Abortion Gang

I am an unashamed and vocal atheist and have been for a couple of years now. I believe that the atheist community is a natural ally to abortion rights activists, but it is an often overlooked community.

Over the past couple years, atheists, particularly in the US, have become more vocal and visible. There have been dozens of bus ads and billboard ad campaigns by local atheist groups. The task of these campaigns has been to simply let our presence be known. A recent Canadian study showed that the public, as a whole, trusts atheists and rapists about the same (shocking, right?). This study is part of the reason that there has been such a drive to improve our profile. The goal is twofold: 1) to encourage “closet” atheists to “come out,” and 2) to show the public that we are normal people, who just happen to believe in god less than they do. Most importantly, we are not trying to “convert” people.

Atheist groups are often engaged in dogged enforcement of separation of church and state. The biggest problem for abortion rights activists is that the church is continually interfering with the state, and many politicians are incapable of grasping the simple concept of their separation. That is what led to this photograph, which included three men in religious garb on a panel of five men debating whether forcing an insurer to pay for birth control violated religious rights.

If abortion rights activists were able to remove religion and the church from the political sphere, we would be much more successful in improving access to abortion and contraception. Planned Parenthood is under attack from the religious right. The religious right are the ones equating birth control use with promiscuity, and abortion with murder. In the atheist/secular community, there are more certainly anti-choicers, but when they pop up on discussion boards, they are mercilessly criticized. Atheists love one thing above all else – logic. At a minimum, the majority understand that legal and safe abortion is necessary to save women’s lives because without it, women will resort to unsafe abortion methods. Even if they would consider themselves “personally pro-life,” they understand at a minimum that making abortion illegal does nothing to stop it. They know that access to comprehensive sex-education and contraception is imperative to lower unwanted pregnancies. Atheists accept statistics and logic, and that is why the majority support all of the things that abortion rights activists support; abortion access, contraception access, comprehensive sex-education, etc.

By no means is the secular community without its misogynists. There have been a few major kerfuffles, the least of which involved many of the (mainly male) secular community backing up a guy who relentlessly hit on a lone girl in an elevator at a secular conference, despite her requests that he stop. And when she published a video about the incident on her blog, the community went ape shit. Fortunately, the prominent “leaders” of the community, for the most part, consider themselves feminists and they backed up the victim. PZ Meyers of Pharyngula, Hemant Metha of Friendly Atheist, and Jen McCreight of Blag Hag, to name a few, were vocal supporters of a woman’s right to say ‘no’ and to have that respected. Unfortunately, this is in stark contrast to the leaders of mainstream religious organizations, who are no friends of feminists, as we all know.

I truly am not trying to attack religion. I know that there are a great many religious individuals who support abortion rights, including members of this blog. I simply believe that the abortion rights community needs to work with, or at least learn from, secular groups. The secular community is very good at fighting religious interference with state business, and we need their expertise if we want any abortion rights at all. The state has unlimited resources to torment women, and the Republicans have not only spent 2011 pursuing their “war on women,” but they are poised to return women to the dark ages, with the assistance of the churches and religious leaders. We must utilize our natural allies. The secular community is just as motivated to keep the church out of schools and public office as we are to keep them out of our uteri.

The atheist and secular communities are the natural allies of abortion rights activists and it is time for us to cultivate this relationship. We desperately need the assistance of secular groups to keep government out of our vaginas.

Navigating the world of humour can be difficult when you’re clued in. For me, an important part of being an extremely privileged feminist was learning to stop making jokes at the expense of others, particularly about rape and sexual assault. Some humour seems so pervasive in the dominant culture that people think it must be ok (like prison rape jokes, or someone-you-thought-was-a-woman-turns-out-to-be-a-man jokes, hahaha NO). However, the more you learn about oppression and privilege, the more you see how pervasive racism, transphobia, sexism, etc. etc. are in our culture, and how they grow and spread through “comedy.”

So with that said, can we agree as feminists (and human beings) that jokes where the punchline involves firebombing a facility whose staff and clients are under constant threat of being firebombed aren’t funny? Just like jokes about women being raped aren’t funny? The reason being that they aren’t challenging or subversive; they propagate the status quo. Clinics get bombed. That isn’t humour. It’s news.

