Abortion Gang

Abortion has recently become a hot topic (again) in Canada. Currently, the anti-choice contingent, lead by CPC MP Stephen Woodworth, has been asking why Canada denies that a fetus is human. In fact, they are claiming that abortion has nothing to do with it, they really just want Canada (and pro-choicers I presume) to acknowledge that a fetus is human. Here’s the thing: no pro-choicer I know denies that a fetus is human; we deny that it is a person. And there is a distinct difference.

“Human” can refer to so many things other than a person. Our cells are human. We have human emotions that aren’t experienced, as far as the current evidence shows, by other animals to the same degree as us. We have human culture and technology. “Human” is such a broad term that to suggest that a fetus is not human is really quite ridiculous. That being said, not all fetuses are human, just the ones that share human DNA. But DNA does not a person make.

A person is completely different from a human and although a person is also human, “human” is not necessarily a person. To suggest that they are synonyms is to conflate their meanings. People share a number of characteristics, which while not all are present in each person, most people will indeed share most of the characteristics. People have emotions and thoughts, they experience sensation, often through their 5 senses but not always. People have the capacity to learn, to form opinions, to have likes and dislikes. Even small infants and children have many of these qualities in at least a rudimentary sense. People also have individual bodies that are self-sustaining. When they are not self-sustaining, we have medical intervention that can take over to some extent, but when ultimately our bodies lose too much of their ability to self-sustain, we die.

This is the point at which the antis will point out conjoined twins; they enjoy conflating “fetus” with “conjoined twin.” The difference is that conjoined twins have at least some separation of their bodies. If they did not then they would be a parasitic fetus, or a fetus in fetu. Conjoined twins are two distinct individuals that share some organs. What is most important is that many conjoined twins are separated, or at least a separation is attempted. Unfortunately sometimes one, or both, die. There is (likely) no debate as to whether conjoined twins are individuals, but I don’t see huge protests and sums of money going into preventing their separation surgeries. I don’t see these parents harassed and tormented for the decision they are making, even when it is almost inevitable that one will die. To suggest that a fetus has more rights than a conjoined twin is to lose one’s grip with reality.

There is no equivalency to a fetus. A fetus is a fetus. It is not “like” anything else. To suggest otherwise is to conflate the meaning of both. Suggesting that pro-choicers deny that a fetus is human is disingenuous. I deny that a fetus is a person. I deny that it has a sufficient number of the characteristics that make a person a person to qualify it as such. Unfortunately, the antis in Canada are getting creative because they realize that abortion bans do not sit well with the majority of Canadians. Instead, they are attempting to frame the argument in ways that seem innocent and perhaps have even a “left wing flare,” but in fact are the complete opposite; they are backdoor attempts to start Canada down the slippery slope to abortion regulation. And I will not stand for it.

Things in the abortion world in Canada are heating up. Progressives have re-engaged the public in Prince Edward Island, Canada’s tiny island province, with respect to the complete lack of abortion services on the Island. All women have to ship out for their abortion to either New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. The abortion is paid for if it is at a hospital, but not the travel costs. The current Liberal politicians (I use the word loosely…) have decided to chicken out keep the status quo rather than piss off the right-wing. I suspect we will hear from the new pro-choice group again soon.

Meanwhile in Ottawa, half a dozen (white, male) anti-choicers are screaming about Canada’s “400 year old law” (Newsflash: Canada is less than 200 years old!) and wanting to re-examine the discussion about the “rights for the unborn,” all the while expertly avoiding using the dreaded A-word. Canada’s current Prime Minister has promised not to re-open the abortion debate but everybody on the Left know he has something up his sleeve. Harper controls the Conservative caucus like Kim Jong-Il controlled North Korea. That is to say: nothing happens without his approval. The fact that half a dozen MPs have issued press releases over the past few months, decrying the state of “human rights” in Canada (ironic coming from the Government that happily handed over Afghan detainees knowing they would be tortured) because a fetus doesn’t become a baby until it is born and the umbilical cord is cut, means he is aware and tacitly approving. All these men are back-benchers, meaning they are not within his cabinet. As a result, I foresee Harper claiming his has no control over these men, which is utter bullshit.

If you are in the riding of one of these anti MPs, please send them a letter letting them know that women’s human rights are not up for discussion!

