Dear Topless Pro-Choice Protestor

I recently posted this letter on the ProWomanProLife blog following yet another topless protest at the Annual March for Life:

While I’ll likely disagree with your reasons for legalized abortion, I do support your right to express yourself and share your perspective.

However, going topless at a pro-life rally really isn’t a great way to make your point. Showing your breasts to the world is not an argument in favour of legalized abortion. It simply isn’t.

Read the rest here.

 

College of Physicians, please stand up for religious minorities

I wrote this open letter to Dr. Marc Gabel regarding the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s draft human rights policy:

Dr. Gabel, this is not the definition of “discrimination” at law. If someone chooses to make up definitions for words, they are free to do so. (My son, for example, seems to think that “babagaba” is a verb which means “to chew on mommy’s ankle.”)

However, for a body like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to create a new definition of “discrimination” which will result in the stripping of legal and human rights of some of their members is shocking, and this new definition will not stand up in a court of law. I urge the College to abide by Canadian and Ontario law.

Read the rest here.

Misguided feminism at Fredericton High School

I wrote an article which I published at ProWomanProlife about North American feminism. Is it really dead? Or is there more work that could be done under the banner of feminism?

Unlike many jaded women, I do think there is still a place for feminism. Some argue that all the battles have been fought and we need to move on. Women are rolling their eyes at feminists who crash events by flashing their bare breasts and screaming obscenities. If feminists are left fighting over the “right” to wear short shorts, they’d argue that clearly all the feminist battles of substance have been fought and won. I agree, but only in part.

If feminism means the fight for the right of women to be treated with respect and dignity, bring on the battle. In the last few weeks, there has been extensive news coverage of the horrors of female genital mutilation and the cruelties associated with child marriages. Little girls need more women, like passionate feminists, to fight for them when they are unable to fight for themselves.

Read the rest here.

No, conception is not an “accident”

I recently posted the following over at ProWomanProlife, responding to some arguments on “forced fatherhood”:

Therefore sex no longer leads to babies, or unwanted babies in any case, therefore men and women can become “accidentally” pregnant, bear no responsibility and the child in the womb is killed or, if he/she lives, may have to do without a “desperate” parent who opted out.

Read the rest here.

Pro-choice activist: don’t call abortions “difficult decisions”

I recently responded to pro-choice arguments that Janet Harris advanced in her Washington Post article, Stop Calling Abortion a Difficult Decision. The post was published at ProWomanProlife. Here’s an excerpt:

Sex has life-altering consequences. As a result of sex, you may get a disease and you may get pregnant. If a couple gets pregnant and deems that this pregnancy is “mistimed,” they may rush headlong into an abortion in hopes of simply getting back to their regularly scheduled life. They may not have given themselves the time to research the abortion procedure and its consequences, learn about fetal development or seek out resources and help.

Read the rest here.

New Brunswick’s Morgentaler Clinic and Abortion “Choice”

We Need a Law published my most recent article on the confusion reigning within the pro-choice movement over the closure of the New Brunswick Morgentaler abortion clinic:

Farquhar is brazen in claiming that the New Brunswick government is in clear violation of the Act. I can’t imagine any lawyer worth their salt making that kind of legal assessment. In fact, Health Canada even states that it’s up to each province to determine for itself which procedures are considered medically necessary.

Even the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada states that the determination of whether a procedure should be deemed “medically necessary” is “a matter of professional medical judgment, based on the patient’s particular circumstances and needs.” Heck, that almost sounds like New Brunswick’s policy – two physicians assessing each patient individually, on a case by case basis, in accordance with their professional judgment.

Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves “pro-choice.” Indeed, “choice” is the governing principle of their movement. “My body, my choice” is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?

Read the rest here.

Pro-Life Work is Making Me Sick

We Need a Law published my most recent article:

The other reality is that I’m six months pregnant. My son, Jack, seems intent to dance his way to the ninth month, whether that’s in his waking prenatal hours or in his sleep. The boy is kicking and stretching incessantly.

So while my laptop is propped up on a pillow just past my ever-growing belly, as I read about abortion procedures, Jack might kick enough to knock aside a page that is resting on my stomach. While I read pro-choice arguments that ring increasingly hollow, about choice or bodily rights, Jack is making my sweater ripple and bunch with his activity.

And this makes me feel sick, this reading about the killing and the rhetoric in defence of killing children just like my Jack.

Read the rest here.

Busting the 3 Biggest Myths on the Government Funding of Abortions

Today I published a new blog post at The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s ActivateCFPL blog:

Over the last few weeks, public comment on the issue makes it apparent that there is still confusion surrounding the funding of abortion procedures in Canada.

Joyce Arthur wrote a piece at Rabble.com where she lambasted Campaign Life Coalition’s Defund Abortion campaign; painting the protestors as naïve, uninformed activists fighting for a hopeless cause. Two weeks ago, a letter written by Health Minister Deb Matthews was made public and also garnered attention…

Contrary to the arguments that some pro-choice advocates advance, determining which medical procedures may or may not be considered “medically necessary” in Canada is no easy task. Actually, it’s a bit of nightmare for everyone, from seasoned judges to patients simply seeking medical care.

Read the rest here.

The Joyce Arthur Defamation Suit and the Tactic of Being Vague

This morning I published the following blog post over at ActivateCFPL, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s law and public policy blog:

In 2009, Arthur wrote a report for the now-defunct Pro-Choice Action Network (“Pro-CAN”) entitled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia. With the help of government funding via a Status of Women Canada grant of $27,400 and the proposed research goal of “expos[ing] the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs,” Arthur eventually issued her assessment of CPCs. Her report claimed, in short, that CPCs employ unethical tactics and strategies that hurt and deceive women.

Since the report was garnering more internet attention than it deserves, the Vancouver and Burnaby CPCs launched a defamation suit against Arthur and Pro-CAN in hopes that the court would order Arthur to withdraw or correct her report. Strategically, and given the great costs of litigation these days, the CPCs and their lawyer carefully chose the allegations made in the report that they deemed most defamatory but also simple enough to disprove in court…

Unfortunately the court found that the report was so unclear in its attributions of wrong-doing that a reasonable person reading the report wouldn’t necessarily think that the Vancouver and Burnaby CPCs were guilty of committing those particular ethical breaches…

In fact, in her gleeful recounting of the case, Arthur concedes that that was her legal strategy in the defamation suit. Her strategy amounted to arguing “that the report did not specifically say that the two plaintiff CPCs used any of the described tactics…”

Read the rest here.

“Hoes before embryos” and pro-choice messaging tactics

Yesterday, I posted the following commentary over at ProWomanProLife. I’m rather discouraged by the state of pro-choice advocacy.

I don’t understand how a movement that does include some good thinkers can produce such consistently ill-advised messaging. I also don’t understand how a movement that claims to advance its cause in the name of rights, respect and the protection of women from violence can assault women with cigarettes butts and saliva, and refer to women as “hoes.” Which philosophy under-girds a movement that consistently exhibits these behaviours at events across the continent? It seems to be a philosophy that fails to assign respect equally to all members of society, including women who don’t agree with their position.

If pro-choice leaders don’t believe that assault and lewd slogans should define their movement, why aren’t they condemning these actions? At the very least, condemning the spitting and throwing of objects at people? And keep in mind that in Canada, spitting on someone can be considered an assault under criminal law. The law appears to be similar in the US. These are matters not to be taken lightly.