Massive Pollster KlrVu -- Website tweaks in progress

The good folks at KlrVu must be following all our posts now, and correcting all the spelling mistakes and bullshit as we find them. Most recently, the notation in the lower left corner that said "Member of MRIA Canada", which was, well um, err, uh, a little, shall we say, "truthiness-challenged"...

...went down the old Memory Hole...

... and became "Principal Owner is a Individual Member of MRIA Association of Canada".

Yeah, that's right -- "is a Individual". Never mind polls, could these people even be trusted to pour a beer without fucking spilling it all over the place?

And I mean, seriously, who really even knows...?

On the other hand, they didn't say the MRIA, "Marketing Research and Intelligence Association" -- they said the "MRIA Association", the "Marketing Research and Intelligence Association Association". So it could be a whole nother association association.

Is the toxic level of stupid giving anyone else a headache?

AFTERTHOUGHT: You gotta love how the home page has a big "Welcome". That must be for us, since we're likely the only ones viewing it.

UPDATE (July 26): Google finally returns a hit for the "klrvu research" website! They no doubt have us to thank for that. All together now: "You're welcome!"

(h/t: sassy in the comments)

Massive Poll -- Something's up -- with updates!

HAHAHAHA! We've hit a nerve with revelations about the MASSIVE POLL, and the thing is doing some Grand Mal twitching and spazzing.

Predictably, SUZANNE hotly disputes the fact that what's been discovered has any implications as to the MASSIVE POLL's credibility:

Yeah yeah yeah. But never mind that -- there's something strange going on. SUZANNE's post, dated yesterday (July 23rd) wasn't on her blog earlier today (July 24). No problem, sometimes bloggers type posts in draft and post them later without updating the date. (Not a smart thing to do, because it means a lot of readers won't see the post since it will be sitting under more recent posts, but whatever.) The PROBLEM is that her post from yesterday (July 23) links to a post that I composed this morning (July 24). And yes, I have a copy of the HTML page source code *just in case* that changes. With these lying fucks, screen shots are the order of the day at all times.

Make of that what you will, but it looks like a little subterfuge to me. Why?

Especially when you consider what commenter Charles J. White has come up with: a website for "klrVu research":

It's Hot Off The Press, still not returned by Google (but soon will be). Is there any way of confirming when this website was set up? It had to have been in the last two days to still not be showing up in Google searches.

What the hell is going on?

Update: Still no friggin' phone number:

Re-reading SUZANNE's post, it's clear she's missing the point -- the issue isn't whether a CPC MP's brother runs a polling firm. The issue is that an Anti-abortion MP's very likely equally anti-abortion brother conducted a poll for an anti-abortion organization -- a poll conducted by an ideological ally automatically has no credibility. Legitimate pollsters are expected to be non-partisan, even if the people who commission them are not (indeed, many polls about hot issues are conducted on behalf of screamingly partisan groups, in order to prove their point). The issue is, as it has been from the first Canada 411 search I did on this "polling company", the poll's legitimacy and the subterfuge behind it.

The fact that there's a vague CPC connection in this thing is just icing on the cake. The cake itself is a misleading poll with questionable methodology, conducted by someone ideologically-sympathetic to those who commissioned him, for the express purpose of propaganda. That sound about right to you?

TOO MANY UPDATES! UPDATE: From the comments with this post --

1. Southern Quebec notices that in the bottom left-hand corner of the KlrVu website, it says they're a "Member of MRIA", the Marketing Research and Intelligence Assn. And guess what? They're not listed with the MRIA. (Edited to add screenshot showing "Member of MRIA Canada"):


2. April Reign does a WHOIS and finds out the site was created YESTERDAY

3. POGGE says he recognizes the name servers; the site is hosted at GODADDY, home of the $1.99 domain but not the choice of most legitimate businesses (although I've heard Al Qaeda uses it.)

