Sex & Health: All about abortion

FYI, Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN) has produced this new card game(!) called Sex & Health: All about abortion. From the description:

"A very handy tool comprised of 52 questions/answers about abortion and abortion access in Canada. Ideal to stimulate a group discussion, spread some knowledge end refresh memories! 

How to recognize a crisis pregnancy centre? Is it necessary to obtain the consent of one's sexual partner(s) before having an abortion? Do all women have free access to abortion in Canada? Who is Chantal Daigle?"

It's available on the FQPN website for $10 ($15 with shipping) and also comes in an accessible format. Order it!

Fuck. This.

So I just read the This Magazine cover story "No Choice: Why the pro-choice movement won't let women grieve after abortion" and...well. I have thoughts.

First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I was interviewed by the author, Rebecca Melnyk, at the start of her research for this article or what I imagine would become this article. Never have I been happier to avoid being quoted; I can't imagine being associated with this mess. When Melnyk reached out to me she identified herself first and foremost as strongly pro-choice. She probably still does. I'm sure she didn't choose the title of the article. But holy hell, what is going on here?

It seems to me that the premise is that both "sides" of the abortion "debate" only offer post-abortive people counselling in a politicized environment with some kind of agenda, and that the pro-choice side is routinely dismissive of the range of feelings someone might have after having an abortion. At no point does Melnyk quote a pro-choicer who backs up this assertion; on the contrary, every pro-choice person she mentions points out that folks feel any of a variety of different emotions after abortion and that they should have access to counselling:

That same month, on a warm afternoon in Toronto Miriam McDonald, an editor at the Marxist newspaper Spartacist Canada, struts up and down a hallway at the Ontario Institute of Secondary Education at an International Women’s day rally. “Abortion is just a medical procedure like getting a wart off, except it’s all politicized,” she says. “A woman’s capacity to control her fertility opens the doors to full equality. That’s why it’s … stigmatized.” Another woman standing next to her in a baseball cap, handing out newspapers, says post-abortive women need counselling, not to overcome negative feelings related to abortion, but rather, to cope with society’s stigma and culture of shame.

And:

Some women may need counselling services before or after they have an abortion, says Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). She does not believe, however, that PAS is real. “It’s like the anti-choice movement works in its own bubble,” she says, “making up it’s own science and ignoring mainstream evidence and consensus.” The result, she adds, is confusion—public misinformation that scares women considering abortion. In Arthur’s mind, the act of abortion continues to be blamed for the source of trauma when, in reality, the unwanted pregnancy is often what’s truly traumatic. It’s not to say women don’t experience negative effects, she adds, just that it’s more complex than the anti-abortion activists portray.

And:

Over in Vancouver, Everywoman’s Health Centre is an abortion clinic that provides free, non-judgmental counselling services and resources like the book, Peace After Abortion. Erin Mullan, who’s been a counsellor for over 20 years, works there. “When it comes to abortion, nothing is in the range of normal,” she says. “A woman’s culture, her religion or history, could all inform how she’ll feel.” For the small number of women she refers out to other counsellors who offer long-term support, abortion is not the main cause of negative feelings, but rather, “it opens a door of pain.” That door can reveal bad relationships, abuse, or mental depression. Mullan points out that coercion—if a woman’s been forced to have an abortion—accounts for one third of the problems she treats. “It can sit unfinished, inside of her for years,” she says, “if she wasn’t given the space to make choices.” At this clinic, the acknowledgment that abortion can be intimately connected to negative feelings serves no greater purpose than a woman’s well-being.

And then Melnyk goes on to describe how many other abortion clinics across the country offer both pre- and post-abortion counselling, usually for free, along with referrals for follow-up counselling with specialists. At no point in the article is there any indication that pro-choicers "won't let women grieve after abortion".

