Reproductive Justice FAIL

"No Abortion in Canada's Maternal Health Plan" for the G8 (Cbc.ca)

Because apparently in 2010, we still think we can talk about reproductive and maternal health without discussing contraception, which includes abortion. (Yes, abortion is a form of contraception. Many people, including pro-choicers, shy away from saying this but it's true! Contraception is for preventing baby making and that's what abortion, like Plan B, like condoms, does).

Anyway...

Canada is getting an all around "F" in the reproductive health department lately.

Ontario had an amazing new sex-education curriculum ready to roll out but are now back-pedaling and 'doing reviews'. Apparently teaching about sexual orientation in grade 3 and teaching masturbation in grade 6 is scandalous and 'should be the responsibility of the parents to do'.

The Ontario Liberals are getting lambasted for this (thankfully) so I won't dissect it to death, because it's already been done. Read this amazing G&M editorial instead.

When did Canada get some anti-sex and shitty?

FC Shout-Out

I would like to give a huge shout-out to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her recent comments at the G8 summit where she called out countries like Canada for not including REAL maternal health in their strategy.

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and that includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions." (Cbc.ca)

I'm glad somebody gets it.

Too Many Jerks, Not Enough Time

1- Ann Coulter was warned to watch her language for her talk at the University of Ottawa. Didn't like it and is now 'filing a Human Rights Complaint'. Except we all know that would require Ann knowing what human rights are. (And don't right-wing nutbags always bitch that the HRC is biased towards Conservatives? Pick a side and stick with it, asshats).

2- The Conservative Party wants to push "Maternal Health" at the G8 summit but refuse to consider abortion or birth control in their framework. The Liberals pushed for 'birth control' to be added and then when it went to vote, it got defeated... by fucking Liberals. Jesus H. Christ. I can't even form a sentence to comment on that, it's so bad

3- A bad story turned good: A Calgary Based Condo project promoted their project with some of the most vile and sexist advertising I've seen in a long while. It included gems like "A $20,000 down payment is as easy as a 25-year-old scotch, or a 25-year-old blonde on a 25-year-old scotch. Get on it." Yeah, just amazing. What is amazing though is that the ads were mostly posted in men's washrooms and *surprise surprise* some awesome men were incredibly offended.

And so, major props to Will Knoll from Calgary who took photos of the ads and posted them online to publicly shame the company and get people to boycott them. It worked and the ads were pulled.

Now I'm not usually a fan of raising a stink about advertising because it's usually offensive on purpose and all about giving them publicity, but in this case, the company was specifically targeting men and was not a major campaign and so 'being offensive' and 'cutting edge' was not their goal, necessarily. They honestly thought that dudes taking a leak in clubs would see this, think it's witty and clever and buy a condo. So raising a stink in this case not only had the ads pulled and therefore dudes didn't have to stare at their ignorant crap, but it's also a shot to PR and marketing folks who think that all men are ignorant chauvinists who fall for any BS advertising that talks about ladies and booty.

Thanks to that one particular man and all other men who took a stand not only against sexual assault and womyn (which is what 'getting someone drunk to fuck them' is - it's sexual assault) but also for taking a stand against the BS of hypermasculinity.

"Sisters of Life" Lay Roots in Toronto

There is a group of nuns, known as the “Sisters of Life” whose work involves the counselling of womyn who are dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. One can readily assume that they do not support abortion, but they claim to be there to “support”. Originally from the States, they have set up in Toronto and in March, they are to open up an ‘office’ in a poor area of the City.

“For the past two years, the sisters have been laying the groundwork for their mission. They have a list of nearly 1,000 volunteers who are ready to donate money, offer up their homes, move furniture or just pray. They have also gone from parish to parish to drum up support. They eventually hope to have a convent where pregnant women can come live and stay with their babies.” (National Post) (FC's Note: OFFER UP THEIR HOMES?! For what?! And the thought of 1,000 strong anti-choice foot army scares the shit out of me…)

Clearly, when I see ‘nuns’ and ‘unwanted pregnancies’ in the same sentence, I get a little uneasy. In particular, I resent people who abstain from sex and are against birth control, and yet telling me how to run my uterus.

HOWEVER if you’re going to be a self-righteous anti-choicer, these chicks have got it right, in my books.

Two reasons.

One: “They say the purpose of their work in Toronto is not to picket abortion centres, though they do not disapprove of those who do. Nor are they here to preach or apply pressure on women who are leaning towards abortion —indeed, their doors are also open to women “grieving an abortion.”

There is NOTHING worse to me than people who protest abortion clinics. NOTHING. These people don’t care about ‘life’, or ‘fetuses’ or ‘babies’ or anything. They are about shaming womyn, nothing more, nothing less. Protesting abortion clinics does not deter womyn from seeking abortions, nor does ‘sidewalk counseling’, which is a BS anti-choice term for throwing scientifically false anti-choice information in a womyn’s face and then telling them they’re going to rot in hell. Typical Friday afternoon stuff in the City of Ottawa, I might add.

