Blog for Choice 2012

For the past few years, I have been involved in blog for choice (see posts here and here).

This years' question disappoints me however. I received an email from the organizers of Blog for Choice day, and was asked to reflect on this question in my post

What will you do to help elect pro-choice candidates in 2012?

First of all, Blog for Choice day is the anniversary of the American Roe vs. Wade court decision, so it makes sense that it is a very US-centric day, but, in light of the American election in 2012, this question becomes especially important to many American pro-choice activists and much less relevant to those of us who do not live in a country that has a major election of any kind coming up (yes, I know we can continue to lobby and whatnot after an election, but that isn't helping candidates).

Anyway, the question becomes even more frustrating and problematic for people who do not support the supposedly democratic political system. I, personally, think that the electoral system is a joke... I believe that by giving us two (or three or even five) candidates, and calling a select group of people citizens and allowing them to vote, it presents the illusion that we actually have a choice. But if you look at the candidates, we are basically selecting from A, A or A.... maybe NDP or Green party candidates can sometimes make up something that almost represents choice B in Canada, but in very limited ways. The way politics is currently organized upholds heterosexist, racist, patriarchal capitalist social relations. Anyway, this critique is not new, so I won't go into any more detail on it right now.

But to answer the question, what will I do to help pro-choice candidates (or members of parliament) in 2012? Absolutely nothing. I will, however, continue to write letters to newspapers and giving presentations as well as helping to organize and attend rallies when I believe it is useful to do so (such as on this and this occasion). I will continue to blog about the importance of choice. I will also continue to call out Harper (here and here) when he makes asshole decisions that affect women's ability to access abortion all the while saying that he will not bring up the abortion debate in parliament. But I will not help political candidates because I refuse to participate and further legitimize what I think is an illegitimate system.

Also, here is a cute failbook picture because it makes me happy.

So much for "neutrality" within the media...

There was a terrible article posted in the Sudbury Star about a rally yesterday, linked here. The biggest issue I have with it is that they only interviewed the people who were part of the pro-"life" demonstration and didn't interview a single pro-choice activist.

I will write more about the rally itself later, but for now, this article. A group called Show the 'Truth' (I can't write it without putting truth in quotes or something because what they show is far from the truth) sent a bus full of people here to display graphic pictures on the side of a busy road about what they think abortion looks like. We got a small group of pro-choice activists to protest their event. Here are some quotes from the article...

At first, Connell said she thought the pro-choice demonstrators were aggressive, but said they eventually stood quietly.

This quote is entirely misinformed and should never have been published. At first, there was me and one other person there (a third had gone to get coffee). Two of us were holding a pro-choice banner when a busload of anti-choice activists pulled up with their signs and set up around us. We felt somewhat threatened by their presence as they kept closing in on us and squishing us into one particular street corner.

By the time there were about five of us there, they sent a few people to engage us in a debate in which they told us that we were supporting genocide and that by being pro-abortion we were also (obviously) pro-holocaust and we must support apartheid in South Africa as well. They had video cameras in our faces and would not stop recording us, even when we asked them to. We asked them to move away from us and we entirely stopped talking to them, and they just stood in front of us, blocking our sign and saying that they had every right to be there too.

One of the event organizers called the police afterwards, and we were told that if we wanted to protest a rally, we should do so far away from them or not complain about them getting in our personal space or filming us... but we were there first, so that makes no sense.

I'm sorry, but how does a bus load of people feel intimidated by 2 young women?

"There was a girl who got quite worked up," Connell said.

I'm not sure if they are referring to me here when I told them off after they said I supported nazi Germany, or if they are referring to my friend A, who started yelling at a man who was trying to engage one of our protesters in a physical fight, but I can assure you, they were as "worked up" as we were.

Also, can someone explain this one to me please... on the megaphone, they said (and I am paraphrasing... If you knew my glass of water was poisoned, and you let me drink it, would you not be an accomplice to my murder? Well, supporting abortion is like letting someone drink that water......

Toronto's G8/G20 and women's health

I just spoke at a forum tonight on the G8/G20, and I thought I would try to recreate some of what I said because I think it is important. I spoke on women's health, and more specifically, abortion. Keep in mind that this is one small piece of the summit, and there were other presenters who gave much needed information on topics like the environment, indigenous relations and global capitalism in the context of the Steelworkers strike.

I started by discussing my experiences of reading about abortions on American bloggers websites. For example, Feministe, Jezebel and Feministing have discussed the Stupak amendment at length on many occasions, which makes abortion even less accessible to poor women by restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. Recently, Louisianna passed laws requiring women to get ultrasounds before abortions. Nebraska has imposed confusing laws regarding women's mental health in relation to abortions, and Utah has essentially criminalized miscarriages. Reading this over the past few years, I have often found myself greatful to live in a place where abortions are free and largely unrestricted (although not always accessible).

When Harper announced that maternal and children's health would be a major issue at the summit, I was rather pleased... and surprised. Harper is not exactly known for his women friendly policies... actually, he thinks that we have already attained gender equality! Globally and historically, women and children have not had much acess to funding for their specific health care needs, as they have taken a back seat to issues that directly affect men's health.

Then, Harper announced that this initiative would not cover abortions (my reaction to this announcement here). He explained

"We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children"

I always thought that this was part of the purpose of abortions, but I guess the life of the fetus is being prioritized over the health of the mother. The fact is that women and girls often die when they do not have access to safe abortions.

As a sidenote, the USA does plan to include abortions in their contribution for maternal and children's health, even though they have some very restrictive laws domestically.

Women's groups began to speak out about abortions right away, and within 2 days 11 groups lost funding. Within a month, 24 women's groups lost federal funding. These cuts undermine women's equality and democracy within Canada.