This post tells us that Mavis Mantis, who identifies as a “radical feminist” (the fact that this term has been co-opted by trans-hating assholes is a topic for another day…), made the following “joke” regarding the recent Planned Parenthood bombing/arson in Wisconsin: “If they were going to bomb PP, they at least could have bombed Toronto (after that horrible lesbophobic “overcoming the cotton ceiling” workshop.)”

The workshop Mavis is referring to was run by Planned Parenthood Toronto and focused on “…draw[ing] attention to the ways in which trans women are socially constructed as undesirable, and are denied full participation in queer women’s communities.” We can argue all day as to whether this workshop is inherently lesbophobic, which is Mavis’s (and other “radical” feminists’) contention (hint: I disagree), but to suggest (even jokingly) that it merits having the clinic bombed is offensive and frightening. As if the staff running that workshop don’t go to work every day with the threat of bombing hanging over their heads. As if the queer and trans participants don’t face the threat of violence and murder every day of their lives. As if this is how we “punish” supposed transgressions from our allies.

As a cis woman and a feminist, I reject and condemn such bullying tactics – that is pretty much the bare minimum of what I can do as an ally to trans folks and as a decent human being. As a person who lives, works, and accesses sexual and reproductive health care services in Toronto, I am frightened by the anger behind this “joke” and by the implied spirit of violently correcting perceived mistakes in the feminism and social justice efforts of others. And as a former clinic worker, I am appalled by the levity with which the daily threat of violence is treated by this supposed ally.

Here’s a thought: what does firebombing anything accomplish? I don’t think we can’t joke about firebombing things, but really, let’s at least be subversive about it. There’s nothing new or hilarious about saying you want to firebomb Planned Parenthood, because a lot of assholes want to firebomb Planned Parenthood. And it’s especially unfunny to joke about violently punishing people or organizations that attempt to offer support to trans folks, because guess what? Trans folks get threatened with violence pretty much every day of their lives.

Just because allies are thin on the ground doesn’t mean we have to accept any old self-identified feminist that comes along. As someone who believes strongly that trans folks, queer folks, clinic staff and their allies and supporters deserve to be safe every day, I strongly and unequivocally condemn any “joke” or statement from any person – feminist-identified or otherwise – that uses violence or the threat of violence against anyone as a punchline or something that can be treated lightly. My feminism is not just implicitly intersectional; it is explicitly anti-transphobia and anti-violence. Haters need not apply.

We’re taking this week off for some much needed rest and relaxation. Check back the week of March 18 when we’ll resume our regular schedule of reproductive justice badassery.

Love,

The Abortion Gang

The women and men in the pro-choice movement can be some of the most uplifting, wonderful, caring people that I have ever met. And most of the time, we are tirelessly patient with antis, political leaders and fence-sitters. The patience that we project can be inspiring and impressive, because, as a movement, somehow, WE have been tasked with always being the “reasonable ones.” We are the ones who double- and triple-edit our comments on blogs and in papers for tone, accuracy, and -isms (sexism, sizeism, racism, etc.). We are the ones who have to calmly and patiently walk through gauntlets of antis screaming and harassing women outside of clinics. We have to police ourselves constantly for any whiffs of “crazy.” Because we’ve been branded, we are always needing to prove ourselves.

But I’ve noticed that our patience is being worn thin. The constant pressure to be something other than human; to be the ones who are always logical, calm, cool and collected, is getting to us. We are starting to get tired. And in our tiredness, we are starting to go after the ones who are the closest to us: each other. On the blog, we consistently receive hate mail from antis (I simply do not understand how Steph handles it on a regular basis. I would go insane.) This is, at the very least, expected. But on some of our more recent posts, the hate mail was coming from other pro-choicers. Simply because we disagreed with something that was said by another pro-choicer. We did not intend to attack that person. In fact, we went to lengths to avoid that very thing. It backfired, and we are still feeling the sting.