Second reason these nuns are somewhat thinking this whole anti-choice thing through: In Manhattan, their home allows womyn to live there for an additional 9 months after delivery so that they can figure out their new living/life arrangements.

Unlike most anti-choicers who think that giving birth to a baby means that you will automatically develop maternal instincts and your life will turn around, these Nuns at least recognize that kids take work and planning. And that kicking a womyn out onto the street after delivery isn’t exactly conducive to a positive outcome.

Their logic is of course flawed since if they are all about da babiez, they should also be all about supporting them until they are 18. Kids don’t feed themselves, ya know.

Not to mention the fact they might not protest abortion clinics, but they are support those who do.

As saddened as I am to see anti-choicers alive and well in 2010, I am at least comforted in the case of these “Sisters of Life” by the fact that they understand that “choice” or “no choice” is so much more than shouting at clinic windows.

Latin American Progressive Politics

Good News: Costa Rica elects its First Female President. Woo!

Bad News: She is, by her own admission, a social conservative who opposes both abortion and gay marriage.

The CBC.ca article about it is particularly sad since it interviews a 24 year old womyn inmate who says she voted for Laura Chinchilla because she said “she would fight for women’s rights”.

I wonder what rights she’s referring to.

In any case, kudos to Costa Rica and other Latin American countries such as Nicaragua, Panama, Chile and Argentina who have recently elected female presidents.

Condoning Anti-Choice Violence

Unfortunately, as we all recall, a certain douchebag in the US shot Dr. George Tiller point blank in the face while in Church, as some sort of way to “protect unborn babies”. Dr Tiller was one of the few late-term abortion providers in the US but thankfully, he’s not the only one.

From the beginning, this was a clear case of guilty, guilty, guilty. Everyone in the church pews witnessed it, the guy himself confessed to the media and to the authorities. But now, things have gotten not only murky but incredibly scary.

The judge is allowing the defence to argue “voluntary manslaughter” rather than the Captain Obvious charge of first-degree murder.

“Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.” (CBC.ca)

So the judge is allowing the defense team to say “Well, he honestly believed that by killing Dr. Tiller in the middle of Church, while he peacefully attended mass, he was saving millions of so-called unborn babies.” Thanks to this judge’s decision, a legal defense team can actually make this a legal fucking defense.

CLEARLY this has reproductive freedom fighters losing their bananas because this is setting a very dangerous precedent. Fringe anti-choice groups have actually said this exact thing; that this is setting a precedent that would encourage other anti-choicers to commit acts of violence and get a lesser charge.

Although the judge has only allowed the defense to present this and has not in any way said yay or nay on the actual defense, the damage has already been done. And quite frankly, it’s a slippery slope that affects far more than crimes against abortion providers.

Wife cheats on you? “Well, your honour, I honestly believed that what she did was harming our children because we are a good (insert crap here) family and she was a negative influence. So I shot her”.

Hey, the underwear terrorist that attempted to blow up a US plane probably really believed in what he was doing, too and probably justifies his actions, too. And the list goes on and on.
And when abortion clinics are already hotbeds of violence, and when clinic workers and doctors are systematically targeted by anti-choice activists, us pro-choice folk have reason to be horrified at this latest news.

Why he is even being allowed to mount a defense, I have no idea. But then again, there’s a reason I’m not a lawyer. When it comes to the law, it’s not a matter of right or wrong but how you spin, spin, spin.

Apples Meet Oranges

Transcript from today's Question Period.

_______

Nicole Demers (Laval, QC, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister responsible for Status of Women refused to denounce the unacceptable statements made by a Conservative MP who implied that abortions contribute to the development of breast cancer. Besides being wrong medically, this assertion is meant to make women feel guilty. We would expect that the minister would defend women and the right to abortion with vigour rather than saying things worthy of Sarah Palin. When will the minister stop protecting the dinosaurs in her party to the detriment of women's right?

Hon. Helena Guergis (Minister of State for Status of Women): --Very clearly in the house yesterday, this member is actually fully aware that there are elected members in this house who have said very similar things at different times. Members in this house represent their constituencies and they are free to have any opinion that they choose to. It does not mean it represents the government. But please let me highlight one of our most recent achievements to protect women across the country. Recently we revised our citizenship guide. I would like to recognize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the great work he's done in specifically outlining that barbaric practices like female genital mutilation are not tolerated in Canada.

_________

This is ten levels of wrong.

So Many Stories, So Little Time

It’s been an incredibly interesting news day, today. So interesting that I could easily write 4-5 different posts. Instead, I’m going to do a round-up for you.

“Calgary Family Negotiates Homework Ban” – Headline pretty much says it best. A two child household was tired of spending hours on what they saw as “busy work” and so they negotiated with the school to only have them be marked on work they do in class. I think occasional homework is fine but only in high schools. Children need to be engaged in life and homelife in particular and so I say, go Calgary family!