Nancy Ruth, a "feminist" Conservative Senator spoke out on this issue (previously posted here), saying that women need to

"shut the fuck up on this issue... Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Dont' make it into an election issue"

So, we are to allow white male politicians to decide what counts as maternal health (See this post), even in countries they may never have visited. Colonialism is rampant within Harper's maternal health initiative.

And, for the bigger picture. We have to fight for our right to choose, and for women everywhere to have this right. But we have to make sure that this isnt' being used as a distraction. Saving abortions might distract us from fighting for more accessible abortions for women in rural areas. This issue, as important as it is in its own right, cannot distract us from the cuts to women's programs and social spending, lenient corporate regulations that lead to tax loopholes and lacking health and safety regulation, Israeli's occupation of Palestine, aboriginal treaty rights, or any other systemic inequality.

The moral right and neoliberal movements have political power in Canada. They also have corporate sponsorship and financial backing. The left typically does not have this type of money or power. What we have is our voice, and that is why we are being told to shut the fuck up. Because when we do come together and speak, we threaten the status quo.

As those of you who know me are well aware, I will not shut the fuck up.

Will you?

More on abortion in Canada...

Conservative Senator, Nancy Ruth, told international development advocates

We’ve got five weeks or whatever left until G-8 starts. Shut the f--- up on this issue [funding for abortions as part of G8 international maternal and family health].... if you push it, there will be more backlash... Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Don’t make it into an election issue.

This statement really concerns me. Canadian women are being threatened by this senator; ignore what is happening to women in developing nations, or we will take rights away here in Canada.

I think women in Canada need to speak up about this. I, for one, refuse to "shut the f--- up" and be intimidated by threats from conservative politicians.

Canada not funding abortions in developing countries

Canadian Conservative government recently announced that they will not be funding abortions in developing nations. In 2009, they announced a plan to help with maternal and child health, but failed to mention that abortions are not included in maternal health and family planning.

This is contrary to the established goals of the G8 summit, and opposes Obama's policy to fund maternal health, including access to abortion.

Harper said

We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children and are used on the many, many things that are available to us that frankly do not divide the Canadian population.

Abortions do save the lives of women and children, and we have to be careful not to put the possibility of the fetus' life ahead of the health of the pregnant woman/girl, or the quality of life implications that may go along with the pregnancy.

I'm not sure I understand what he means by the "many many things that are available to us" because abortions are available to us, and therfore should be one piece of those many many things (wow, that sentence does not make a lot of sense, but frankly, neither does his).

To my knowledge, abortions are not that controversial of a topic in Canada (although, I'm sure there are always people who support them and people who don't). I don't remember access to abortion ever being a hot politicial issue in as long as I have followed Canadian politics, other than a brief mention here and there of a referendum that was never met with much support. I really hope this isn't going to renew the abortion debate within Canada, as has been happening in the United States recently.

I do not see how a few elite white male politicians in Canada have the right to decide what counts as maternal health in countries that they have probably never so much as visited. Maybe it should be the women in these countries (or at very least, medical workers who have spent a lot of time in these countries and understand their needs) who decide which types of maternal health and family planning services they need.

Trust Women

As some of you may know, January 22, 2010 is the fifth annual Blog for Choice Day. The date was chosen because it is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. Every year, there is a specific question that is intended for us to think about. This year, that question was developed in honor of Dr. George Tiller, a physician who performed abortions that was killed because of his work. Dr. Tiller often wore a button that read "Trust Women." The question this year is: What does Trust Women mean to you?

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the phrase "Trust Women" in the context of abortion and birth control rights, is that it is by and large not women that get to make the social policy and legislative decisions about their own bodies. One of the most telling examples of this is this photo, which shows Bush signing legislation outlawing "Partial-birth abortions" surrounded by male lawmakers in 2003. Apparently, it is still men we trust to make decisions for us.




I believe we need to Trust Women by allowing women to govern their own bodies, both at the level of individual decisions, and with social policies.

For many women, having an abortion is often a shameful thing. That started to change for a while with the "I had an abortion" T-shirt, but there is still a lot of stigma surrounding women's decision to have an abortion. Trust women also means that we need to trust women's decision to have an abortion as the right decision for her and her uterus, as well as anything that might happen to be inside of it.

We also need to trust that women have thought out their decision to have an abortion. It is not a choice that is taken lightly by most people. Legislation require that women view an ultrasound or undertake a waiting period to think it over is not only redundant, it is also dangerous. The lack of access to doctors that provide abortion services, and the high rate of poverty for women in general, when combined with this waiting period, will ensure that abortions even less accessible to many women... but I guess that is the point. Here is a satirical look at where this might be going next (I apologize, but it starts with a 10 second commercial):


New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

I am very worried about where abortion laws are headed in the near future. I think that we need to be aware of what is going on in order to make sure that Roe v. Wade is not overturned. The Stupak amendment in the US is the first step in this erosion, where no federal funds are used to cover abortions which means that American women without private health care will have even less access to abortion.

With Canadian social policies often following our neighbors to the south, I wonder how long it will be before abortion becomes a hot topic here too. Currently, the procedure is funded by Medicare, which means that women who reside in large cities often find them quite accessible. Women from rural areas often find it expensive to travel for abortions. For example, PEI does not have an abortion clinic, and neighboring provinces often refuse to perform abortions on out-of-province patients. Canada does have it's share of anti-feminist and pro-life groups, but I think the main issue in Canada is with regards to access to abortion services.

I also think that if we become too complacent, abortion is a right that could be taken away, especially with the apparent popularity of more conservative political parties. Maybe trust women should also mean that I have to trust that women will not be complacent if/when the attack on abortions that is being experienced in the USA ever begins to transpire in Canada.