4. Buckets reports a Plagiarism Alert!

MORE:

5. Zorph the Wingnuterer (our friendly neighbourhood computer geek) says he raided the site (whatever that means) and that the domain was registered July 20, last Sunday. He's also sent me some kind of geeky info on a .zip file which I'll now go and peruse (but will probably end up sending to April Reign for translation).

6. Alison digs under the bullshit of the MASSIVE NEW POLL and finds some humour.

7. BCL thinks KLRVU/KlrVu's new website makes the MASSIVE POLL just soooooo much more legit.

AND MORE:

8. Canadian Cynic joins the fray.

9. Zorpheus at the Wingnuterer weighs in.

10. Buckets is on fire!

AND EVEN MORE:

11. Buckets says it's a phone spam company!

Oh what a tangled fucking web we weave.

Massive Poll - Lasergate Edition

A lot of pieces of the MASSIVE NEW POLL puzzle have fallen into place since I did that first fateful and fruitless Canada 411 search on "KLRVU", the polling company that conducted the thing.

The fact that the company seemed to have no phone number or profile of any kind raised more questions. A phone number (204-999-7446) for "KLRVU" buried deep down in the CNW press release (but noticeably absent from the lifesite version of the same press release) was the Swing-a-way that opened the whole can of anti-choice worms. We now know:

1. In a Canada 411 search the number came up as "non-published" -- very strange for a business, but a Google search of the same phone number showed that it belonged not to "KLRVU Polling", but to a company called "Lasercut Designs" of Winnipeg. (Note -- the same Canada 411 search, done just now, returns a "No listing found", which is a little different from "non-published". Hmm?)

2. "Lasercut Designs" is run by Allan and Katherine Bruinooge -- their last name was determined by this fundraising letter (PDF)

3. Allan Bruinooge is the brother of Rod Bruinooge, CPC MP for Winnipeg South ; Rod "the scourge of abortion" Bruinooge's two anti-choice cents on the Morgentaler OC can be found here.

4. Allan Bruinooge himself is a "Tory party organizer" who ran in a civic by-election in 2005 (382 votes - w00t!) and possibly, GW denier, if he's the same Allan Bruinooge who wrote this review of an anti-climate crisis DVD:

"Shame shame" indeed.

So, those are the players around "KLRVU Polling". It was suggested that since the polling company is somewhat suspect, the poll itself might not have been done at all, but that was laid to rest by someone at Rabble who said they were called. The poll's methodology still stinks -- a fully automated phone-polling process is one step up from an online poll. If that.

Admittedly, this is a little more than I was hoping to find -- when I started looking into this thing, I was searching for connections to the "prolife" movement. I wasn't expecting to find a heaping helping of those connections with a side of CPC involvement. Basically, it looks like a "tory organizer" (and brother of an anti-choice CPC MP) conducted an anti-Morgentaler poll for a group of anti-abortion whackjobs, Campaign Life Coalition. Nothing illegal, nothing too bizarre, but also nothing that helps maintain the pretense that the CPC is a "moderate conservative" party.

Hopefully, another "coathanger" to CPC electoral success. As far as what it means to the MASSIVE POLL's credibility, res ipsa loquitur. It speaks for itself.

ETA: BigCityLib takes a look at this thing, too.

AND THE BEAT-DOWN GOES ON: Here's someone in Manitoba who works in the polling business and says they've never heard of KLRVU Polling. Ever:

"I have never heard of KLRVU Research. Ever. Considering I do work for a polling company and know who we compete with in our very limited marketplace, that's a little odd, isn't it?"

Heh.

(h/t: Eric, timekeeper, LuLu, Alison et al)

Say hi to the waving fetus

Lookie lookie, there's a new "anti-choice pretending to be pro-choice" website in town, and it's one of the most pathetic entries in the category to date. It's called *ta-da!* "Pro-choice.com", slyly co-opting the pro-choice name in order to lure the unsuspecting in search of a pro-choice site, then inundate them with a lot of anti-abortion bullshit. Say "Oh, HAI"!