Somehow, amongst ourselves, we have unintentionally created an environment where there we can’t disagree with each other or ask for help from each other. We will gladly band together against a common enemy, but we have ostracized our friends. Just a few days ago, two important women in our movement disagreed with each other publicly, and it wasn’t a pretty sight. I’m not going to link to articles, because that would be fanning the flames, but I have to admit that I am frustrated by this.

We are often forced to use up our compassion on those who would work against us. This is exhausting. I would suggest that when we find ourselves trying to be compassionate with each other, it’s the opposite. It’s fulfilling and rejuvenating. We should be critiquing each other and the movement on a regular basis. How else can we improve? How else can we become more effective? But we need to try to do it with respect and care. Sometimes we’ll be really good at this, and sometimes we’ll be really bad at it. There will be a learning curve, to be sure, but it would be great if we could get a place where we are more good than bad at it, so that we can redirect our energy elsewhere.

This isn’t a new phenomenon, but I feel like it’s becoming more common as more and more women’s rights are coming under fire. I’m begging that we stop and consider the fact that we are all tired. We are all tired of fighting for things that should be or already are legally our rights, we are tired of having to be patient with the other side, we are tired of reading hate mail, we are tired from the million other things that are happening in our daily lives. We are tired. But we have to remember that we are a family, and we will always be there for each other, even when we disagree or don’t particularly like some other person for the moment. And that is something special, that we need to cherish, especially when we are at our wits end and our most exhausted.

#Abortion brought back 555 photos, and Instagram brought up 21 related hashes, only one of which (#abortionrights) was prochoice in nature. The other 20 related hashes were labels such as: #abortionismurder, #abortionholocaust, #abortioniswrong, #abortionisterrible, #abortioniskillingachild. I began looking at the 555 photos that were tagged under #abortion vainly hoping the photos would be a mix bag of positive and negative messages.  But no, the majority of the photos displayed under #abortion are gory fetus porn, pictures of messages such as “abortion is murder”, “reblog if you are against abortion” and “NOT YOUR CHOICE” above a drawing of a fully developed fetus in the mother’s stomach. The rest of the anti-choice tags, #abortionismurder etc., were all photos of the regular ol’ anti-choice hate.  There are 681 photos #prolife compared to 169 tagged #prochoice. The #prolife tagged photos were mostly the same content as the other antiabortion hashes, except the #prolife photos showed more babies and children, supposedly representing the anti-aborion cause. The #prochoice photos are much more diverse, creative and uplifting, than the repetitive #prolife photos (surprise!), but disproportionate representation is frustrating.

I would have left my search unsurprised at that point, but I became infuriated by what I saw next:  In the 21 related hashes to #abortion was #abortiondoctor—it contains one photo.  A user posted a picture of a metal statue of a boy holding flowers, commented “#creepymailbox at the home of an #abortiondoctor.” A commenter asks, “Why are you at the abortion doctor” and the user replies, “it’s on my UPS route.”

Beyond labeling this provider as “creepy” for no reason, the user is, perhaps ignorantly, supporting stalking culture and threatening the safety of the supposed abortion provider.  What if someone who knows this user were anti-choice, and interested in exposing the location of the provider’s house? Given the information provided, it wouldn’t be that hard to locate the provider’s home.

2.     If you’re on Instagram, make and effort to bring new hashes. I could see #ihadanabortion or #provoice tags coming onto Instagram, with positive messages and images.

So Komen decided to about-face on their disgusting decision to defund Planned Parenthood amid a shitstorm of controversy and an overwhelmingly negative backlash.

THIS IS NOT A VICTORY.

A victory would be if Komen acknowledged that their decision was based in partisan politics and then actually decided to remedy the issue by removing executives who are pandering to political bases. A victory would be if they doubled or tripled their contribution to not just Planned Parenthood, but to the institutions who do life-saving stem cell research, from whom they recently pulled over $12MILLION in support. A victory would be if their fake apology didn’t at the same time justify their decision to defund Planned Parenthood as “right and fair.”

Just because Komen decided that it would be better to reverse their decision than risk absolving their business is not a victory. Stop congratulating them on doing what could still barely be considered “the right thing.” Nancy Brinker and the Board of Directors has rightfully earned public scorn and a loss in “donations” (revenue).