“Better family planning could curb climate change: UN”- A new report by the UN Population Fund suggests making condoms and other family planning services more available will help combat global warming by reducing the world's population. Sex education around the world needs some serious, serious love (pun fully intended) and so whatever the reason, I say bring it on.

“Florida snowbirds take risks with HIV: study” - One more time with feeling, we need better sex education. A recent study has found Canadians age 50+ have skyrocketing rates of HIV, in particular those who vacation in Florida for the winter. The reason being that many of them go down to Florida and live the swinging single life, getting it on and being carefree without protection and thus end up with HIV. The rate of condom use for this age group is dismal. But part of the reason is that if you don’t get quality sex education when you’re young, you probably won’t get it all and yes, people over 50+ still get laid.

Add on that most people only use protection to avoid pregnancy and you’ve got menopausal womyn thinking “I don’t need protection now; I’m good to go!” They’re good alright; at getting the HIV.

And finally,

“McGill anti-abortion student group suspended” - Now, let the record state that I fully support an anti-choice organization's right to express their viewpoints. FULLY. However, in the case of McGill and other similar incidents, the anti-choice organizers were willfully spreading medical misinformation and postering campuses with graphic images in places where people had no choice but to see it. In McGill’s case, after many complaints from students, the McGill student association has suspended their official club status until they can reach some sort of resolution with the student council. Squashing freedom of expression? Not in my view.

Muckraking in the Name of Ovaries

I'm a frequent user of my local fitness club. I like my gym but as anyone who has used a gym before knows, it has very little to do with health and a lot to do with physical appearance. Gyms are all about making money and in order to do that, they bombard you with images of so-and-so after they hired a trainer, or TRY THIS MUSCLE MILK AND YOU'LL BE GIGANTIC, while blasting 46 different televisions playing Cosmopolitan TV and various sports channels. It combines "You Can Do It" with "Because you're a fatty!".

The other day, while attempting to use the washroom, I sat down to face an advertisement. Now ads in washrooms are not unique to gyms, obviously. They are a nuisance in most public washrooms nowadays. But the ones at the gym are almost always related to appearance or "health". This particular ad, which I'm presuming is only in the womyn's washroom, has a giant picture of an empty ice cream container that says "Want to have fewer periods?" followed by the "FIND OUT HOW AT Periodslessoften.ca"

Oh Goddess...

So I went home and checked out Periodslessoften.ca (I encourage you to do the same) and went back to my journalism roots to do some digging.

Turns out *surprise surprise* PeriodsLessOften.ca is hosted by an unnamed "Research Based Pharmaceutical Company" and the way to get less periods is through hormonal birth control. The Pill.

Now anyone who has been on the Pill, which in North America includes most hetereosexual womyn, knows or has heard the Old Tales about how you just take one pack of pills right after the other to skip your period. Nothing all that new here.

But this website is particularly interesting because it uses and re-uses imagery of food (.i.e.: PMS cravings) and makes the focus less on the usual anti-period stuff of crankyness, physical pain, lack of swimming/sex options and turns it into "Have Fewer Periods So You Have Fewer Midnight Triple Chocolate Oreo Cookie Cravings".

Which is something that the website cannot back up because it is false. Although taking hormonal birth control to date your periods and/or taking pack after pack will time and/or delay your period, it will not change your body's desire to jonse for cookies. It has been proven to possibly diminish in some people but it's not an instant cure.

There is a strong school of thought who believe that skipping any period at all is bad for your body. Unfortunately the reality is that as long as you are on the Pill, you will never have a "period" in the truest sense of the word. To be blunt, you can't drop an egg when you're on the Pill so you're having a "Pill Period" as they say and not an actual one. However, that doesn't mean that your body reverts back to being 10. You're still going to have hormone fluctuations because that's what keeps your bones good and strong, thickens your hair, etc.

So the first thing against this whole "TAKE THE PILL AND DROP THE COOKIES" approach is that it's not entirely accurate.

Another thing that is problematic it is that hormonal birth control is being marketed as this pseudo health option and dare I say, weight loss option. The latter of course is a bit of a stretch and kinda hilarious considering that most hormonal birth control pills make people gain weight.

But with the ads juxtaposition of the empty ice cream pale with the Pill, it makes it seem as though one can be cured by the other. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a picture of said ad online, but the website is full of food imagery, including a smiling Gingerbread.

And finally, the website and campaign is also problematic in its so-called attempt to be "neutral" regarding other forms of birth control.