The simpletons that put this thing together must have done it in a hurry. Under "Parenthood", one of the three "choice" options, one of the FAQs is "Can I really do this?" to which the site helpfully replies "Life would be dull if there were no surprises, and there would be no real victory without some difficulty!" In other words, NO, you probably CAN'T do it, but you screwed up and now you'll take your punishment and you'll like it, bitch. Because major cataclysmic fuckups that forever alter your future's trajectory are the spice of life. Teehee.

Apart from the waving fetus that appears on most of the pages, the real *meat* of the site is of course under the third choice option, abortion. Horror stories abound about the dangers and risks, some of them exaggerations and some of them outright lies and figments of the site owners' imaginations (the boring "link" to breast cancer, debunked countless times, looms large). A flurry of "medical sources" leads, as always, right back to the usual gang of anti-choice nitwits and purveyors of dead fetus porn. A nice big load of steaming bullshit, just waiting for someone to step in it.

The sly and stealthy co-opting of pro-choice-sounding URLs has become so popular with fetus fetishists that in order to assist those navigating treacherously-compromised pro-choice waters, a list of genuine pro-choice and anti-choice sites that just sound pro-choice has been published.

It's caveat emptor out there, forewarned is forearmed.

From the horse's errr... mouth

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, yes. Hey, remember "the Pill Kills"? Sure you do, because I never stop mining the thing, rich motherlode of comedy gold that it be; sorry peeps, but it's just too funny. And now, I am sad to report, the backpedaling has begun.

After all the fainting, pearl-cluthing and shrieking about "chemical abortions" and "9-day-old babies" (meaning 9-day-old microscopic blastocysts) done by Jill Stanek, SUZANNE and that other useless douche, following the June 7th protest Scott Klusendorf of the "Life Training Institute" said quotes an article by "Serge" (Dr. Rich Poupard) that says:

"Sorry, Jill, you are simply wrong here."

He's one of theirs, and even he doesn't believe it. B-b-but w-w-whaaat HUH!??

"I've been interested in this topic for a number of years, and have reviewed much of the medical literature on the topic. I often joke that I am probably the only oral and maxillofacial surgeon who subscribes to the journal Contraception, which I do in order to have electronic access to all of their back issues. In short, I have done my homework here, and can say without a doubt that Jill has seriously overstated the evidence we have for a post-fertilization effect from OCs."

He The Poupard article quoted by Klusenorf goes on to explain some of the (duh hello, obvious) reasons that the Pill can't be said to cause chemical abortions, wags a finger and winds things up:

"There is a real controversy regarding this issue, and science does not have all of the answers. Let me state this plainly: anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in "chemical abortions" is simply wrong. They don't. I don't know for sure either. Cool web sites and T-shirts do nothing to change this fact. Pro-lifers who overstate this case are acting very irresponsibly."

Irresponsible fetus fetishists, spreading disinformation: that sound about right to you? Fuckin' A damn straight it does, because we already know that's just what they do. It's interesting to note that when it comes to disinformation, this Scott guy knows whereof he speaks. The purpose of his "Life Institute", which is supported by a motley fundamentalist crew including the ubiquitous Focus on the Family, is to teach anti-choicers how to get their message across:

"Scott Klusendorf, LTI president, travels throughout the United States and Canada training pro-life advocates to persuasively defend their views in the public square. He contends that the pro-life message can compete in the marketplace of ideas if properly understood and properly articulated."

Basically a fetus fetishizing spin doctor, in other words, and even he couldn't work with this "Pill Kills" thing (as indicated by his agreement with the article he posted)*. To anyone with a functioning brainstem this would be proof positive that "the Pill Kills" is the kind of bullshit that can't be dressed up as anything but -- well, horseshit at best. Hey, look in the comments at the LTI blogpost -- there's Granny Grump, aka Crazy Christina of the 30-day prayer assault, and even that whackadoo isn't buying it. But don't be surprised if a few voices in the wilderness dig in their heels and insist on continuing along this path... and I'll be right behind them, cheering them on.

*UPDATE (June 19): Scott dropped by the combox to inform me that the article I quote and link to wasn't actually written by him, but rather by someone named "Serge" (Dr. Rich Poupard). Scott reproduced it as an opinion he concurs with. I stand corrected, and edited as indicated.