We cannot accept their about-face as a victory because we are doing a disservice to all of these other wonderful organizations that have never abandoned their commitment to saving lives. So, I’m begging you, don’t go have a drink to celebrate because Komen decided not to remain GIGANTIC asshats. Have a drink and prep for our next battle, because this is far from over.

Those who know me may not be shocked to know that in my younger years I was a bit free-wheelin’ – I had a pretty “hippie” vibe back in high school, which has transitioned into a fairly left – some might say radical – take on most social and environmental issues even now that my hair is cut to a reasonable length.

My combined interest in conservation and lady stuff naturally led me to tampon and pad alternatives. In my early twenties, all the cool enlightened feminists I knew were talking about Diva Cups. I had already read about bleached tampons and toxic shock syndrome, and I also kinda hated the whole process of using pads and how much paper was produced, and the constant possibilities for embarrassment (come on, who hasn’t shown up for class with a pad stuck to their jeans?). So I was pretty excited for something new.

I did my research first, because $40 was a lot of money for me, an unemployed college student. I knew it would save me a lot of money in the long term, but “long term” has never really been a mainstay in my financial vocabulary. So first, to make sure it would be okay for me, I bought the disposable menstrual cup things. They look like a clear plastic bag attached to a livestrong bracelet – you sort of squeeze the rim together and shove it up until it’s sitting against your cervix.

I tried the disposable cups for two periods and I liked them. I bought the Diva Cup. And I hated it.

I tried, I really did. It was forty dollars, after all. I tried using it for three cycles, and then I gave up.

The problem was that I could never get it to feel comfortable. Now I know that I have an unusually long and narrow vaginal canal (thanks, horrible IUD insertion!) and a weirdly tilted cervix, I guess the problem was that I wasn’t getting it in far enough to sit against my cervix. When you’re putting something solid like that into your vagina you tend to get increasingly nervous the further you shove it, and I just didn’t want to push it too far. However, even now that I know that, I’m not sure I would want to try it again. When it comes to menstrual blood, I’m more on the side of flow than containment.

I couldn’t go back to disposable pads and tampons though – I felt like I was losing enough ecofeminist cred as it was. That’s when I discovered cloth pads. Wonderful, lovely cloth pads. Again, they are expensive – but you can use them for a long time, so you save money in the long run. And they can be messy, but if you are diligent about soaking them before throwing them in the wash, it’s really no biggie. I kind of love them. Also, they can be an opportunity to support independent crafters!

It wasn’t until a couple years after I gave up on the Diva Cup that I even said anything about it to anyone. One of the volunteers at the clinic asked me if I had one. Before I could answer, she started to tell me about hers – how much she hated it, how she was trying so hard to like it, how she couldn’t figure out what she was doing wrong. I was so happy to have found someone who shared this with me!

I really think that feminists have a code like any other group, silent unwritten rules that vary from chapter to chapter, and one of them (at least in the circle I was running with at the time) was that under no circumstances were you to badmouth any of the great feminist advances – the pill, the Diva Cup, etc. etc. Maybe that was just in my head, I don’t know. But I was so relieved to find there was another feminist (and presumably lots more out there) who wasn’t as stoked about this great device as everyone else.

The lesson, I guess, is that everyone is different. I would never go around badmouthing the Diva Cup (in fact, I promote it as much as I can – after all, most of the people I know who have it, love it), but I’m always careful to tell people who ask me about it that it’s ok to feel like it didn’t work out for you. The more people who are upfront about what’s not working for them, the more chance there is that something else will come along to meet those needs.

So if you are thinking about chucking pads and tampons for something earth-friendly, I recommend doing your research (either online, with friends, or if you have a local feminist sex shop or health store,ask the staff about your options), and considering what features you’re looking for (eg. how comfortable do you feel putting something inside you?, etc.) before committing. Your comfort and safety should always be at the forefront of decisions you make about your body, so don’t be afraid to take some time to choose.

Good luck and happy bleeding!

A guest post from Abigail Collazo. Cross-posted from Fem2pt0. 

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post thinks the debate surrounding abortion, or what he refers to as “Roe Week,” is absurd.