In other news, the Student Union at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton has denied club status to a ‘pro-life’ group (Warning: Links to anti-abortion LifeSite) on the basis that,

…it would be a “single issue” club with “political will or intention,” that it would be “contentious” and “inviting debate,” and that it would be a source of “misinformation” regarding “post-abortion counselling.”

So long as the Student Union applies this criteria across the board and is not simply finding a reason to deny this group, I am okay with the decision. But if they are simply fishing for reasons to deny them status, I think I have an issue with it. While they are not technically government, I do not believe that driving this group underground will be of any benefit. I would rather this group be out in the open where their stance can be openly criticized. If they are in fact engaging in misleading women though Crisis Pregnancy Centres or showing up at the Morgentaler Clinic in downtown to harass women, then good, deny them funding. But if they simply want to have members, meet and enjoy the benefits for being a club, then I disagree with the Student Union. Disagreeing with their ideas is not sufficient grounds for denying them status; they must behave in a manner that violates some universal code of conduct for clubs.

I am a big believer in free speech. While every right has its limits, denying club status to a group just because you disagree is not appropriate; free and open discussion is important. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

In Canada women have been granted the right to abortion by the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of the Charter right of security of person. Recently, a case was heard by the SCC, which will see freedom of speech and religion clash with a woman’s right to security of person.

Linda Gibbons is a notorious anti-choice protestor. She would be known as a hardened criminal if she weren’t leading a religious crusade against abortion. She has spent 8-9 years behind bars in various stints over the past 17 years because of her refusal to abide by an injunction that forbids protesting within 150m of Toronto abortion clinics. The ban is an attempt to stop harassment against women who attend these clinics.

Ms. Gibbons appeared before the SCC recently, arguing that the injunctions should be removed so that she can exercise her “rights” to freedom of speech and religion. Her lawyers also argued that using the criminal justice system to enforce the injunction was inappropriate and that the clinics should be forced to pursue Ms. Gibbons in civil court. She believes that the injunction “stifles pro-life activism.” She effectively believes that she has an inalienable right to freedom of speech and that by preventing her from protesting directly out front of the clinics where she can harass the women entering the clinics the government is breaching her rights.

What Ms. Gibbons does not seem to appreciate is that all rights have limits. Her right to freedom of speech and religion are not absolute. The SCC does not place rights in a hierarchy, putting one above the other. This means that they place limits on certain rights to avoid clashes between different rights. This will be another instance where I am certain he SCC will clarify that the right to free speech is limited, namely harassment is not free speech and thus is not protected.

I can only guess what the SCC will say, but I expect that they will stop Ms. Gibbons from harassing patients. They must understand that women accessing legal healthcare have a right to do so in peace. This judgment will be interesting because in New Brunswick, the antis have purchased the property literally next door to the Fredericton Morgentaler Clinic, giving them easy access to patients. The NB government has refused to enact an injunction to push the protestors back, and so clinic escorts are needed to help protect the women. If this SCC judgment comes down limiting the rights of protestors, like I suspect that it will, it will give pro-choice activists in other cities, including Fredericton, the ammunition by which to demand injunctions to keep protestors back.

When this judgment comes down I will write an update.

Oh, and Ms. Gibbons? Thanks to your fight, I now donate $25 per month to Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Thank you for the motivation.

Every day politicians attack women’s right to choice somewhere around the world. The U.S. seems to be leading the charge with the GOP focusing on regulating women’s uteri rather than corporations. As activists we are fighting an uphill battle against politicians who are bound and determined to crush choice for all but the wealthiest women, the women who can afford to fly someplace to get an abortion. Abortion is becoming a 99% vs 1% issue where the 99% will soon not be able to afford a safe abortion. It is time for us to change tactics. Reacting and defending choice is not sufficient. We must be proactive. We have to stop reacting to new anti-choice laws and we must begin creating pro-choice laws.

A recent report on global gender equality by the World Economic Forum places Canada 18^th overall and the U.S. 17^th behind such countries as Burundi and the Philippines,

Even Iceland where the leader is a lesbian woman, women in general only attain 70% of the level of men. Worldwide women have closed less than 20% of the gender gap in politics. It is no wonder that anti-women laws are rampant: there are almost no women with a voice in politics!

