Archived posts

small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg (image) [small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]  

I Always Thought That Women’s Rights and Access to Proper Care Was a Progressive Value

Well, boys ‘n’ girls, due to the fact that certain bloggers who are gung ho over Stevie Wankworth’s Bill C-312 and the fact that there was some patronizing going on for anyone daring to refute them full circle, one of my favourite blogs, Dammit Janet! is no longer found at the aggragator, Progressive Bloggers.   Apparently, there are a few “progressives” who have joined the socon element to reopen that abortion debate which the highest supreme court decistions in 1988 (Morgentaler)  and of course, Tremblay v Daigle in 1989 settled once and for all.  Yes, a woman’s right to decide what she does or does not do with her own body is indeed a human rights decision. The two supreme court decisions said as much. Furthermore,  it was decided legally that a fetus is not legally a person.

Morgentaler in 1988:

The Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada’s abortion law as unconstitutional. The law is found to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringes upon a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.” Chief Justice Brian Dickson writes: “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus a violation of her security of the person.” Canada becomes one of a small number of countries without a law restricting abortion. Abortion is now treated like any other medical procedure and is governed by provincial and medical regulations.

The above link also has a time line if anyone cares for a history lesson.

Tremblay v Daigle 1989 - three basic reasons for supreme court decision:

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Ms. Daigle’s appeal. The Court delivered the decision together and concluded the following:

  1. The Quebec Charter does not support the injunction restraining Ms. Daigle from having an abortion.
  2. The Canadian Charter does not support the injunction restraining Ms. Daigle from having an abortion.
  3. A potential father does not have the right to veto a woman’s decisions in respect to an abortion.

More specifics:

The Quebec Charter and the Injunction

The Court concluded that the Quebec Charter did not support the injunction restraining Ms. Daigle from having an abortion. For the Court, a foetus was not included within the term human being within the Quebec Charter. Therefore, the Quebec Charter did not accord a foetus legal status and rights for the purpose of granting the injunction. In drawing this conclusion, the Court recognized the following:

  1. The Quebec Charter did not display any clear intention on the part of its framers to consider the status of a foetus. If the Quebec Charter was intended to include a foetus, it is unlikely that the legislature would have left its legal status in such an uncertain state.
  2. The different usage of the terms human being and persons in the QuebecCharter did not lead to the conclusion that a foetus was included with the term human being. The more plausible explanation was that the different terms were used to distinguish between physical and moral persons.
  3. The Quebec Civil Code and Anglo-Canadian law supported the finding that a foetus was not a human being within the meaning of the Quebec Charter. The Civil Code‘s recognition of the foetus juridical personality was only a fiction of the civil law in order to protect the future interests of the unborn child (provided it is born alive and viable). In Anglo-Canadian law, a foetus must be born alive to enjoy rights.

The Canadian Charter and the Injunction

The Court concluded that the Canadian Charter did not support the injunction restraining Ms. Daigle from having an abortion. For the Court, the Canadian Charter was not applicable to this case. This case was a civil action between two private parties and did not have any state action to trigger the Canadian Charter.

More than two decades later, we’ve come to a point where we’re going to debate both of those decisions women and men with good sense fought long and hard to have.  Now, the fight starts again, it looks like. Sadly,  I always knew this would happen under a Harpercon majority.  Time for us to take the gloves off yet again.

Furthermore, it is naive to believe that Wanksworth’s bill C-312 is simply leading the way to a debate. It is blatantly obvious that this bill is a portal to introduce more legislation to recriminalize abortion, perhaps even contraception, along with miscarriages and/or stillborns being ‘investigated’.  We’re seeing laws being implemented to circumvent Roe v Wade in the US.  Bet nobody thought that would happen neither.   Given what we’re seeing what’s happening in the US and the backing of the religious right of the Harpercons,  bloggers like the good men and women over at Dammit Janet are not exaggerating and should be taken seriously.