In his latest column, Milbank criticizes abortion provider Merle Hoffman for raising a ‘false alarm’ about the threat to reproductive rights in this country.  He then goes on the cite the numerous marches and events that will take place on both sides of the debate over the next week as the country celebrates – or laments – the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in this country.

All of this attention troubles Dana Milbank.  He writes, “if these groups cared as much about the issue as they claim, and didn’t have such strong financial incentives to avoid consensus and compromise, they’d cancel the carnivals and get to work on the one thing everybody agrees would be worthwhile — reducing unwanted pregnancies.”

He chastises the choice movement by telling us that “not every compromise means a slippery slope to the back alley.”  He tells us to stop with the “sky is falling” argument and to acknowledge that the majority of Americans have legitimate concerns.

As you can imagine, I’ve never had a man tell me – a feminist – to “simmer down” and “be reasonable” before.  Maybe Dana Milbank doesn’t think the sky is falling, or that reproductive rights are being steadily rolled back in this country, simply because he’s so busy critiquing the “theater” surrounding the debate that he hasn’t bothered to really take a look at what’s at stake.

Milbank is on the right track with his admonishment of the Conservative side to pay more attention to family planning if they really want to reduce abortions.  But if he thinks that’s what we should all be focused on, and it’s the pro-lifers who aren’t willing to compromise on that, then what on earth is he admonishing the pro-choicers for?  Oh yes, for crying wolf and not being reasonable.  I’d like to take this opportunity to remind Mr. Milbank that “being reasonable” is what got us the Hyde Amendment.  Milbank wants us to find common ground with the pro-life movement and work on that.  Except as I’ve written about in the past, there is no common ground with the pro-life movement.  They aren’t anti-abortion; they’re anti-women.

The unprecedented efforts we’ve seen in 2011 to repeal a woman’s right to choose how to live her life and how to exercise agency over her own body goes far beyond just Roe v. Wade.  And yet, Milbank seems to just want us to focus on getting along and finding middle ground in reducing unwanted pregnancies and – always – to learn to play a little nicer.

The sky isn’t falling? The Guttmacher Institute has a solid (yet depressing) overview of 2011 already, so let’s just do a quick review, shall we?

- In all 50 states combined, more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related bills, amendments, and pieces of legislation were introduced.  Of these, 135 were enacted in 36 states, and 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services.

- North Dakota was added to the list of 36 other states that require abstinence-only education.

- Montana, Texas, and New Hampshire all drastically reduced funding to family planning services out of proportion to cuts to other health care services.

- Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Utah adopted provisions prohibiting all insurance policies in the state from covering abortion except in the most extreme cases (life endangerment).

- Five states adopted provisions mandating that a woman obtain an ultrasound prior to having an abortion.

- Now that Texas and North Carolina have been added to the list, we’re looking at 26 states that mandate that a woman seeking an abortion must wait a certain period of time between getting counseling and having her procedure done.  Even stricter regulations were proposed in South Dakota (don’t even get me started on the host of other choice-related problems in South Dakota -only click through this link if you really want to feel sick.).

I understand that Dana Milbank doesn’t appreciate seeing “gruesome photos of fetuses” or images of bloodied hangers, but there’s a reason everyone’s coming out in full force.  WE’RE NOT GETTING THROUGH.

I’m outraged that “legal” in this country doesn’t mean available, accessible, or affordable.  I’m outraged that in addition to literally trying to close abortion clinics, pro-lifers are trying to enact legislation that would make fetuses into persons (Ohio is the latest, for those who haven’t been keeping track).  I’m outraged that we’re still teaching kids in public schools that women having sex is a bad and dangerous thing – hell I’m outraged that abstinence-only education still even exists.  This debate isn’t just about abortion.  It’s about women’s health, women’s rights, and women’s choices.