What this means is that the politicians making the laws that affect women are most likely men. It is insufficient for women to constantly react to the laws of men. Activists can no longer just volunteer at clinics, speak out for abortion rights and be satisfied. More pro-choice women, and men, must become politicians; we have to be the ones making the laws. We must be lawyers and judges, interpreting the laws and striking down the unconstitutional ones. We must be involved in municipal/county politics, provincial/state politics, and federal politics.

Men have made the decision in Topeka, Kansas to stop prosecuting domestic violence, leaving women terrified as their abusive partners are released from jail because the city doesn’t want to spend the money to prosecute them. A male politician claims that a woman can’t be raped by her husband if she is wearing a “nightie.” In an article in Forbes online, a man suggested that women won’t become CEOs because women are more concerned about gossip and looking pretty. There is no shortage of women who hold these archaic beliefs, but I find mansplaining far more offensive. And the anti-women men are prevalent, powerful, and dangerous.

Activism is great, it is a grassroots fight for rights. It is relevant but it is insufficient. We must approach women’s rights from both directions: from the grassroots and from the glass ceiling. We must have a coordinated attack on anti-women lawmakers and politicians. I beg of you, please consider running for politics, of any level. Even one pro-woman voice among the anti-women contingent that speaks out will help. When the only voice people hear is anti-choice, anti-women, they start to believe that is the only voice. We must make the pro-women voices heard from positions of authority. First it will start as a whisper, but your pro-women voice will reach another person and inspire them to speak out for women. We must become more than a mere annoyance. We must begin reversing the anti-women laws until being pro-choice is the norm. It won’t be easy. Politics is draining and it is hard work, but unless we only want the richest 1% of women to have access to safe abortion, we must sacrifice our time. Being a politician can be a thankless job but if a pro-choice politician can help one more woman get a safe abortion it would be a worthwhile sacrifice.

Abortion has come to the forefront of politics this week. I recently wrote a post about backbencher Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) MP Brad Trost’s explosion onto the scene, slamming the decision by the Federal Government (his Federal Government) to fund International Planned Parenthood Federation. Unfortunately, many Canadians seem naïve about abortion rights and Brad Trost was painted as a “rogue” MP. I assure you, he is no rogue. Another backbencher CPC MP, Maurice Vellacott, has come out labelling IPPF “The Dupes of Hazard” and the harbingers of death. There is also backbencher Rod Bruinooge who tried to pass a Bill that would make “coerced abortion” illegal. In fact, 61.5% of CPC MPsare anti-choice. Now, those 3 men are all backbenchers, meaning they don’t wield very much power. The very scary person is Jason Kenney, one of Stephen Harper’s right-hand men and the Minister of Citizenship. Turns out in his youth, Mr. Kenney was more anti-choice than his American Christian University.

Publicly, Kenney will support Harper who says he will not re-open the “abortion debate.” But I am certain this is very similar to the situation with anti-choice groups and the “rogue” men like Scott Roeder, who kill doctors who provide abortion services like Dr. Tiller. Powerful MPs like Kenney give quiet support to MPs like Trost, Bruinooge, and Vellacott. Kenney has much to lose but the other 3 have very little to lose. These 3 are in “safe” Conservative ridings – filled with anti-choice bigotry – and they are already backbenchers. They may not have much to lose but they do have something to lose; they could be kicked out of caucus, meaning they would become “independent” MPs, which means they would lose a great deal of perks that come with being a member of the ruling party and perhaps their riding in the next election. The thing about Harper is that he controls his caucus like a dictator. The fact that these 3 men have spoken out like this means they do not fear Harper. It means that there must be little risk of them being kicked out of caucus. It means that they have the quiet support of powerful MPs like Jason Kenney. This is very much like the “rogue” murderers like Roeder. The pro-choice world knows they were not acting alone and neither are these backbench MPs.

It has recently become apparent that anti-choice sentiment is also harboured amongst the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates (shocking, I know). Tea Party Tim Hudak, leader of the PCPO, signed a petition stating that he would defund abortion in Ontario. Well now he is running to be premier and he doesn’t really like answering questions asking whether he is “pro-life.” In fact, he runs away from interviews that ask him. Even though he insists he won’t reopen the debate. The mainstream media is picking up on Hudak’s waffling. Now we just need Ontario voters to do the same.