McCain throws the fundies a bone

Surprised? Me neither! From Lifeshite:

"Sen. John McCain reached out to Catholic voters yesterday in Philadelphia at a gathering of Catholic lay leaders and clergy. The meeting, held at the venerable Union League on South Broad St., is one in an ongoing series being held nationwide by McCain and his Catholic surrogates - Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Frank Keating, and former Vatican ambassador Jim Nicholson." [...]

"The first issue addressed by McCain was abortion. He said that the "noblest words ever written" were "the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." McCain believes that those words "apply to the unborn." He reminded the Philadelphia Catholics of his pro-life voting record, adding that he would "maintain that commitment" if elected president."

However, it might be prudent to note that's what Georgie said, too, and he was far more "owned" by the Christian Right than McCain. We shall see. That is, if McCain even makes it to the White House, which is anything but a slam-dunk.

Deceptive ads ruled deceptive

Okay, anyone with their head screwed on could have called this one, as the city of Hamilton did when these ridiculous and offensive "Life Canada" ads first went up in January. It's obvious that the billboard/bus shelter ads (below), which insinuate that women routinely have abortions right up to and including 9 months' gestation, are extremely deceptive...... or as I prefer to say, a hot steaming stenchy load of fly-specked bullshit. But this week the Advertising Standards Council made it official, ruling that the ads are deceptive, false, misleading and um, well, you know... SHRIEEEEEK:

"In a bizarre (HAHAHAHA!) ruling last week, Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) rejected evidence from Statistics Canada and declared that pro-life billboards which said abortions are allowed in Canada throughout all nine months of pregnancy were "deceptive."" ("Hahas" mine) [...]

"ASC is a self-regulating body of Canada's advertising industry. It oversees the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. The Appeal Panel, a group of unnamed members of ASC, upheld an earlier decision by another unnamed Council, supporting the complaints of three anonymous people. Two of them in identically worded complaints said the ads were "neither factual nor true." The third said they were "false, misleading and offensive.""

"False, misleading and offensive": Well, no shit Sherlock. These ads are the worst kind of propaganda, insidiously perpetuating a falsehood in order to influence public opinion. Just look at the thing -- I don't know about you, but to me that ad says women are having abortions up to the day before birth. Which is bullshit. And false, and misleading, and offensive squared.

"Life Canada" was quick to shift into damage control gear:

"Joanne Byfield, president of LifeCanada, the group behind the billboards, said the decision was unbelievable. "Our ads simply state the reality in Canada that there is no law restricting abortion at any stage of pregnancy. This ruling says it is 'deceptive' to tell Canadians that," she said."

Well, bullshit bullshit bullshit, Joanne Byfield. That ad doesn't say anything about the law -- it says women are having abortions up to the last day of their pregnancy. And that is a complete and total falsehood, and a vile, pernicious lie. Pretty standard M.O. for anti-choicers, though, who for some reason seem unable to turn public opinion in their favour any other way. And they never stop: just check out what "Life Canada" says on their own website, "Abortion in Canada":

"We created this site to mark the 20th anniversary of unrestricted legal abortion in Canada.

On January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down all legal restrictions on abortion. That means that abortion is allowed throughout all nine months of pregnancy. There are provincial guidelines throughout the country on how and when abortions may be performed, but they do not have the force of law."

With "guidelines on how and when abortions may be performed", it sounds like women and doctors have the situation well in hand, so why do we need a law? There's a reason we don't have one: because we don't fucking need one. The fact that abortion rates have fallen without any intrusive legislation is ample proof of that.

Pot meet kettle

Okay, I want to talk about this little shindig the fetus fetishists held on Thursday (8,000 Catholic schoolchildren strong, although the Liberal Ottawa Sun says 7,000 but whatevs).