Not to mention, those bloggers  like Gordie who seem to love flashing how Dr. Henry Morgentaler, hisself, apposed late term abortions and wouldn’t perform them.  While this is true, it is overlooked that  Morgentaler that he didn’t believe there should not be any laws restricting them:

Morgentaler said he does not see a need for rules on late abortions, despite his personal ethical opposition to them.

“There are already more or less rules, most abortions are done much before they reach 24 weeks,” he said.

“Most are done at six to nine weeks. Most women know the earlier they come the better it is for them and the less it is a question of having to deal with a human fetus.”

Morgentaler also acknowledged that late term abortions are  performed, for the most part,  on women who have learned of severe birth defects during tests performed late in pregnancy and on teenage girls who have tried to hide their pregnancy. Yes, it’s always convenient to leave that part out when fetus fetishists wave Morgentaler’s personal views on late term abortions. Pretty disingenuous, really.

Another thing, those Europeans and their stricter abortion laws. Funny how those same fetus fetishists don’t want to see the social programs some of those European countries have to help impoverished families and children. They don’t want to see better education or Planned Parenthood programs. Funny how those Europeans are considered evul “soshalists” most of the time, but when it comes to re-opening that abortion debate, they’re all of a sudden a model to follow.   Oh, and in some European nations, they actually do perform the actual late term abortion, albeit rarely.

Another thought, perhaps other jurisdictions should be more like us when it comes to abortion. After all, Canada has lower abortion rates than jurisdictions where abortion access is limited or  illegal. In fact, any country with more liberal abortion laws happens less often than those who restrict it.

Now, folks like the anti-abortionsists and Gordie don’t seem to think any of that matters. In fact, Gordie does concede that late term abortions are rare, but that don’t mean there shouldn’t be some restrictions.   Can you say overkill?  Kinda like having a dumb on crime omnibus bill when crime is actually going down and for ‘unreported’ criminals like Ol’ Stock Day’s imaginary ‘friends’.

Also,  if we start with this so-called ‘discussion’ and it leads to one little bill prohibiting late term abortions, it will lead to more and more bills further recriminalizing abortion. Why? Because, like what’s happening in the US these days, those fetus fetishists and the Harpercons, here, are incapable of stopping when they get started. Do we really want to go to an era where women are forcibly strapped to a table and having a vaginal probe? Pretty dehumanizing.   I don’t want the government up my uteris.

Still think that the good people over at Dammit Janet and the rest of us who agree wholeheartedly with them are unreasonable or overreacting?

Needless to say,  Dammit Janet is no longer found at Progressive Bloggers, but ol’ Gordie still has a place over there to pontificate, as well as other ‘progressives’ who support him.  The socon element over at the Blogging SupposiTories must be yucking it up by now.

I support the good bloggers over at Dammit Janet and boys ‘n’ girls, you can still find them on my blogroll.  They will continue fighting the good fight over there and I recommend you read them to keep up to date.

As for me,  this debate was over and done with by the Supreme Court more than two decades ago, or so it should be. However,  I am ready to help my fellow sisters maintain our reproductive rights.

Another good read on this subject is Pale’s, where she has fun sciencey facts and statistics and great links. Also, boys ‘n’ girls, go over and read Dave’s post, another good read.  Oh, and for a letter written to the Harpercons, go read Alison over at Creekside.  She also has another fun post complete with cartoon I may like to steal someday soon and more fun facts and links.

I am disappointed–I always thought that women’s rights and their access to proper care was a universal progressive value.

A reminder to please sign the petition against C-312.

9 comments to I Always Thought That Women’s Rights and Access to Proper Care Was a Progressive Value

  • Thanks, CK.

    It all turned into kinda inadvertent blog-burst on what I’m calling Woodworth’s Wank, didn’t it?

    In case you or your readers don’t know, there’s a petition opposing M312 to sign.

    ck Reply:

    Thanks, I posted the link at a recent post on this subject: http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2012/04/03/woody-worthless/ link is there.