My feeling is that the thrust of the article, the point that Melnyk is trying to make is that the options for counselling after an abortion are either shaming, Christian, anti-abortion drivel or militant pro-choice propaganda, that there is no option for folks just looking for non-judgemental counselling. Which is a load of bullshit not even borne out by her research. Yes there is a lack of accessible post-abortion therapy because there is a lack of accessible any therapy - ask any low income person with a mental health issue how easy it is to get in to see a counsellor. But the idea of a lack of non-judgemental post-abortion counselling is especially heinous when the article itself talks about the many clinics that offer it. "Pro-choice" IS "non-judgemental" - no abortion clinic counsellor worth their salt is going to judge you for feeling guilt or regret after your abortion. That's what counselling is about. That's why it makes a difference that the counsellors in abortion clinics are trained specifically in non-judgemental pre- and post-abortive counselling and the people in "crisis pregnancy centres" are just random volunteers trained only in making people feel like shit - like they have something to "repent" for - because they had an abortion.

There is a disturbing amount of false equivalence being thrown around in this article.

It just really pisses me off because pro-choice organizations in this country - including abortion clinics, sexual health centres, and organizations like ARCC, NAF, Canadians for Choice, and CFSH, among others - deliberately provide listings of non-judgemental counselling options on request, and often go to great lengths to ensure that people find the care they need regardless of pregnancy outcome. All of these organizations are explicit about not favouring any pregnancy outcome over others, and the number one concern is getting folks the care they want and need in the safest and most accessible way possible.

There is no neutral on abortion, really there isn't. Not the way it's framed right now. Either you believe it shouldn't be allowed, or you believe it should. There is no magical third party who are the only people who can provide non-judgemental counselling. If you believe people have the right to choose how to handle an unwanted pregnancy - if you are pro-choice - then that belief extends to how people feel after their abortion. Anyone providing actual non-judgemental counselling is pro-choice by definition.

I think Melnyk knows this, but I don't know how to explain this mess of an article. I think she is (rightfully) concerned for folks - like her - who have had abortions and haven't received the support that they need. And that is legitimate. But the solution there has to be more support and funding for pro-choice, sex-positive, woman-positive counselling services; fighting against abortion stigma; advocating for reproductive and sexual health services in underserved areas - not bizarre magazine articles attacking the pro-choice movement for imagined slights, for not "letting" women grieve. Women can do what they damn well please - isn't that the whole point?

***

ETA: A great take-down of the article at DAMMIT JANET! by fern hill.

CCBR: Knights of the Patriarchy

The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (ie the charming folks behind the GAP project in Canada, and the recent anti-abortion recruitment at Toronto high schools) is at it again, this time distributing 100,000 postcard-style flyers in mailboxes in the Peel region. Guess what's on the flyers? If you said mushed up fetus pictures, you're only half right, because they also show a picture of the MP representing the riding in question.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on these exploded fetus pictures and how effective they are at changing people's minds about abortion. Most of the reaction to them that I've seen in the press and in person (stuff passersby have said when they see protesters holding the pictures at clinics) seem to indicate that even among self-identified "pro-life" people, the pictures are not a hit. People get upset about their kids having to see it, and I think people themselves don't want to look. The anti-choice crowd insist that this is what it's all about, that it's supposed to be disturbing and make you think about what "we" do to "babies," etc. But I have to think that the bottom line is, you're spending the money to get 100,000 of these things printed - what's the net benefit of that? Is it generating more ill will towards abortion than to your organization?

I used to believe the main problem with the exploded fetus images was that they were inaccurate - very few of them are actually sourced, they just say something on them like "abortion at 12 weeks" or whatever, while depicting a much later abortion, or a stillbirth, or an actual dead baby. I also think it's ridiculous to base an argument on grossing people out; I don't want to see pictures of knee surgery but I still think it should be available.

The main problem, however, is that the pictures don't tell the whole story, and that's deliberate. The "abortion" is decontextualized so as to appear as a monstruous thing, and to center the morality of the choice on the fetus. But where is the person whose choice it (supposedly) is? These pictures purposely detach the issue from women's autonomy and rights in order to make us not only forget that the issue is more complex than murder/not murder, but also to dehumanize women who choose abortion.

There is nothing that convinces me that the pro-life movement will happily throw women under the bus than these pictures. In fact, I think it's more than a happy side-effect for them; they want sexually active women to be demonized for their choices. Being actively anti-abortion is to support this tired but incredibly effective form of social control: keeping women in their place.

These Two Guys

Two of our favourite anti-choice MPs - Stephen Woodworth and Mark Warawa - are back in the "news" this week to remind us all that grown men whining about abortion is the way to get things done in this country.