In Canada, abortion could be made a criminal offense by the Federal Government. Since abortion is healthcare, which is controlled by the provinces, the Ontario government could decide to remove funding like New Brunswick has. The Province has the power to force women to choose between rent or an abortion. New Brunswick currently does not fund abortions in accordance with the Canada Health Act. Pursuant to the CHA, the provinces are required to fund abortions in private clinics due to the time sensitive nature of abortions. Under the CHA, women should only have to show their provincial health card at a private clinic and get their abortion. Except in New Brunswick, women have to beg for permission from 2 OB/GYNs to get a provincially funded abortion and it must be done in a hospital. It would not be difficult for Tim “I signed a petition stating I would defund abortions” Hudak to cut funding if he gets a majority next week.

Canadians and Ontarians cannot take reproductive rights for granted. On October 6^th, vote for the candidate in your riding most likely to beat the PCPO candidate, whichever party they may belong to. The loss of abortion rights and reproductive freedoms is a slippery slope and it begins with complacency.

The Canadian Criminal Code reads as follows,

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Sounds great for pro-choice Canadians, right? Wrong. As a general rule, I refuse to refer to the law when making my arguments for abortion rights. There are some rights that are inherent that cannot be changed by legislation. The right not to be discriminated against due to race was always wrong, even when it was legal. The right not to be discriminated against due to gender or sexual orientation does not change, even if it is illegal. Currently in Canada, there is no legal right to die.Sue Rodriguez challenged the law and lost in the Supreme Court. I believe that every human being has the right to decide the time and manner in which they die and that they should legally be allowed to seek the assistance of a physician. I agree that the right needs to be regulated to some degree to ensure it is not abused but ultimately every person has a right to die. This is a right regardless of what the law says. The law is slow to change and often does not accurately reflect society. Sadly, sometimes the law reflects society, but it is still wrong.

The reason I never like to use the argument that a fetus does not become a human being until the criteria in s 223 of the Criminal Code is met, is because it would not take much to change that definition. In Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC for short by no small coincidence) has a majority government. Not because the majority of Canadians voted for them, not even because the majority of voters voted for them. In fact, 50% of Canadians voted for other parties but because of the way our system works (for better or for worse) all it took for their majority was for the party to get 40% ofvoters’ support. Now that the CPC has the majority of seats in the House of Commons, the party makes the law. Except for very few “free votes,” the members of the CPC will toe (or tow, depending on your view) the party line and vote in unison to abolish the long-gun registry and to pass a massive 9-in-1 crime bill that was already voted down when they have a minority government, among other things. As a party they could very easily change the definition of when a fetus becomes a human being to the moment of conception. And the law would be changed.

Guess what? CPC anti Brad Trost is making a very big deal out of the government’s decision to fund International Planned Parenthood Federation. Do not let the title mislead you, a huge percentage of CPC MPs are anti-choice; Trost is no rogue. Their base is made up of the far-right former Reform Alliance. That base did not disappear when the Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the CPC. They are still out there and they see the CPC majority (the first in almost 2 decades) as the ticket to controlling a woman’s right to abortion once and for all. Brad Trost has vowed to take a more aggressive stance against abortion rights and his base in the Reform Alliance. They are the tea-partiers of Canada and they are just as well-funded, just as angry, and just as dangerous.

Even if the CPC changed the law and effectively made abortion illegal by giving a fetus the right to personhood, it would not change the fact that abortion is a woman’s right. Perhaps the only saving grace is that a court appeal would be quickly launched and any CPC law infringing on abortion rights would be put on “hold” while the courts sorted out the legality, which would take long enough that Canadians could come to their senses and remove the CPC from government.

But because the law can be changed so easily, I prefer to rely on the moral arguments in favour of abortion. The fact is, nobody has the right to use another person’s body without their consent or permission. That fact does not change when it involves a woman and a fetus. Regardless of whether the law supports that fact does not change it and the fact that it does support it just means that fewer women will die. Pro-choicers are better off using these arguments rather than relying on “because it’s legal” type arguments. Legal abortion is tenuous, especially in the US. There are very well funded groups that would like nothing more than for women to die from back-alley abortions and they are working hard to make that a reality, both in Canada and the US.

If you want to let Brad Trost know that Canadians do not support him, please email him at Trost.B@parl.gc.ca or you can let him know on Twitter @BradTrostCPC. If you happen to be a constituent of Saskatoon-Humboldt, even better! Let him know by putting ‘Constituent Correspondence’ in the Re Line.

