The University of Calgary recently reversed the guilty verdict of seven pro-life students who were found guilty of non-academic misconduct for setting up a display with graphic photos comparing abortion to the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. The court decision has been heralded by some as being a victory for free speech on campus. But it's not.
An overwhelmingly male echo-chamber of pundits, scholars, theologians, Catholic clergy and politicians is in an uproar, because Justin Trudeau directed the Liberal Party to adopt the status quo ante on women's health that has been settled law in Canada for decades. And who's not howling with outrage at Justin Trudeau's audacity in supporting women's access to abortion, or wringing their hands at his shocking breach of parliamentary conventions? Women, that's who.
Last week, Justin Trudeau declared he stands squarely with a woman's right to decide what's in her best interests. He has unambiguously made tangible the predominant consensus within the Liberal Party of Canada that a woman has the right to access abortion services if she so chooses. This position is in the very best tradition of sound evidence-based public policy. And as problematic as this may be for some, particularly those with strong religious dogmas, it affirms a central convention of Canadian democracy: The separation of individual religious conviction with the broader public interest.
Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has announced that anyone who wants to be a candidate for the LPC must commit to voting in favour of pro-choice, if and when it comes to proposed measures on abortion. This is a step too far. Ultimately, it must be a truly exceptional situation for one to be willing to allow Party discipline to trump the right of MPs to vote according to their own opinions, particularly on issues of conscience.
It is essential for my purposes that you be able to imagine the desperation of being pregnant when you don't want to be, of what it is to be staring into that gaping black hole with everything you've ever worked and longed for lost inside it. I am aware that some people will find themselves more inclined to empathize with the six-week-old fetus in this matter, he or she (still indeterminate) about the size of a lentil, and whether such an inclination represents a terrific failure of imagination or an incredible imaginative leap, I'm still not entirely sure. But I'd like such a person to shake their convictions for just a moment or two.
As a pro-life woman, it is certainly heartening to see the lack of receptivity to Justin Trudeau's position that pro-life candidates need not apply to be nominees for the Liberal Party. There has not been much (any?) support for this bold declaration that freedom of speech and conscience ought to be denied Liberal nominees. His position sounds extreme. But is it? In my opinion, Mr. Trudeau's remarks are a logical extension of pro-choice philosophy. In spite of the rhetoric, being pro-choice is not actually always in favour of choice. I'm not talking about the woman here; I'm talking about the developing human in the womb.
A young woman's recent decision to film her abortion and share it with the world has been making headlines lately and, over the course of the past few days, I've observed the puzzled, horrified, and downright hateful reactions of many on my social networks. But the more I saw the hate, the more I realized that what Emily Letts did was pretty ground-breaking and unbelievably brave. Letts isn't celebrating abortion. She's simply demystifying a procedure that most people have been conditioned to avoid talking about, and by doing so, removing all the shame and fear associated with it.
Every year, thousands of individuals and groups walk through the streets of Ottawa in order to condemn the right to abortion and to highlight its alleged immorality. Taking with them busloads of catholic school students from all across Ontario, on May 8, their large crowds will ensure a national visibility. However, the means they use to get their message heard are highly problematic. It seems important to expose the intellectual dishonesty of pro-life supporters and the danger of their arguments for women's rights in Canada and all over the world.
After 20 years of providing uncompromised abortion services to women in New Brunswick, and from PEI, the Morgentaler Clinic is being forced to close its doors due to funding shortfalls. It is shameful that Canada now has two provinces that refuse to uphold a woman's right to choose, and provide necessary medical procedures free of cost to women.
The Morgentaler clinic is the only abortion clinic in New Brunswick. It serves not only the population of New Brunswick, but also that of Prince Edward Island. Women in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island cannot access safe, legal abortions unless two doctors declare in writing that the abortion is medically necessary. I want you to think about what will happen in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island once the Morgentaler clinic is gone. Do you honestly believe that women just won't have abortions? If that's the case, let me tell you what's actually going to happen -- women are going to die.
My autistic son wasn't born because God was pissed off at America. My son was born because he was meant to be born, just as he is. My son was born so that I could learn how to be a better human being. He was born so he could teach me how to communicate without words. He was born so that I could learn how to listen with my heart and see things through touch.
"Page unpublished ... flagged for self harm ... What?" Don't get me wrong, as a director of adult film, I've been temporarily suspended from Facebook a few times. But my community manager pointed out that the pro-choice banner I had published a month ago was nowhere to be found. In English it reads "My pussy, my rules: free and accessible abortion." This image alone generated 1,200 comments -- 17,500 likes -- and was shared 29,000 times. That is, until enough members found the image offensive to their beliefs and flagged it, and Facebook subsequently dubbed it "self harm."
UNFPA released its 2013 State of World Population Report on the theme of adolescent pregnancy globally. The report draws critical links between the issue of adolescent pregnancy, early and forced marriage, sexual violence and maternal mortality -- all priority development issues for the Canadian government.
#SWOP2013 stands for State of the World Population, a UN report that focuses on the mistreatment of young girls in the Third World as forced child brides. And somehow MP #nikiashton and the #ndp are turning this into a demand for Canada to fund abortion clinics in the Third World. OK, I have a different viewpoint and I tweet a lot. For what it is worth, here are a few.
Deaths as a result of unsafe abortions are preventable. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has no intention of saving women's lives through the provision of access to safe abortion services. The government will not fund safe abortion services in its overseas initiatives, as part of Canada's contribution to the 2010 Muskoka Initiative on maternal and child health. In addition, they also refuse to provide funding to organizations that would give women and girls referrals to safe abortion services. Canada's refusal to fund abortion services, even in cases of rape as a weapon of war and for young women and girls in early and forced marriage, is unacceptable. The WHO clearly states that in countries where there are few restrictions on the availability of safe abortion services, deaths and illness are dramatically reduced.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has filed a constitutional lawsuit against the University of Victoria and the UVic Students' ...