First, Mr. Woodworth is very sad that ARCC has not answered his ridiculous correspondence about supporting his motion to declare the 'equal worth and dignity' of all human beings (ie figure out some legal way to value a tiny peanut more than the agency of a grown woman - sorry, some way to further do so). Because Joyce Arthur was not interested in pursuing further dialogue with him until he came to the discussion in good faith - acknowledging that this is, in fact, about abortion would be a good start - Woodworth feels very sad and the CBC feels this is newsworthy. Sure. Vicious cunts are we who will not even answer his letters - must be because we hate human rights. Damn you Woodworth and your formidable intellect, you have penetrated our clever disguise and seen us for the rights-hating, baby-eating, non-letter-replying bitches that we are.

And over here trying to out-whine Woodworth is our friend Mark Warawa, who plans to speak about "gendercide" in the House of Commons tomorrow. The very frustrating thing about this issue, particularly evident in this article, is that Warawa seems to understand the underlying issue in sex-selective abortion; that girls are valued less than boys. Yet still he is fixated on abortion, as if destroying the tool could wipe out the desire. When you oppose sex selection, but seek to remove the option of abortion without changing the conditions that make it desirable, you are basically implicitly endorsing female infanticide. When people are aborting based on sex there is a problem here, but the problem isn't abortion.

Were I a less cynical person, I could be excited that an MP has recognized that we have a problem in our society, that girls are seen as less valuable than boys. I would reach out to him to offer my support, and even suggest ways that he might use his platform and influence to effect change. But I'm not that person. The fact that the blame for sex selection is being put squarely on the shoulders of the women seeking the abortions - and specifically on South Asian women - tells me all I need to know about the Mr. Warawa's intent.

Right now it seems they are both shouting into the wind, thankfully.

"Gendercide" is not even a word

So, the episode of Context TV that I told you about is up online. I don't know what I can say about it, really, except that ARCC will probably ask me never to do TV again after this. There are some two shots of me and Barbara Kay that are truly epic; you can actually see me struggling to process the extremely offensive bullshit she is coming up with.

Anyway, check it out. My face is the star.

(There are three segments, posted in order here; I'm in the second one, and the charming and super prepared Dr. Jesse McLaren is in the first):

Access to Abortion in Canada: Distance Travelled

I just stumbled across this very interesting project mapping the distances people travel to access abortion in Canada. One of the ways we talk about moving the focus away from a "pro-choice" framework and into a more holistic reproductive justice one is by looking at who can access sexual and reproductive health services.

Working in abortion provision in New Brunswick, I've talked many times about the barriers to accessing abortion in the Maritimes, specifically financial. All those things that apply to abortion also apply to every other sexual and reproductive health service; there is a wide range of services - of varying degrees of accessibility - concentrated in the larger cities, and next to nothing everywhere else, forcing folks in rural areas to travel.

Unfortunately, Canada is a vast place consisting of relatively remote outposts. Our urban centres are few and far between. So when we talk about abortion being legal in Canada, it doesn't make a lick of difference to those for whom it is not accessible, and there are a lot of reasons that the distance between a person and a clinic can make an abortion inaccessible. Some people don't have the vehicle to make the drive or the money to access mass transit (when it's available). Some cannot afford to take the day (or more likely, two days) off work. Some folks are in abusive relationships or other situations that don't allow them to safely get out of town without explanation for a day. Some cannot afford or find childcare that would allow them to make that trip. Some folks have disabilities that preclude making the trip. And on and on.

Even though there are those who do make the trip, it's a terrible thing to ask of them. Abortion may be legal in this country but if it can't be accessed, where's the choice? Looking at these maps and imagining the vast amounts of time, money and energy involved in each trip is exhausting. It's cruel to tell people we have access to abortion in Canada, because we don't.

Lack of Access is Torture

The UN has released a report on torture that includes lack of access to abortion.

I don't know how useful this will be; the linked article seems to think it will be helpful in some way to changing the situation in Nicaragua, but I can't say I'm that confident it will make any difference at all. I love the idea of the UN with my entire heart, but I have a strong lack of faith in their ability (or sometimes, willingness) to get anything useful done.