Milbank uses as the “hook” in this piece a report commissioned by abortion-rights activist Merle Hoffman to examine the effect of economic need on abortion coverage.  Except one has to wonder if he even bothered to read the report.  The conclusions in the report were not based exclusively on “journalistic” reports, but also on newer research from credible institutions like Gallup and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and from peer-reviewed research that explored the increase in numbers of women choosing abortion for economic reasons. These are more than “journalistic” sources. Furthermore, all the data supported the trend presented, and none contradicted it.  The idea isn’t to wait three years for a full and comprehensive, state by state analysis to realize that there’s something going on.

But my bigger concern is that Dana Milbank thinks the pro-choice movement needs to acknowledge “legitimate concerns” and stop crying wolf.  This is because when it comes to reproductive choice and abortion rights, he doesn’t think the sky is falling.

But I suppose that’s easy to say when the sky isn’t falling on him.

For those who are interested in telling Dana Milbank (@Milbank) why abortion rights really are at risk in this country, you can email him at milbankd@washpost.com or post a comment to his piece.

A guest post by Lauren Herold.

White girls are getting a lot of attention lately.  From @whitegrlproblem to BetchesLoveThis.com to the video Sh*t Girls Say, blogs, tumblrs, YouTube videos, and twitter handles love satirizing privileged white women and the things they talk about.

Franchesca Ramsey, in her video “Shit White Girls Say…To Black Girls,” takes the satire one step further: she uses the internet meme to recognize racial microaggressions that women of color face on a daily basis.  In a blonde wig, she parodies the White Female Friend who starts sentences with the phrase, “Not to sound racist, but…” and asks inappropriate questions like, “Can I touch your hair?” It’s funny because it’s too real: most privileged white people feel uncomfortable talking about race, especially to people of color, and end up making awkward comments that tokenize and exoticize their black friends. While these comments are not purposefully offensive, they are problematic because they contribute to the receiver’s experience of social marginalization and often deny the significance of historical and institutional racism.

Ramsey’s video went viral yesterday.  This morning, I noticed that every progressive person on my Twitter and Facebook had posted about it.  In scrolling through my news feeds, I noticed a lot of these people were white.  Which, theoretically, is great. As more anti-racist media is available via online activists, one hopes that white people will read, watch, and think critically about this media. But do they actually recognize that they are the ones who need to be internalizing these messages?

Because it’s far too easy, in this current meme-of-the-moment culture, to watch a viral video and then forget about it a few hours later.  And it’s far too easy to get your liberal cred by re-posting the latest progressive video on your social media site of choice.  I worry that white people will get a quick, condescending laugh at the stupidity of the “white girl” without processing the video’s messages.

I worry because, as a privileged white girl myself, I can theoretically ignore or laugh off these messages. If I don’t want to think about interpersonal and structural racism, I don’t have to, because I don’t face these issues every day.  And it’s true: a lot of white people don’t educate themselves about institutional racism, as evidenced by the pervasive comments Ramsey parodies. In the third chapter of his book Racism Without Racists, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva discusses the awkward semantic moves that white people often make to evade talking about race. These moves include finding excuses for racism (“some of my best friends are black”), denying the existence of racism (“this is about class, not race”), and even being unable to express oneself coherently in discussion (“um, you know, I think black people, um, well, I don’t know, but…”). Bonilla-Silva says these semantic strategies are the result of “talking about race in a world that insists race does not matter.”  Indeed, media personalities and newspaper articles insist we are “post-race.” So why would we need to acknowledge the experiences of our friends of color or the way we contribute to their marginalization?

Hey, I’ve been there too. I’ll admit it, I’ve asked black female friends about their hair, I’ve compared oppressions, I’ve become hopelessly awkward and incoherent while talking about race. I’m still developing an anti-racist language and consciousness. Thanks to people like Ramsey, I’m just realizing how many mistakes I’ve made.  But if we, white liberal people, really want to become allies in anti-racist causes, we need to take anti-racist media seriously as the educational tool that it is. We need to apply its message to our thoughts, our actions, and our relationships. Sure, let’s re-post and spread the message, but let’s take the time to work on recognizing and challenging the racism we’ve internalized as well. That’s the first step to becoming supportive, productive allies.

Lauren Herold is an anti sexual violence activist and a senior majoring in Women and Gender Studies and Anthropology at Columbia University in New York, NY. She tweets from @takebacknightcu. 

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.