|
Author
|
Topic: June 7th Day of Protest Against the Pill
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 29 May 2008 06:24 PM
Not content with their attempts to outlaw abortions, the fetus fetishers are really trying to push the idea that the pill is actually an abortient, so much so they are having a day of protests outside every place that sells and dispenses birth control pills.Personally, if I see any of these whack jobs in front of the pharmacy, or clinic, here, I will most certainly get right bent out of shape! quote:
Pro-lifers prepare to protest birth control pillThe American Life League (ALL) says that its preparations for a national day of protest against the birth control pill are gaining momentum. Pro-lifers are planning June 7 protests outside of facilities that distribute the pill because of its reported abortifacient effects. “We have been in contact with people all across the country who are excited and ready to protest,” said Marie Hahnenberg, Project Manager of Protest the Pill Day. “So far, we have heard from people in at least 10 states, including California, Texas, Wisconsin and North Carolina, that they will be participating in Protest the Pill Day. Even protesters in Canada are participating.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12738
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668
|
posted 30 May 2008 06:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Well, think about it this wat also laine, if Bill C484 passes, women will NOT be allowed to take the pill, as an end result.It will be classified as harmful to the zygote/fetus the same as drugs, alcohol, and smoking. And that will be that.
More reason to use it to tie it to their real agenda. I have no doubt that should Bill C-484 pass, it will result in mayhem as far a women's reproductive choice is concerned. That's why it's important to expose their real agenda at every opportunity. Too many people think that the Bill is about protecting pregnant women. We know that is far from the truth. What they seek to protect is the unborn. Taking their definition of the unborn to the point of protesting the pill, really does reveal just how extreme they are.
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126
|
posted 02 June 2008 08:21 AM
quote:
Well, there is the rub, you see, they are stating women are being lied to about this. They are stating that women do indeed ovulate and get pregnant, but the pill renders the lining of the uterous to thin for the zygote to attach itself to, and that it changes the mucous lining for the same purpose.
I wonder if they are teaching this in publicly funded Catholic Schools? My guess would be yes. When will Catholic schools get the human rights slam they've been asking for?
ETA: Wrong quote! oops [ 02 June 2008: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 06 June 2008 07:57 PM
I think we need to chip away at Liberal Party's line of defense against critics of C-484, who know quite well that the anti-choice caucus on Parliament Hill includes dozens of Liberal MPs such as Maurice Vellacott, Paul Steckle & other male-fundamentalists whom Stéphane Dion still refuses to rein in, and probably can't anyway.As fewer and fewer people are buying the line that C-484 really doesn't threaten women's entitlement to reproductive choice and safety from lawsuits and criminal charges based on how they are behaving if pregnant, Stéphane Dion and the Grits have been putting out two talking points:
1) "The Liberal Party of Canada is against reopening woman's right to decide as a debate". Sounds encouraging. Yet, that is EGGSACTLY what Ken Epp and other opponents of choice have been saying about their Trojan horse, i.e. that C-484 is not about choice but about protecting willing mothers' security. So, it's a smokescreen and an insult by those well-meaning Liberals against anyone who has looked at the facts about giving the fetus legal standing. 2) "The Liberal Party will defeat C-484 either at the Committee of Justice and Human Rights or at third reading." This Committee hasn't even addressed the Bill yet, more than three months after its adoption by Parliament in 2nd reading! How can they do that? One long-standing Conservative tactic is for Committee presidents to walk out and paralyze proceedings if the CPC is unable to control an agenda. In this case, the President is arch-conservative and C-484 supporter Art Hanger (horrible pun appropriate). As for the 3rd reading of C-484, expected on September 17, there is no indication that the 26 Grits who voted with the government for C-484 on 2nd reading - and the 10 who quietly slipped out of the House at the time of that vote (Dion to hold a press conference about all his party is doing for women!!!) - will act any different unless the Grits whip a vote and, so far, Dion refuses to to do so and allows C-484 supporters such as Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard - Saint-Michel) to go on spreading disinformation about it on national radio, against Quebec physicians and specialists' expertise. So if someone from the LPC tries to assuage you - they seem to have mainly entrusted this dirty job to the party's female MPs - yell B-S and show them you can read the writing on the wall! [ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 06 June 2008 09:02 PM
A good summary of the issue on the NDP web site:
quote:
Why is Stéphane Dion helping Stephen Harper threaten women’s rights? Stephen Harper’s Conservatives don’t have the votes to pass C-484 – a bill that critics say will open the door for future legal challenges against women’s right to choose. But numerous Dion Liberals agree with the bill and also want it to become law. Jack Layton and every NDP MP will be voting against C-484, the so-called “Unborn Victims of Crime Act.” Why won’t Stéphane Dion show the same leadership? In total, 26 Dion Liberals:
Raymond Bonin
John Cannis
Raymond Chan
Roy Cullen
Sukh Dhaliwal
Albina Guarnieri
Charles Hubbard
Jim Karygiannis
Derek Lee Lawrence MacAulay
Gurbax Singh Malhi
John Maloney
Joseph McGuire
John McKay
Dan McTeague
Shawn Murphy
Massimo Pacetti
Francis Scarpaleggia Lloyd St. Amand
Paul Steckle
Paul Szabo
Robert Thibault
Alan Tonks
Roger Valley
Thomas Wappel
Borys Wrzesnewskyj joined with 120 Harper Conservatives, including:
Stephen Harper
Stockwell Day
Cheryl Gallant
Maurice Vellacott
Rob Anders
Diane Ablonczy
Bev Oda Rona Ambrose
Helena Guergis
Pierre Poilievre
Jay Hill
Art Hanger
Chuck Strahl
Vic Toew
to ensure C-484’s survival, giving Harper a working majority on women’s rights. Jack Layton and the NDP are standing up for women’s rights and against Stephen Harper’s Conservative agenda. What they are saying on C-484
“We were reassured by the fact that MPs from your political party voted against this bill and we encourage you to maintain this wise position to prevent this bill from ever being passed. Indeed, we were shocked to discover that the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was conspicuous in his absence from the vote, as well as his lack of leadership in giving his party a clear direction.”
Gaétan Barrette, M.D., president of the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists in a letter to Jack Layton, 14 April 2008 “In practice, Bill C-484 is a law that opens the door for future legal challenges against women’s right to choose whether to have an abortion.”
Article by Jennifer Kilty, assistant professor, Department of Criminology and Social Science of Health at the University of Ottawa and Tara Lyons, executive director of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Rabble.ca, 25 April 2008 “It’s not the place of the law to decide the legal status or worth of the fetus, because that interferes with women’s privacy and freedom of conscience — and ultimately their right to life and bodily security. We need to protect pregnant women first — because when a pregnant woman is safe, so is her fetus.”
Joyce Arthur, National Post, 31 March 2008
[ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