That said, it is a good thing to have the lack of access to abortion recognized as a serious issue on a global scale, and it gives reproductive rights activists a(nother) credible source to cite when lobbying for change in this area. I firmly believe that the use of someone's body against their will does indeed constitute torture (and that includes forced abortion too) and for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly support the UN on this one.

Ok it's Dead. Let it Go.

So by now you've probably heard the good news: Sex-Selective Abortion Motion from MP Mark Warawa Killed.

Awww yissss! My favourite part of the article:

Warawa is vowing to appeal what he calls the sub-committee's "shocking and undemocratic decision."
He can appeal to the procedure and House affairs committee to overturn the sub-committee's decision.
If that doesn't work, Warawa could then appeal to the Speaker of the House of Commons, triggering a rare secret ballot vote by all MPs.
Warawa says he'll appeal the decision "as far as necessary."

This fucking guy, am I right? It's like, dude, you lost. I get it if it's something really serious, like something that will actually make a difference (like actually outlawing sex-selective abortions), but all this motion is asking is that the government condemn sex-selective abortions. That's not even some kind of legal action. That's...well, I don't really know what that is. I'm imagining a make-work project for some intern at the Ministry of Health designing a poster that says "don't have a sex-selective abortion; it's stupid" that they can put up in doctors' offices or something. I mean, what else could it possibly accomplish?

What I have to wonder is, why is Warawa even in politics? Does his constituency really want him to spend any more time chasing after this useless motion that's doomed to fail? No wonder so many anti-choicers express their disapproval of women's choices/sexuality by being assholes outside of clinics; when they try to go the legal, acceptable route of making change through the law, they can't even get that right. Note to assholes: legally mandating disapproval is just not helpful.

It is great that this motion has been killed. I just wish Warawa would let it die, and get back to the other 99% of his job which I hope does not involve quite so much fruitless prying into women's private lives.

Motion 408: The Pretender

Remember Motion 408? Yeah, that's still happening. ARCC has put together a great run-down of what it's all about, along with a brief history of some other sneaky anti-choice motions put forth in recent years. Check it out!

Medicine is Murder!

I direct your attention to this story, which tells us that three Conservative (surprise!) MPs have written a letter to the RCMP Commissioner in which they implore the RCMP to investigate abortions past 19 weeks gestation as homicides. Their "reasoning" for this super great idea is based on the Criminal Code - they believe that abortions performed at 20+ weeks violate section 223a.

Here is that section:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;

So these douchenozzles are asserting that because of the method used to perform an abortion at that gestation - which would have to involve the fetus being completely removed from the woman's body for it to count in this argument - the child is a human and the person killing it (I'm assuming they are going after the doctor here) should be investigated for homicide. Sure. Why not.

Never mind that there is no attempt here to differentiate between the intent of a murderer and a doctor performing their (legal!) job. What confuses me is, what the hell kind of abortion are they talking about? I may be wrong, but my understanding of late term abortion is an IDX (intact dilation and extraction), which does not involve the fetus being removed completely until it is utterly dead. It is not supposed to proceed in a living state from the body of its mother. 

In fact, in order for section 223a to apply, the entire fetus would have to be removed alive, and then somehow killed, which I just don't think doctors do. When labour is induced at that stage for termination purposes, I think it is to expel an already dead fetus. 

What I think this illustrates is these MPs' total lack of empathy. They have no understanding of why someone would seek a late-term abortion (hint: it is mostly because of health risks or fetal abnormalities/fetal death), or the strain and emotional toll that situation can take on women and families. They have no understanding of what doctors do - I'm sure they picture docs pulling adorable children out of women and stabbing them on the operating table. They have no understanding of the law in Canada. They are, frankly, stupid.

This is just such bullshit, you guys.

Summer Hiatus

Hi everyone! I know my posting has been light-to-nonexistent lately. The truth is it has been pretty slow for abortion-related news in Canada in the last few weeks; I can't even cobble together enough material for the weekly reader.

Because of the lull in news (not always a bad thing!), my burnout with abortion (which happens from time to time since I write here and at Abortion Gang), what I'm sure is going to be a busy and eventful autumn, and the fact that I am planning a wedding (oh yeah, that old thing) - I am taking a hiatus from Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome.