See the website does not mention what pharmaceutical company it works for and so it is attempting to be an "information site" that is neutral and not about marketing a certain product. For this reason, they include this one section "Is the Pill Right For You" which has the legally required information regarding risks of taking the Pill and a sub-section entitled "Non-Hormonal Options". This section's intro:

"Non-hormonal birth control options will not change how often you have your period, meaning that they cannot be used to lengthen the time between your periods. Though most of them have been proven to be less effective than hormonal birth control, non-hormonal options may be right for you. Except for the non-reversible methods and the IUD, these methods must be used every time you have sex. The male condom and female condom can be used with hormonal birth control to help protect against sexual transmitted infections (STIs)." (Source)

Yes, these forms of Birth Control are less effective than hormonal based birth control but most don't cause blood clots, can be used by people over 35 safely and will not put your life at serious risk if you're a smoker. Oh and hey, most will make sure you don't get HIV! Which is, you know, pretty freakin' important, too.

Oh and it's also interesting to note that the tiny words in the disclaimer (for which you need to click onto a seperate site to find) explain that all the "claims" made throughout the website only apply to the United States. Which is pretty interesting considering it's Periodslessoften.CA

But it's obvious that the folks behind "Periodslessoften" are not concerned about sexual health as a whole or a womyn's health in particular. What they are for is the promotion of menstruation as an evil, an evil that will make you want cookies! Which will make you fat! And then, undesirable! And if you're undesirable, then you won't get laid! And then if you don't get laid, you won't need birth control! Ah! The tyranny!

Now I do not wish to diminish the very painful reality of many, many womyn who have excruciating menstrual pain, endure debilitating side effects or who are in dire need of menstruation regulation. However, if you are one of these many womyn, the reality is that Periodslessoften.ca doesn't really care about you anyway. They care about the bottom line and sorry honey, but you ain't it.

Now I'm not knocking takers of the Pill because everyone has their own reasons and the reality is that hormone based birth control is the most effective form of birth control (except for abstinence but who are we kidding?) What I am knocking is pharmaceutical companies who market things inaccurately under the guise of "neutrality".

Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?

Why I'm Pro-Choice

It seems a little late for me to be writing this now, seeing as though I’ve been blogging here for a few years now. And reproductive justice should, I believe, be a goal for anyone who calls themselves a feminist. However, in having recently witnessed the large-scale “March for Life” anti-choice protest here in my adopted city, and therefore having been very publicly (and harshly) challenged on my view, I felt it important to spell it out.

I could make it snappy, à la Letterman and make it a top ten list, but I hope it doesn’t take that many reasons to make my point (and convince you).

I am Pro-Choice because…

1- I think bodily autonomy is a human right. I think that the right to control what one does and does not do with their body is a human right that should be accorded to all people. I think that once we take away someone’s bodily autonomy, we are going down a very slippery slope and quite frankly, I don’t want to see where it leads.

2- I think that pro-choice is the most democratic choice of all. As the old feminist adage goes, “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” I truly cannot understand how a democratic state/nation/territory/etc could have any other stance.

3- I believe that pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I know and love people who got pregnant unexpectedly and thought long and hard about their choices. In the end, they either chose abortion or they chose to keep the child. They weighed the options of adoption and in one particular case, seriously explored that option. But in the end, they chose what was right for them. None of these womyn regret their decisions. And I imagine that even if they did, they would have been grateful for the ability to choose what was right for them, whether they felt the same way about that decision or not.

4- Although I believe in the myriad of choices that the pro-choice stance includes, I am not naïve about adoption. Let me start off by saying that I know many people who are either adopted themselves or have siblings that are. I am a big supporter of adoption and an even bigger supporter of open adoption. I think adoption is one of many great choices for the pregnant womyn and the adoptive family. However, in speaking about adoption, I think it’s important to include a caveat about the realities of pregnant womyn and the adoption system. Anti-choicers are always quick to point to adoption as the ideal situation for an unexpected pregnancy. “You don’t have to raise the child and you are giving a gift to a family that is unable to conceive”. Sounds great, doesn’t it? And I’m sure it is for many, many people. Without getting into the pain and hardship that pregnant womyn must go through when deciding to give up their child to adoption (especially, I would argue, in closed adoption situations), I think the anti-choicers *surprise surprise* forget that choosing adoption is not as simple as giving birth to a happy awaiting adoptive family.

As a white, educated, able bodied womyn with a white, educated, able bodied partner, I am well aware that if I were to get pregnant today, I could have a wonderful, police checked couple (and possibly established family) waiting for me in 9 months to adopt my child. The truth is that people line up and wait years for newborn, white, able bodied children. If I were Aboriginal, disabled, uneducated, a substance abuser, etc, it is quite possible that my child would be in the “System” for quite some time before it possibly settled into a great home. Do I think this is fair? Hell fucking no. But by the same token, I don’t think it’s fair for me, as a privileged individual to make a broad statement like so many anti-choicers do, that adoption is a great choice awarded to all. That is not always the case.

5- One size does not fit all. Similar to the above point that adoption might work for me, but it might be a horrible idea for you. I might want an open adoption and seek to maintain some sort of contact with the child but you might need complete anonymity. I might have gotten pregnant through rape or coercion and you might have gotten pregnant in a loving and happy relationship. And so I’m going into my decision making with a different set of circumstances than you. Why should there be one cookie cutter solution for everyone?

