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.


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.

“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.


Women must change biology in order to fit into society?

Julie Burkhart was recently interviewed by Mother Jones on her efforts to re-open the infamous Tiller abortion clinic. This comment stopped me in my tracks:

This community has just been so embroiled in the abortion…I hate to say the abortion “debate,” but just the turmoil. Some people would say, “Just leave it alone and let it go.” However, we can’t really have true freedom in this country until everyone can access that right.

Is she arguing that women can’t be free if they’re pregnant or that pregnant women can’t fully participate in society?

Read the rest of the post here.