  • You disagree with Gord – that’s fine.. but for what he posted.. there was nothing there to justify kicking him off the aggregator. It was a massive screaming overkill on those folks parts.

    ck Reply:

    But you kicked Dammit Janet off. Yes, Fern Hill said that she wanted to leave Prog Bloggers, but she also said she wanted all her co-bloggers a chance to say good-bye.

    Massive screaming overkill? Really? Ever check out what’s happening in the US these days? Do you want the same to happen here? As I’ve mentioned, Woodworth, like Trost, Vellacott and Bruinooge all want to see women’s reproductive rights struck down completely. That so-called discussion is nothing more than a back door.

    FFIBS Reply:

    CK called it. Let Fern and all leave, DON’T CUT THEM OFF, It then becomes YOUR ego not hers.

    And disagree with Gord, he has 19 posts where he claims there should be sort of a law against late term abortions, all surrounded with his I’m a pro chpicer bull shit,

    Hey if you want to be above the fray, put your ego aside

  • “But you kicked Dammit Janet off. Yes, Fern Hill said that she wanted to leave Prog Bloggers, but she also said she wanted all her co-bloggers a chance to say good-bye.”

    She quit, it’s not logical even to suggest she was “kicked” from something she didn’t want anymore.

    No one will understand why there shouldn’t be a debate about this subject in Parliament if no one progressive except Fern is allowed to talk about her views. Progblog mods are not censors, we don’t have to chase down ever stinker post, that’s what other bloggers are supposed to do if they know more about the subject matter.

    ck Reply:

    Progblog mods are not censors, we don’t have to chase down ever stinker post, that’s what other bloggers are supposed to do if they know more about the subject matter.

    With all due respect, that’s a a cop out. It’s called “Progressive Bloggers” is it not? There is nothing progressive about curtailing women’s reproductive rights. It’s the same as a would be prog blogger cheerleading for Harpercons. It’s either progressive or it’s not. If you wish to have bloggers who don’t believe in women’s rights, fine, but don’t call it Progressive bloggers, call it something else. Simple as that.

    Women’s reproductive rights are human rights. Simple as that. This is not something Fern Hill or I cooked up, neither–the Supreme court said so in both Morgentaler V the Queen in 1988 and in Tremblay v Daigle in 1989. As pointed out in my post, those supreme court decisions should shut down the debate permanently.

    As for Dammit Janet, Fern Hill did specifically say in a post that before leaving the aggregator, she wanted all of her co-bloggers to have the opportunity to say good-bye. Here’s the link if you don’t believe it.

    http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.ca/2012/04/thanks.html

    And here’s the quote:

    …because as soon as my co-bloggers here have taken the opportunity to say good-bye, we will be gone from there.

    Next question?

    Speaking of moderating stinker posts, didn’t you kick off Orwell’s Bastard for insulting the mods over the week-end? Don’t you kick off people for insulting any moderator?

    Beijing York Reply:

    Thanks of this, CK. I blew my last post but let’s just say, Progressive Bloggers proved that they don’t get the seriousness of this assault on women’s rights when they referred to the matter as a “touchy topic”.

    Scotian Reply:

    Saskboy:

    No, you guys kicked her off, unless you can present an e-mail form her formally requesting her blog’s removal. What you guys at PB did was essentially fire someone before they could quit, pure and simple, and it made you look that much worse in the process. Was she planing on removing her blog? Apparently so, but for your folks to act prematurely like that demonstrates a lack of professionalism and quite honestly a degree of rudeness both. She did specifically state she would not be asking to be removed in the same post you folks took as her request/authorization for removal that they would not be asking to depart until after all of their co-bloggers had had a chance to be heard on the topic on the blog first as well as to allow them to say their goodbyes to their friends there as well. So yes it is logical to state she was kicked off, it is logical because it fits the facts. Saying something isn’t so does not make it true. You folks could not wait for the formal request of severance, you went ahead and did so as soon as you realized you had a increasingly noticed public spat/scandal happening and this was your attempt to minimize your exposure/damage. It was rather obvious after all, and most of us are reasonably intelligent people able to tell the difference between what you tell us and our lying eyes after all.