6- It has been proven time and time again that when abortion is criminalized, womyn will continue to seek out abortion. And they’re not exactly getting prime care. Below are the number of people hospitalized for illegal abortions:

Bangladesh: 71,800
Brazil: 288,700
Chile: 31,900
Colombia: 57,700
Dominican Republic: 16,500
Egypt: 216,000
Mexico: 106,500
Nigeria: 142,200
Peru: 54,200
The Philippines: 80,100

7- I think that being anything else would put me in the crazy “pro-life” camp and those people are fucking scary. Need I say more?

As You Should Be

Apparently, Harper is "deeply troubled" by the newest Afghani legislation that would make it illegal for a womyn to refuse sex from her husband, for a womyn to leave the house without permission and to have custody of children.

Well Steve, so am I. For once we agree!

But I do find it rather suspicious that you're not "troubled" by the 500+ missing and murdered aboriginal womyn.

Or the fact that Canadian womyn make an average of 72 cents for every dollar that a man makes while still debating the merits of pay equity legislation.

Or really, every other statistic and study demonstrating that systemic violence and sexism against womyn in this country continues to happen day in and day out.

So kudos Steve, on speaking out against this proposed legislation and its very real effects on the lives of womyn in Afghanistan. Kudos, my friend.

But please don't forget the ole adage about stones and glass houses.

Catholic Church = Epic Fail

"A Vatican cleric is defending a Brazilian archbishop's decision to excommunicate several doctors who performed an abortion last week on a nine-year-old girl who became pregnant with twins after alleged sexual abuse by her step-father.

"It is a sad case, but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated,'' Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told the Italian daily La Stampa." (CBC)

A nine year old girl is sexually assaulted and becomes pregnant. Clearly nobody else was coming to this unfortunate girl's side, so doctors performed an abortion to save her from being a 9 year old mother and the Church decides that the innocent babies were the real victims, so out go the doctors and the girl's MOTHER! Yes, that's right, the girl's mother was also ex-communicated. And just in case you think it's because she was part of the abuse, think again.

As for the incestuous step-father? Well, the bishop "did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life.".

We all know that the Catholic Church has a fabulous reputation of protecting pedophiles, but this... this is something else.

I'm not one for sensationalism and although this appears to be a case of extreme sensationalism, I feel it's important for feminists to continuously take a stand against garbage like this. Although this may appear to be an "extreme" example of religious fantaticism, I believe that all acts of violence, and violence against womyn in particular, exist on a continuum.

There really are no words for something as despicable and disgusting as this. Shame on you Vatican; shame on you.

Ahh, There's Nothing Like A Good Abortion Joke

I came to the idea of being a blogger, and a feminist one at that, after I found myself commenting like crazy on some of my favourite blogs. And in typical internet form, an article posted somewhere else has echoed across the blogosphere with everyone throwing their 2 cents in.

So here's the background.

An article, originally posted on Nerve.com, is written by an anonymous womyn about her experience of having an abortion. In a nutshell, it didn't shatter her life or dreams and she found that self-identified "liberal" and "progressive" dudes were freaked out by the whole thing.

Then AlterNet took a stab and so did the always amazing Jill from Feministe.

And since you're reading this, it means you at least somewhat care about what homeslice has to say, so here it is.

I think the article is fucking brilliant.

Firstly, this womyn offers a story that resonates so much to my own reality and the reality of people I know and love. I've never had an abortion, I'll start off with that one, but the way in which she reacts to her abortion is something I can relate to. See, her whole "schtick" in the article (and what has right-wing nutjobs so upset) is that she dealt with it humourously. Like any other major event in her life, she chose laughter as her means of dealing. Genuine humour. Although people often use humour as a way to placate the fact that they can't deal with their true feelings of anguish or pain (which I still think is healthy and fine by moi), she honestly chose to laugh the whole thing off.

As someone who cracks jokes at funerals and rarely agrees with it being "too soon" to poke fun, I can get this. I can also, however, understand how humour is often a way to keep one's sanity; that it is easier to laugh at a situation than let the whole thing take its toll.

And yes, as a fetus fetishist, the idea of a womyn having an abortion and then cracking jokes about the irony of getting pregnant on birth control while Bristol Palin fucks with her fingers crossed, this is a slap in the face. "You mean your life wasn't completely destroyed by the murder of an innoncent fetus?" Nope. No it wasn't. Take that "Silent No More".

I think that if I, or anyone else, is to call themselves pro-choice, then they have to be prepared to genuinely, whole heartedly accept how people choose or deal with their choices. Which is the point of her article.

She's calling out people, and in this case men, who march, petition and lobby for a womyn's right to choose but then in the heat of the moment, quiver and judge.