I will be posting lightly from time to time but it will be sporadic, and I will return in full force once the wedding is over, in October. Until then, look out for my stuff on Abortion Gang, and if you're into books I also post a review every fortnight at Smoke City Stories. You can reach me by email at pedgehog [at] gmail [dot] com.

Stay safe!

Truer Words, etc.

"Whether one accepts it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of abortion. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition." - Gordon O'Connor, Chief Government Whip, Conservative Party of Canada.


Read my thoughts on M-312 here.

How to be a Fauxgressive

Step 1: Convince people you are progressive. Maybe get a blog, join some kind of "progressive bloggers" aggregator or blogroll.

Step 2: Write some progressive stuff on the blog. Or at least, you know, liberal stuff. Be vaguely anti-oppression, take potshots at conservatives. Draw people in.

Step 3: Avoid checking your own privilege.

Step 4: Characterize the rights of a minority group to which you do not belong as fodder for stimulating political discussion.

Step 5: Refuse to listen to members of said group when they tell you that their lives and freedoms are not up for debate.

Step 6: Characterize the whole argument as a "pissing match" and, in case there was any doubt that you are not genuinely progressive, start calling fetuses "unborn children".

Or, save yourself time and just be this guy.

For the full ridiculous story, DJ! has your back.

The Profound Simplicity of Trusting Women: A Response to Margaret Somerville

[Trigger warning for sexual assault]

You may have heard or read my feelings about Margaret Somerville, the well-known Canadian ethicist, before. I first encountered her views in the book of her Massey lecture, The Ethical Imagination. I have been frustrated by both her views and her unquestioned platform for them ever since.

Today Somerville has an op-ed piece in the Ottawa Citizen entitled "The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion". In it she details the experiences and feelings of a young woman, Anna (not her real name), who had an abortion that she didn't want and now feels guilty about. Somerville uses her story as an example of why pre-abortion counselling needs to be independent of abortion clinics, which she characterizes as a "for-profit undertaking" as if she is ignorant of how hard Dr. Morgentaler himself is fighting to have this service covered under Medicare. It is quite clear that she is implying that abortion providers (including clinic staff and counsellors) are in it for the money, or have some kind of quota. If Somerville spent one day in an abortion clinic or hospital providing abortion in Canada, particularly in the Maritimes, she would know that there is no need to convince women to have abortions - providers are, in fact, struggling to keep up with the demand.

But there is no need for me to further rebut an argument that wasn't explicitly made, when there is so much crap just right out in the open. I would expect an ethicist to be skilled in logic to some extent, but there seems to have been no effort on Somerville's part to come to the logical conclusion that one woman's bad experience with abortion does not and will not ever justify taking the option away from everyone.

Sometimes Somerville comes close to the right answers - she believes that Anna was not able to access the support she needed to continue the pregnancy and have a baby, which is a big reason why many women choose to terminate their pregnancies. Instead of identifying the support needed as non-judgemental counselling, affordable pre-natal care, free and accessible daycare and childcare, parental leave, etc., Somerville can only suggest "[...] easy access to free counselling independent of abortion facilities." Uh-huh. Leaving aside the concern that this will just leave more room to coerce and frighten women out of having abortions, just who is going to pay for this service? The same government that is so eager to cover abortions and all the support for pregnant women mentioned earlier? I bet.

The rest of the article involves consent - Anna did not feel she was listened to at the clinic, she asked to see her ultrasound and was denied, and gave her consent to the procedure while crying, and only because she felt that she had been worn down to the point that resisting would be futile. It sounds like Anna was treated very poorly by clinic staff, and that makes me more angry than I know how to express, and it makes my heart hurt for her. It is never easy nor fun to undergo surgery, and the added terror of a lack of full consent is unimaginably scary. Women deserve better.

To shift what happened to Anna on to the issue of abortion, however, is like being sexually assaulted by a doctor performing a breast exam on you and then trying to use that as a reason to oppose breast exams. The abortion wasn't the problem here. The same thing could have happened to Anna were she having any elective surgery - the problem is the way she was treated. I do agree with Somerville that informed consent to medical procedures is something that needs work in this country, but I can say with certainty that it will continue to be an issue regardless of the legal status of abortion services.