Mr. Trost, Canadians are pro-choice even if you are not!

When discussed in relation to motherhood notions of gender are even more punishing for women. In a study using identical resumes for 2 women, participants consistently rated the mother as 10% less competent and 15% less committed than the non-mother. Only 47% of mothers compared with 84% of non-mothers were recommended for hire as head of the marketing department for a start-up communications company. Not only that, but the mother was docked in her salary by a whopping $11,000 (Correll, Benard & Paik, 2007). When antis discuss abortion as a matter of convenience, are they considering that a mother is less hireable and worthy of significantly less salary than non-mothers? How can $11,000 be considered a matter of convenience? In a follow up study, employers were sent resumes for 2 applicants, both of the same gender. Men, whether they had kids or not, received the same number of call-backs. But women who had kids were subjected to a significant “motherhood penalty” and received half as many call-backs as their identically qualified childless counterparts (Crosby, Williams & Biernat, 2004). And the kicker? Women are punished for displaying “masculine” traits such as aggression just as much as they are punished for displaying “feminine” traits such as compassion (eg. Bolino & Turnley, 2003, and others).

I remember the kerfuffle caused when Gwen Jacobs walked down the street topless in Ontario. I was 11 at the time of the court case in 1996 and I remember thinking, good for her. I also remember thinking how terribly unfair it was that men were allowed to walk around topless but women couldn’t. I can’t imagine actually walking around topless but I am glad that I have the right to do so since the Federal law criminalizing it was struck down. This case could be said to be a precursor to the now famous Slut Walks taking place around the world after a Toronto cop ‘confided’ to a group of York University students that the way to prevent sexual assault was to just not dress like sluts. The story became international news and feminists around the world responded with one simple message: women never ask to be raped.

When a woman cannot dress however she wants without be subjected to constant sexual harassment, I will show you a woman who may be forced to have a sex-selective abortion or be murdered for the want of honour. I will show you a woman who is not respected, and is in fact disrespected because she is a woman. Women in the U.S. and Canada are certainly subjected to sexual harassment but the situation in India is extreme. Women in India are raped wearing traditional saris just like women here are raped wearing track pants, but the extreme violence against women in India is captured well by the Indian expression for sexual harassment: eve-teasing. As if sexual harassment is just school-yard teasing.

On the whole, women in North America have greater reproductive freedom due to a range of factors from financial resources to the law, but to trivialize Indian women’s attempts to empower themselves by declaring their right to dress however they please is to continue to oppress them. The author is correct: Indian women do have bigger fish to fry, but it’s a good idea to gut the fish before you fry it.

Slut walks have nothing to do with “self-objectification.” Women are objectified by society. There are native cultures where women walk around naked and that’s just the way it is. Objectification comes from outside, not from the individual woman. To suggest that women dressing so as to “reveal their breasts” is focusing attention on their body parts is the same as suggesting men who walk around shirtless are showing off their “breasts.”

A few months ago I was talking with my friend’s two little girls, 4 and 6. I’m not sure how we got to the topic but the youngest pipes up that she wants to be a princess when she grows up. So I asked her, what do princesses do? She didn’t have an answer for me. So I asked her, wouldn’t she rather have a job where she helps people, like a doctor, or be a lawyer like me. At that stage the eldest declares that she wants to help people.

I tell this story because it is an all too common one. Most little girls, at some point in their childhood, want to be a princess. Society has taught them that this is something they should strive for. Some women never grow out of it and declare they want to “feel like a princess” on their wedding day. My retort is that I want to be the damn Queen and run the show and not be a measly princess, but truly I wouldn’t want either. I admit it, I watched the Royal Wedding. Even still I don’t envy Kate’s position. Diana made being a princess into a legitimate gig in my opinion, but only because she refused to act like a “proper” princess.

I don’t ever remember discussing abortion with my parents, but I always remember growing up truly believing that I could be anything that I wanted to be. Heck, I still believe that. It is because I grew up knowing I was equal and knowing the only thing stopping me from getting what I wanted was me, I respect a woman’s right to choose. Children need to be taught to be anti-choice but they can be pro-choice naturally if we just empower them. As adults, we need to challenge princess culture. Clearly not aggressively with children, but by doing what I did. Asking little girls what a princess does, and offer a suggestion for a job that empowers them. Little girls want to be empowered but we as a society must help them when they are little.