Sure, talking about someone's experience with abortion, especially if it's just kinda dropped into a conversation, can be awkward if you're not sure if the person is heart-broken or laughing it off. However, a true pro-choice stance is one of genuinely allowing womyn to choose not only to terminate a pregnancy but to decide how they will feel about their experience.

Although this article is taken as a stab towards all liberal men, I personally see it as a challenge to all pro-choice labelled people. Lady folks and men folk. Basically that it's one thing to talk the talk of choice but you have to be prepared to walk the walk, too.

And that means allowing womyn to choose whether to view their experience as devastating or as nothing more than physically painful.

An Obama-Mama Reflects

President Obama! Not only does it roll off the tongue a lot easier than President-Elect Obama, but it certainly gives a much warmer feeling than President Bush.

It goes without saying that the world has been captivated by Barack Obama and his family. The entire campaign was memorable and it got people around the world rooting for the US again.

As a human being, political junkie and lover of all things classy, I definitely have a crush on the man. And not just because he's incredibly handsome (although that, he certainly is). I've had a crush on him since the start, but I've found myself critically questioning why. Which is something that a lot of people now seem to be doing.

Obama penned the idea of his campaign as being one of "hope" and hope, they have. People have high hopes for the first African-American President, a democrat, a fairly lefty thinker, a powerful orator and a very charismatic man. And a young one to boot! Obama, the person, has won many fans. A recent poll here in Canada found that Canadians certainly do have a crush on Obama the man, but that they are "lukewarm" about his policies. (More on that last part in a second).

But in building up his campaign on the prospects of "hope", he is doomed to disappoint and outright fail many people. Bush left the place in shambles, with little money and little "hope" of there being more anytime soon. To quote the always clever Someecards.com "This inauguration feels like a first date with a really great guy after a dysfunctional eight year relationship with a loser who took all my money".

So Obama isn't exactly starting off in prosperous times.

But personally, I still have "hope". He has made decisions that I have not supported, including his inclusion of crazy homophobe Rick Warren at inauguration.

However, he has a pro-choice stance, gave a shout out to the GLBTQ in one of his most important speeches to date, is a fan of social security and wants to close down Guantanamo Bay. There are also rumours about his desire to reverse the Global Gag rule, which denies funding to aid organizations that include abortion in the list of options they give clients. I'm thinking this is all a step in the right direction and if his policies continue down this road, never mind lukewarm, I'm in love!

As feminists, I think we need to move past the constant discussions, arguments and dialogue about whether or not Obama is a feminist. Ms. Magazine claims that he told them he was and so far, his policies have demonstrated that he most certainly could be. (Oh and for the record, if you don't believe me, watch Naomi Wolf totally prove it to you). But let's wait and let his actions speak for themselves.

As Canadians, I think we need to embrace the new wave of change in the US of A and quite frankly, turn our attention to our own country. A majority of people I spoke to watched Tuesday's inauguration but had no idea that the Speech from the Throne is happening on Monday and that the budget is going to be released on Tuesday; which is major, major stuff for Canada. And quite frankly, will directly impact our daily lives more than the Obamas ever will.

And I know what you're thinking and yes, you're right. What dog the Obamas choose is far more exciting than listening to what 4 old white guys have to say next week. But you don't pay your taxes to the Obamas, so what's really more important?

Engage or Ignore?

As someone who is not only a feminist but a social activist as well, I often contend with this question of whether to engage or ignore. (And for all you Trekkies out there, I'm not referring to that). Do I engage in a discussion or demonstration against a particular viewpoint or do I simply ignore and not engage?

An example that is often used is in regards to right-wing asshats like Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter spews anti-semitic, homophobic nonsense in both her interviews and her many books. She's a self-identified womyn with a background in law who thinks that womyn shouldn't be allowed to vote. Clearly, the womyn has lost her mind.

Her arguments are blatantly inflammatory but she has a wide audience. Because of her audience, some people who oppose her think that it's necessary to take her on, challenge her and debate her to the death. Others say that you are simply buying into her ways and giving her more publicity. If you just ignored her, she wouldn't have an audience.

In my own life, I think of ardent anti-choicers. I think that the pro-choice / anti-choice has been debated to death and I've found myself ignoring the "abortion debate" on University campuses year after year. I was invited to represent the pro-choice side in a radio debate and refused. Abortion is an issue that I feel has been debated to death and well... nobody's really gonna change their minds anymore. Not the people who come to those debates anyway. They're just there to tear down the other side, find a random loophoole and leave with their arms waving in victory. There's no real dialogue.

But yet when Silent No More holds demonstrations where they posit their "I REGRET MY ABORTION" signs and attempt to encroach on public space, I do engage. I truly believe that they have a right to exist and express their opinions just as I have a right to do the same. But do these demonstrations (which are often impromptu) really do anything besides buy into the antagonism surrounding the issue?

I don't know.

So it all comes down to, can you really debate with extremist organizations and/or individuals? Should you even try?

And the most important question for me is, how do we create meaningful discussions on so-called controversial issues?