Doctors and nurses need more time to spend with patients. Counsellors need more time to spend with patients. Sometimes it can be a struggle to get through everything you need to get to in fifteen minutes with a patient (most abortion clinic counsellors don't even get that long), especially if you have to spend half of that time dealing with their trauma from the sidewalk harassment they experienced coming in. Clinic managers need more money and time to hire and train competent staffers, and to pay them sufficiently. The whole damn medical system needs to be overhauled, in my opinion, but until then we need to be spending more government money on making things better for patients than we are on denying them the services they need through laws and regulations.

What happened to Anna has nothing to do with the legality of abortion - in fact, if abortion was not legal I'm pretty sure things would have been a lot worse for her. What happened to Anna happened because we live in a country where those in charge do not trust or care about women, and the people who are supposed to help women are too overworked and underpaid to do so sufficiently.

I hope that Anna is able to find some peace with her decision, and some counselling for her trauma. And I hope Margaret Somerville some day gets her shit together and learns what an ethicist does.

Human Rights > Your Opinion

 I think I kind of touched on this in my post about why poll results don't matter, but it's something I've been thinking about lately and I want to make my position on it a little clearer.

With the recent re-interest in sex-selective abortion in Canada, and with Woodworth scattering his really excellent ideas of new and creative ways to control women, there have been a lot of polls done lately, and a lot of public discussion about abortion and the laws (or lack thereof) that we have in Canada. A lot of people seem to feel that if we take polls and enough people express concern or a desire for more restrictions on certain rights, this will - and more importantly, should - result in changes in the law.

It feels as though we have lost the plot a little bit, because here's the thing: there's a reason we have defined "human rights" and taken them outside of the sphere of normal legislation and even national jurisdiction. As useless as you might think the United Nations is, there is a reason they produced a list of things that we all have a right to, and there's a reason that document is not called "Universal Declaration of things that are fairly important, but you can play around with if you want to".

I'm not saying we should all shut up and listen to the UN (and you will rarely, if ever, hear me say that). I'm saying that I feel there are rights that humans should reasonably expect, and in an ideal world, we would not have to worry about them being legislated against by our governments. And one of those rights - I would argue the foundational one - is the right to control our own bodies. That's why I believe that suicide should be legal in every form. And I also believe that we should all have an inalienable right to decide whether we will carry a pregnancy to term, and how/if we will prevent that pregnancy from happening.

This is why on some level, any national "debate" about abortion is unacceptable to me, and it's also why the current bullshit around birth control in the States absolutely terrifies me. These are our rights. Bigger than the Constitution, bigger than the UN, this is what is essential to being able to call oneself a free person: the right to control one's own body, and not to be able to take that away from anyone through national/state/provincial laws or by force.

That's why the rest of Canada's opinion on things like abortion and other reproductive health decisions means jack shit to me. I'm sorry, I like a lot of you, but I really don't give a flying fuck about what you think about these issues because I shouldn't have to: my right to make decisions about my own body should be an inaliable, absolutely protected right.

Canada is a country that sometimes tries to pride itself on peace-keeping and human rights (ha ha ha *sob*). So the fact that the government can't even figure this out is pretty sad.

Why Poll Data Doesn't Matter

So, I guess there's been an Angus Reid poll that found that 51% of Canadians favour some restrictions on abortion - and 60% favour restricting sex-selective abortion. I have some thoughts.

First of all, who are these people who don't think there should be any restrictions, but then do think that, oh yeah, if it's for sex selection then we should really clamp down. What? I have so many questions for them. Like: how do we determine someone's reason for aborting? How hard do you think it would be to get around such a restriction? What do you think it says about our society that sex selective abortion even exists? What other reasons are good enough to say no, you can't have this?

But mostly I just think, who cares? I wouldn't give a shit if 99% of the population thought abortion should be illegal, all the time, forever. Majority opinion =/= justice.

I don't know what polls like this are supposed to prove. People's right to have a say over their own bodies is not changeable with the whims of the populace, or at least it shouldn't be. I'm sure there was a time when a lot of shitty things were 51% approved by the population of this or another country. You know the shit I'm talking about, don't make me Godwin this.