No Canada Wordmarks in evidence this year, thanks to the vigilance of the Wordmark Police, but apparently the crowd became somewhat unruly and things disintegrated into what our Birth Pangs correspondent characterized as "a chaotic mess" -- hmmm, what I might describe as "a chaotic orgy". But what can you expect in the midst of a collective combination indignance and persecution high? The mop-up required after something like that would be a daunting task indeed.

Anyway, the crowd orgy caused a traffic orgy and injuries to a cop who was trying to exercise a little Crowd Contol. Others are already all over this, and in particular I was impressed with Bene D's entry, which wonders (in a way Jesus would surely approve) if any of the marchers thought to follow up on the condition of the injured cop. Bene also adds a little quote from someone who was out there live-blogging on the fetus fetishizing mean streets of Ottawa:

"Pro-aborts can be violent" -- "keep them in line". Uhh, what? There were about 8 pro-choice people that bothered to protest against this thing, but there was a need to "keep them in line" because, well, we're violent? Good grief. If I shared an ideology with people like James Kopp, Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph, I doubt I'd want to accuse anyone else of being violent.

Then again, we do have the right to defend ourselves. Like they're apparently doing at this clinic:

Fortunately, thus far no anti-abortion protestors have been shot or blown up by "threatening signs".

Aborting your sex life

Abortion can kill your libido, say the Sex-perts at lifesite:

"In the May 2 instalment of his regular health feature in The Times, Dr. Thomas Stuttaford responded to a reader who complained of a loss of interest in sex following an abortion. "Though my boyfriend and I agreed it was the right thing to do, I feel guilty and I've gone off sex," wrote the questioner. Dr. Stuttaford responded by saying that loss of libido after an abortion is "so common that it can almost be said to be expected"."

Well, no shit Sherlock. It's safe to say that's probably true of any kind of surgery, particularly a procedure that causes post-surgical cramping *down below*. Big deal. In the course of recovery everything gets back to normal, monkey business resumes as regularly scheduled and is as enjoyable as ever. (Those weren't screams of agony echoing up and down my street.) The doctor also points out that "although "nearly all" women suffer feelings of guilt and grief following abortion, the effects usually passed within a month." But wait -- lifesite has a problem with that, so it's into the fetusmobile™ for a ride over to "the Elliot Institute" to find some statistical backup:

"Statistical research by the Elliot Institute shows that, in many cases, the emotional effects of abortion are still discernable eight weeks after an abortion. In one study, two months after their abortions, 44 percent of women complained of nervous disorders, 36 percent had experienced sleep disturbances, 31 percent had regrets about their decision and 11 percent had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor." [...]

"The Elliot Institute study showed that thirty to fifty percent of women experience sexual dysfunction, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions."

"Long duration", "nervous disorders" and "sexual dysfunction", mymymy, this sounds serious. So does "the Elliot Institute", until Google reveals what it really is:

"The Elliot Institute is a non-profit, 501(c)3 tax exempt corporation that was founded in 1988 to perform original research and education on the impact of abortion on women, men, siblings, and society."

Yet another fetus fetishizing organization that puts together bullshit "research" about abortion to give anti-choicers something that looks all nice and statistical to support their outlandish anti-abortion claims. Yawn. Nothing to see here... but just in passing, get a load of the EI's explanation of how the name "Elliot" was chosen:

"Elliot" was literally picked from a baby names book. The personal name was added with the intention of making the name more personalized, yet formal and a bit stuffy - in an academic way. This was done with the hope to make the Institute's name more "friendly," yet plausible and dignified, for the sake of the recipients of our survey forms."

Or should that be "For the sake of fooling the recipients of our survey forms into thinking we're something that we're not"? Gotta hand it to them, though; it isn't often that one of these outfits is honest enough to admit they're nothing but a propaganda machine. And hey, they are flexible, too...

"So, our name is not of any particular significance. We are even willing to change it. So, if you or a rich aunt would like to underwrite our work with a large endowment, we would be glad to change the name to the "Smith Institute", the "Charlie Group," or whatever memorial name you would like! Just let us know."

HAHAHAHAHA! Fetus fetishists: on top of everything else, selling themselves to the highest bidder.