I'm a smartass with an opinion on everything but this one still has me stumped.

Why I hate Sarah Palin

So I’ve done my best to stay away from American politics because well… that shit is ugly. And complicated. And well, let’s face it, there are a bajillion other blogs out there that tackle it so I figured, why bother?

But this Sarah Palin business has got my La Senza’s in a twist, so I have to add my voice to the mix.

I want to love Palin, I do. She’s a SHE, she’s young, she’s a mother and she’s from freakin’ Alaska. Nobody cares about Alaska! But then, she’s also anti-choice, a homophobe, a creationist and pro-gun. Now I understand being pro-gun and from Alaska; I’m from Northern Ontario after all. I’ve been hunting, I know these things. But you can’t take a pro-gun attitude into the White House. Washington is nobody’s Alaska.

And when the shocking announcement was made that Palin was going to be McCain’s VP, Obama had plenty of opportunity to knock her down a few pegs by bringing up this anti-womyn, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-logic business. But no, he chooses instead to call her to task on having “no experience”.

Paging Obama: Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.

And now it seems that Palin has a 17 year old daughter that is *gasp* PREGNANT and of course, unmarried. Well this has sent the “journalists” into a frenzy now hasn’t it? Is she a good anti-choicer for having a daughter who kept the baby or is she coveting a slut? (Forgetting of course that this is the same womyn who cut funding to young mothers and who is a creationist and therefore anti-sex education).

I hate talking about Palin’s private life but I suppose that as long as we can cut up McCain’s rehabbing wife and Michelle Obama’s mothering skills, then everything is up for grabs, like it or not.

But of all the Palin talk of late, I could care less about her daughter, and not just because she has a horrible name (Bristol? Really?).

The latest Palin-ism is her speech at the Republican National Convention where she went on a tirade against Obama for having attacked her lack of experience. Admittedly, she had every right to. But the way in which she did it seemed so… childish. A very “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” kind of attitude.

In response to being accused of lacking experience, she took a stab at Obama’s days as an activist. Her exact words

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Really Palin? Honestly? That’s your response?

I’d give you my response but I will choose instead to let the delicious Jay Smooth to do it for me instead, because I couldn’t have said it better myself.

“The difference between a community organizer and a politician is that community organizers are the ones who take the responsibility upon themselves to help their fellow citizens without the benefit of a government budget behind them.”

Amen.

**Thanks to Feministing for the IllDoctrine heads-up**

Update: This Daily Show clip is a must-see.

And The Feminists For the Win!

Today, a Canadian feminist rejoices.

Yesterday the Conservatives announced that they were revoking Bill C-484 and wanting to replace it with another more appropriate Bill after the (inevitable) Fall election. This new more "appropriate" Bill will be worded much more clearly and will place the focus on preventing violence against pregnant womyn as people and not as incubators.

BOO-FREAKIN’-YA

If you’ve been following my musings here or the news in general really, you will know that Bill C-484 hasn’t sat well with feminists, lawyers and the medical community alike. Well it seems that us rabble rousers scared the Neo-Cons just a wee bit, so they are backing down on this Bill in order to win some votes in the election. I guess they figured that if we can mobilize quickly around this, then we can mobilize people to vote, too.

This hasn’t warmed me up to the Tories one bit and I don’t think the battle is over, quite yet. I mean, the very root of a Conservative platform is anti-feminist, in my opinion. But I think it is safe to say that this is an excellent example of Canadian democracy in practice.

Let’s face it, politicians of all stripes (with the exception of the Bloc) dropped the ball on this Bill. The Liberal Party has a pro-choice platform and yet the party was divided on the Bill. But the pro-choice community mobilized and demonstrated that we know what’s what.

And now you can see the results.

Canadian Feminists: 1, Conservatives: 0

Oh Canada...

Around the same time as Canada Day, comes a major victory for pro-choice advocates in this lovely country of mine. Henry Morgentaller was awarded the Order of Canada this week, which is a huge dropkick to the anti-choice crowd. I say HUZZAH! The man is a Concentration Camp survivor who performed abortions and advocated for their availability, knowing it would get him jailed (which it did, several times). He fought the good fight and he’s getting some serious recognition for it.

The awarding of Orders is usually pretty quiet and only when bigwigs like Morgentaller get one do people pipe up and have an opinion. And of course, on this one, the opinions are just rollin’. CBC.ca has this great PRO – CON thing on their site which I love. Mostly because Heather Mallick *swoon* actually writes about the pros of giving him the award whereas batshit crazy Stephanie Gray (I’m not linking to her, feel free to Google her yourself) goes on about the perils of abortion and how Canadians need to answer whether “It is right to do what is wrong”. She makes the ABORTION IS MURDER argument but is smart enough not to follow that line of reasoning and flat out call Morgentaller a murderer because well… he isn’t one.