I also wouldn't really care that much if the poll said 99% of people were for no limits on abortion law/access, unless it actually made a practical difference in people's lives. Look at PEI - even if everyone on the island agreed that abortion was a-ok, that doesn't build a clinic, or the political will to make it happen. Reproductive rights are looking more and more like something to add to our list of things we will need to take back (as opposed to waiting for them to be handed to us).

I guess it doesn't really matter what polls we do, I don't really feel that they are reflective of folks' lived experiences, which tend to get undervalued.

Why the Sex Selective Abortion Debate is Bullshit

So the old sex selective abortion topic is coming up again in Canada; you might have seen it in the news (I have lots more links for Sunday's round up, don't worry). Can I just say, I can't believe this is being dragged out again as if there is a legislative solution. I mean really.

It seems fairly obvious from where I'm sitting that sex selective abortion, and infanticide, is a symptom of a much larger problem: the value we place on gender in our society. Obviously it varies in form and degree between cultures (and don't think I haven't noticed the racist undertones of some of these discussions), but what it comes down to is that women are not valued as highly as men, and are not as desirable to have as children. Obviously this is further complicated by ethnicity and class and all manner of other factors. But the point is, the problem of sex selection will not be solved by removing the means of sex selection. Haven't I written about this before?

Many people counter the "making it illegal won't make the problem go away" argument (one that applies to many other issues such as non-sex selective abortion, or sex work) with the "that same thing could be said about murder", rebuttal, as though decriminalizing something implies total moral acceptance. Or as if the always-correct reaction to things we think are morally wrong is to legislate against it. As if our legislative process, our whole judicial system, wasn't itself irreversibly corrupt. I think that even if we could all agree 100% on a law that should be in place, there is no guarantee that the legal system will serve the interests of our society as opposed to the interests of the - dare I say it - 1%. I am wary of ever advocating further legislation to solve any problem, because I have my own ideas of who the criminal class are.

I think sex selective abortion and infanticide are symptoms of a problem that is in itself part and parcel of a kyriarchy in which our judicial system also operates. I think that in the long run, the same people are benefiting from both. I think sex selective abortion will never go away until the kyriarchy does. And I am absolutely fed up with the fact that reasonable people are still arguing about it; as if taking away a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy can help her in a world that is going to slap her daughter down in the same way it just did to her.

/rant

The Island Fight

Ok, so is anyone else totally excited to see what's happening around abortion access in PEI? My last two weekly readers have been chock full of news around this, and I keep reading more and more about it.

For those who don't know, there is no abortion access on PEI at all. Those women who do need/want an abortion generally do one of two things: travel to Fredericton to have an abortion done at the Morgentaler Clinic for $600 - $800; or travel to Halifax to have an abortion at the hospital, which is covered under the reciprocal billing agreement between Nova Scotia and PEI.

Obviously there are a lot of problems with these two options, the main one being that out-of-province travel is not something that everyone has access to all the time. Especially travelling to Fredericton, where the abortion is done as an outpatient procedure in one early morning, weekday appointment. That is all kinds of inconvenient for the majority of PEI women.

Some other hurdles in this system include:

- Availability of appointments (at both locations; many times it is difficult for providers to keep up with the demand)

- Finding someone to drive/accompany you

- Paying for gas and/or overnight stay

- Lost day of work; childcare/petcare arrangements

- Explaining to the people in your life who might notice, why you went to Fredericton or Halifax for the day (assuming you don't want to tell them about your abortion)

- Navigating a potentially unfamiliar city, in the presence of protesters

- Suffering the potential discomfort or painful after effects of surgery during a prolonged car ride

- Making travel and accommodation arrangements around an early morning appointment

- Money, money, money!

...and on and on. This is assuming a woman even has the resources and support to know about those two options, and is able to get an appointment in time (the Fredericton clinic's gestational limit is sixteen weeks).

So you can see how this is a very difficult situation for any woman on PEI seeking an abortion, on top of which there is a shortage of doctors and a stigma around abortion.

All that said, it is amazing and inspiring to see Island activists rising up and demanding something better. I was active in reproductive rights activism for three years in Fredericton so I know a little bit about the difficulties of going against the grain in a small city with a certain outlook. People in the Maritimes are great, but sometimes the social climate is stifling - WASP-y, puritanical, ridiculously conservative/traditional and most of all, silent (and silencing). I would even say Victorian, at times. It's a difficult place to be a young person, a progressive, and especially someone from a marginalized group.