Let’s go slay the princesses, ladies.

It is such a common refrain that it no longer shocks me. Antis tell us all the time that a woman who has sex “asks to get pregnant” and as a result, should have to “live with the consequences,” meaning motherhood. In fact, when it comes to women, we pretty much ask for all the negative things that happen to us. Women are constantly told that if they don’t want to be raped they shouldn’t ask for it by dressing/walking/talking/looking/thinking…“slutty.”

Lawyers in Canada took this refrain to an entirely new low recently. For those of you who are unaware, 3 brave sex workers are in the process of challenging Canada’s antiquated, dangerous and totally useless prostitution laws. Here in Canada, prostitution isn’t illegal, but communicating about it is, so is “living off of the avails,” meaning sex workers can’t hire drivers or security staff, as is running a “bawdy house,” meaning women can’t work in groups for safety. The rules are insane. It forces women to size up their Johns in a matter of seconds before jumping into their cars. It puts countless women in dangerous situations because they can’t work together or hire security. In fact, Robert Pickton, a pig farmer in British Columbia, was recently convicted of murdering 6 sex workers, which doesn’t even scratch the surface of the dozens of women he was charged with murdering. Not many people even blink an eye when they hear of a missing sex-worker because society has just come to accept that that is what happens to “those” women.

The 3 women won their case at the lower court level and now they are fighting an appeal by the Federal and Provincial governments, conservative and religious groups and some misguided women’s groups. It’s been pretty tough going for the opposing groups so far. The panel of judges for the Court of Appeal has been asking some pointed questions of the government lawyers, noting,

“What the respondents are saying is that prostitutes can’t take the security steps anybody else would take in any other business,” Judge Doherty added. “To comply with the law, they have to take much greater risks than anybody else.”

They panel hasn’t been any easier on the lawyer for the conservative and religious groups, who suggested to the court that the risk to the sex workers might be justified,

While the physical risks prostitutes may face as a result of not being able to work in brothels with security staff is a “sad side effect” of the law, the legislation still serves the valid purpose of ridding Canadian society of a morally abhorrent practice, he argued.

Justice David Doherty asked Agarwal if he was suggesting Canada just has to put up with the risk of violence to sex workers as a kind of collateral damage.

“Are you somehow saying that could be justified by the criminal objective of trying to eradicate prostitution . . . . By saying we eradicated prostitution at the cost of ‘x’ number of lives?” the judge asked.

His thoughtful response?

“You’re dealing with complex considerations,” Agarwal responded.

I fail to see how this is a complex issue. Prostitution is a job choice. A choice that isn’t even illegal. But the government has gone above and beyond to ensure that the women who engage in such activities are forced to do so in the most dangerous manner possible. Because  “people” think it’s immoral. Well I think  raising chickens in tiny cages is immoral. That doesn’t mean I should get to make such jobs more dangerous, say by outlawing chicken farmers from using ventilation in their barns. You know, because they are asking to be poisoned. If you see the absurdity in that logic, you must be able to see the absurdity in the logic behind prostitution laws. And by logic I mean idiocy.

Sex workers are not asking the government to step in and regulate their profession to make it safer. They are asking the government to stop making it so dangerous. Abortion rights activists in the US want something very similar. Stop making abortion prohibitively expensive. Stop making women jump through ridiculous hoops to get their abortions. Stop making it so difficult for women to get a safe abortion. Just back the fuck off. We don’t need a nanny state telling us we might regret it one day.

This story leads to my next point: How can we ever expect society to stop telling women that they “ask to get pregnant” when they have sex if we still allow society to tell women they “ask” to get raped and “ask” to get murdered? In what way is it okay to insinuate that a woman who sells sex deserves to meet a violent death? We don’t tell pedestrians that they ask to get hit by a car if they walk beside a road. We don’t say that a woman who dies during childbirth asked to die (unless she got pregnant out of wedlock, then she deserved it). Why do we remove the blame from the real perpetrators when it comes to abortion and sex-work? Why can’t society give women responsibility for their own bodies and stop trying to interfere?

Because then we might stop relying on men and then who knows what will happen.