But quite frankly, without calling Morgentaller out his so-called murdering ways, her entire article is ridiculous and out of place. Mallick states the pros of his award and Gray goes on a rant about… zygotes. Smooth move, sister! But I gotta give Gray some credit because she at least follows through on her crazy logic. She thinks that abortion is wrong in all cases including rape and incest. I’ve seen her speak at a campus “debate” and she came out and said it there, too. It’s a ridiculous line of argument and it’s not often spoken because it’s so contentious so I honestly give her credit for stickin’ to her guns. Even if her guns are way, way, way off.

But you know what, the fact that Morgentaller is in need of constant security and the opposite equations like Stephanie Gray are not just goes to show who the crazies really are.

And while we're on the topic of crazies, check this guy out. A Priest who is returning his Order of Canada because he does not want to be associated with Morgentaller. Like Gray, I say word up on stickin' to your convictions. But the guy is a priest. Who is associated with Catholicism. Yeah. Okay.

So this Canada Day, I say congrats to Morgentaller and his hard work and constant dedication. And boooo to Stephanie Gray and her desire for “Bio-Ethical Reform”. Oh and while I’m at it, word up to CBC.ca for creating a forum on the issue and booo at the same time, for the lovely heading “Missing Escort Found Buried in Yard”. Do you people know nothing by now?

Hello? CBC? Is that you?

So CBC.ca published a story as part of their front page rotation with the wonderful title: “Pregnancy pact alarms officials at U.S. high school: reports”

**cue horror movie music**

According to “reports”, 18 teenagers in a school of 1,200 are pregnant. All of which are under 18 and at least one of them got pregnant by a 24 homeless man. The reason? Well according to “reports”, it’s because they made a pact to get pregnant and raise their children together.

Yes, the Canadian Broadcasting Channel “reported” this delicious story, based on “reports” that blamed the “pact” on such things as the “glamorizing [of] pregnancy with movies such as Juno and Knocked Up, plus Nickelodeon star Jamie Lynn Spears becoming a mother this week at age 17.”

Alright, first things first. This “pact” is quite possibly a rumour. No one has actually been able to “confirm” this so-called pact, but it sure does make a sensational headline.

Secondly, CBC’s “reports” are an article in Time Magazine.

Thirdly, if you’re going to go all parent-like on people and accuse Hollyweird of putting ideas in people’s heads, then get it right. Knocked Up was about a mid to late 20s, employed womyn getting pregnant. Not even close to being in the same category as Juno.

Fourthly, they spend most of the article essentially blaming Hollywood and then toss in the little line that is, in my opinion, the right one. “The U.S. has traditionally had the highest teen birth rate of all developed countries.” And you can thank the gagrule and the other great, Bush endorsed abstinence education people for that one.

And finally, this story also appeared on PerezHilton.com, Dlisted.com and FOX. Seriously CBC, get your shit together. I can’t recognize you under all your sensationalized, ass-pulling, made-up “news”.

Bling and Babies

Part 2 of my discussion on genitalia in the media looks at the funding of IVF or In-Vitro Fertilization.

I came across this article about a month or so now written be a medical ethicist who is lobbying the provinces to fund IVF for couples who want children. I went into reading the article with some pretty strong convinctions of my own regarding IVF.

I do not support the use of IVF as a general rule. Let me clarify here that I am referring to heterosexual couples, which is who this particular ethicist was referring to as well. Reproductive issues for non-heterosexual couples is a whole other can of worms that I won't get into here.

Nonetheless, in my undergrad, I wrote a paper in my philosophy course on my reasons for it and in a nutshell, I think it's selfish. I think people who choose IVF are less interested in being parents than in having small little versions of themselves. There are tons of children awaiting adoption and so why not choose that route instead? I am baffled by the morality of this society which looks down upon abortion (therefore supporting adoption) and yet is such a strong supporter of IVF. Where does these adopted babies go exactly?

Now I know couples who are seeking IVF and so I have been challenged directly by this, but I have yet to hear a solid argument in support of it.

HOWEVER, this article persuaded me that if we are going to have IVF, it should be funded.

Now I've heard peeps say "Hey, we fund abortions, so why not fund families who desperately seek a child but can't afford it?"

I don't support the funding of IVF because I'm all about the babies. I'm not. Babies are alright and all, I suppose but the reason I support the funding of IVF for couples in Canada is because, according to those in the medical profession, who presumably know what the hell they're talking about, when couples seek out IVF but do not have the necessary moola to acquire it, they find doctors who will prescribe them the drugs only, which results in triplets or more.

Basically, no moola + infertility + desire for baby = babieS, plural. Which in strictly economic terms, doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

I do not have a medical background and so in this particular case, I need to rely on those who do to lead the way. So if you want my opinion (which if you don't, why the hell are you reading this?!) provinces should fund IVF for couples who seek it out. Not because I support the use of IVF but because I don't support the idea of families having a bajillion babies they can't afford.

In this sense, I guess it's a harm reduction baby-making model.