The result is a difficult uphill battle for activists. And maybe the silver lining is that the Maritimes builds fierce, resilient activists. My heart goes out to the brave people fighting the powers that be on PEI; please think of them and do what you can to help.

An Open Letter to Young Feminists

As a response to shit like this, I wanted to say:

Dear young feminists,

Thank you for existing. Thank you for being strong, driven, compassionate and empathetic. You are the heralds of a better world and the only reason I can continue to believe in it.

I could never have learned anything about privilege, intersectionality, or being an ally without the guidance, writing and action of the feminists of my generation. There is so much I would never have been able to discover without the help of feminist blogs. Thank you, young feminists, for being bold and bravely talking openly about oppression.

Thank you for organizing, promoting, and participating in actions - as big as Occupy and as small as a local clinic defense. Thanks for picking up the torch of the second wave and burning it much brighter, in more directions. Thank you for marching when there has been marching to be done.

Thank you for expanding feminism, for making it bigger, more inclusive, and more radical. Thank you for teaching me how my whiteness makes my feminist lens different, and how all the power imbalances I experience and participate in are interconnected. Thank you for dreaming big.

Thank you for believing that a woman is more than her body, and that there is more to life than woman/man. Thank you for believing people when they say what they are - man, woman, genderqueer, bisexual, asexual, trans, polyamorous, survivor, victim, queer, fat, ok, not ok. Thanks for creating a movement full of people, not labels.

Thank you for carrying on and fighting in the face of people who think the fight is over. Thanks for being active feminists while people say you don't exist. Thanks for reaching out across generations while casting aside the harmful beliefs of the second wave. Thanks for pushing beyond white liberal feminism.

Thank you also for your mistakes, your infighting, your sellouts and fuck ups. Thanks for not being perfect. Thanks for trying to fix it.

Young feminists do not just exist. We are shaping the world whether the old guard likes it or not. We are building new understandings of old issues. We are broadening our scope and for better or for worse, creating the revolution. If you haven't noticed us, perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees.

Thank you, young feminists, for teaching me something new every day, and giving me hope.

Love your friend,

Peggy

"Je ne les crains pas. C'est pour cela que je suis nee." - Joan of Arc

Photo credit: John Bonnar (rabble.ca)

Tomorrow's Rally and Reproductive Justice

Those of you in Toronto may have heard about the "Defund Abortion" rally being planned for tomorrow at Queen's Park at 1pm. You may have also heard that there is a pro-choice presence/counter-rally being planned; I hope you are planning on attending!

I will be there, as part of the Reproductive Justice Coalition of Toronto. We felt it was important to have a presence there, even though we do talk a lot about the reactive nature of the movement, and how frustrating it sometimes feels to be doing actions like this. Another thing we often discuss is the domination of the movement by the talking points of an older generation, and an older focus. We are pretty tired of talking about "choice", especially since it is most often coming out of whiteness and a more privileged class. That is why I think it is important to note that while the RJT is in solidarity with OCAC and other groups regarding opposition to defunding abortion, we will maintain a distinctive presence at the rally tomorrow (and any like-minded or curious folks are welcome to join us!).

For me, "choice" and the other established goals of the pro-choice movement like access to abortion have become much less important than this more reproductive justice-focused worldview I am slowly learning about and adopting. I love the idea of being radical in the sense of tracing back to the root, and an RJ approach encourages that kind of analysis. What is important to a younger generation of RJ activists is not so much the defunding of abortion as the decolonizing of our bodies, particularly the bodies of racialized women and trans people and other marginalized folks. That is where these contentious issues come from. We also care less about lobbying and legislating than we do about teaching and learning to know and care for our bodies. Sure it worries me that abortion might be made illegal, but quite honestly I'm more worried about how few young women know how to masturbate.

Anyway, I'm just sort of skimming the surface of reproductive justice right now, but it's something I will continue to talk about, for sure. And if you come out to the rally tomorrow you will see from the diversity of our signs that there is a lot more to this than abortion.

If you are interested in being part of the RJT presence, please contact me at pedgehog [at] gmail [dot] com.