quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I hope he gets booted out of the party. Abortion is a woman's issue, full stop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlynn:
A hate site is reporting that Liberal MP, Paul Streckle has tabled a bill to restrict access to abortions. I haven't seen anything in the MSM yet. But there's more at my blog.

---

Why should he be booted from the party, not all liberals are in lock step with ALL policies - same with any party. Do the Liberals actually have an abortion policy?

I just received a confirmation email that he has tabled such a bill. I do agree with restrictions on late term, but IMO its the first step towards making abortion illegal - period.

The problem is how to stop it going further then restricting late term.

I'm guessing the reason you havn't seen it in the media is because it is a liberal's bill, not a conservative. Had it been a conservative the media would have been screaming about a 'neo-con' agenda. They are kind of in a corner here LOL

quote:

---

The bill would make those who perform an abortion after twenty weeks gestation guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment of up to five years, or else jail for up to two years and/or a fine up to $100,000.

The bill provides for exceptions where abortion beyond 20 weeks would be permitted "to save the life of a woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself" and also to "prevent severe, pathological, physical morbidity of the woman."

---

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

BB, why would they boot him now, after tolerating him in their caucus for thirteen years? They've also extended their "comfy fur carpet" to the likes of Tom Wappel (for eighteen years), Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, and Jim Karygyanis, Rosemarie Ur, Ovid Jackson, etc.. This should be a major clue to anyone who thinks that the Liberal Party cares about women's rights (or gays rights, or is generally progressive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
Just curious, but do you all think there should be no restrictions whatsoever on late term? I would define late term as over 20 weeks, but I think 24 weeks is when a fetus is viable outside the womb, so maybe 24 weeks would be better. (for the woman, not the fetus)

---

What kind of restrictions do you have in mind to prevent "late-term" abortion:

1. Allow privately, but withhold public funding?
2. Administrative (non-criminal) prohibition whether private or public?
3. Criminal offence for pregnant woman?
4. Criminal offence for physician?

What is the situation in other provinces?

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I think the Quebec College of Physicians already declines to perform most abortions after (22?) weeks, arguing at that point the fetus is viable. Like a lot of federal social interventions, such a bill would be redundant here.

What is the situation in other provinces?

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

---

The Supreme Court of Canada's 1988 decision in R. VS. MORGENTALER ruled that Section 251 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because the procedural requirements for the establishment of the abortion committees were not applied equally across the country. A majority of the court, however, concluded that parliament had the power to restrict abortion and to protect unborn human beings.

Supreme Court Justice McIntyre noted: "The evidence of opinion surveys indicates that there is a surprising consistency over the years and in different survey groups in the spectrum of opinions on the issue of abortion. Roughly 21 to 23% of people at one end of the spectrum are of the view, on the one hand, that abortion is a matter solely for the decision of the pregnant woman and that any legislation on this subject is an unwarranted interference with a woman's right to deal with her own body, while about 19 to 20% are of the view, on the other hand, that destruction of the living foetus is the killing of human life and tantamount to murder. The remainder of the population (about 60%) are of the view that abortion should be prohibited in some circumstances."

Parliament has heeded neither extreme. Instead, an attempt has been made to balance the competing interests of the unborn child and the pregnant woman.

This new Bill seeking the middle ground, but 22 weeks might be better.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: scribblet ]

quote:

---

Parliament has heeded neither extreme.

---

quote:

---

A hate site - where? Its not hate to be anti-abortion, I'm pro-choice except for late term, but it is not 'hate' to be anti abortion, they are entitled to an opinion, everyone does, that's a democracy. Problem with this issue is is is really polarizing, anything more than this could split the country apart, both sides would mobilize, not great optics.

---

First, what forum are we in?

Second, legislating a woman's body is misogyny. Those who purport doing so are hate-mongers. Pretty simple, I think.

Third, had you read the entry at my blog or taken a link or two, you would understand that access to the medical procedure is unequal across the country and that as a result of that (and other issues) many women are unable to secure one before 20 weeks.

there is no democracy until social justice for women is so entrenched in our thinking as a society, that it is the norm.

these groups are now clear that abortion is just the beginning-birth control is next.
look at what these groups have influenced, that is effecting the very survival of women in africa.

no, these are human rights violations - they are intent on victimizing women under the guise of'morality'

Most docs won't do them for other reasons. They are extremely gruesome procedures. They usually require overnight admissions.

You can write to the leaders of the four federal parties at the following addresses:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Mr. Graham,

I am writing to you to express my complete and total opposition to the proposed bill C-388, which seeks to criminalise certain types of abortion. This bill is not worthy of the Canadian parliament and belongs more in the legislature of our American neighbours. I am particularly disgusted that such a manifestly stupid bill was introduced by a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The decision to abort or not belongs rightfully to the woman involved and her medical advisors, NOT to the legislators sitting in Ottawa. These legislators are not privy to the woman's personal considerations that might or might not lead her to abort an unwanted foetus, and therefore, the legislators should have no say in her decision. Canada currently has no laws regulating abortion and that is exactly the way the situation should remain. There is a good reason that the vast majority of Canadians, especially those in their youth oppose government intervention is such personal matters. And the reason is just that - abortion is an intensely personal decision and DOES NOT NEED PUBLIC REGULATION of any sort.

This proposed bill is the start of a very dangerous and slippery slope which would one day end in abortion being criminalised in this country. While we have courts in this country to protect us from such heavy-handedness, it would be far better, both for the country and for the careers of the parlementarians involved to never enact such fascist regulations. With a conservative government in power it is truly a pity that social liberals like myself have to be on guard against the party that in theory at least should be on our side.

I dare to presume that you and your party members will vote against this bill. I also hope that the so-called liberal MP who introduced this bill will be severely punished by the party. It is time to live up to your liberal credentials and squash this assinine bill immediately.

Thank you,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monsieur Duceppe,

Je vous écrit pour vous faire part de mon opposition totale et complète au projet de loi proposé sous le numéro C-338. Je crois fortement que les femmes devraient avoir accès à l'avortement sur demande et sans restrictions. Je suis d'opinion, comme la majorité du peuple du Québec que les libertés des femmes ne doivent plus être menacées par des lois barbares et arrièrées comme celle ci.

Malgré le fait que je suis un homme, je crois que la décision d'avorter ou non, et ce à n'importe quel moment de la grossese, jusqu'à l'accouchement, devrait être prise par la femme concernée seule, et non par le gouvernement.

Dernièrement votre parti a prit part du parti conservateur, plus spécifiquement au sujet du budjet 2006. En faisant cela vous avez deçu les personnes qui ont voté pour vous lors des dernières élections. Sur ce sujet beaucoup plus important, vous devez représenter mieux les gens qui vous ont appuyé.

quote:

---

Originally posted by planteater:
Here are the emails I sent:

Mr. Graham,

I am writing to you to express my complete and total opposition to the proposed bill C-388, which seeks to criminalise certain types of abortion. This bill is not worthy of the Canadian parliament and belongs more in the legislature of our American neighbours. I am particularly disgusted that such a manifestly stupid bill was introduced by a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The decision to abort or not belongs rightfully to the woman involved and her medical advisors, NOT to the legislators sitting in Ottawa. These legislators are not privy to the woman's personal considerations that might or might not lead her to abort an unwanted foetus, and therefore, the legislators should have no say in her decision. Canada currently has no laws regulating abortion and that is exactly the way the situation should remain. There is a good reason that the vast majority of Canadians, especially those in their youth oppose government intervention is such personal matters. And the reason is just that - abortion is an intensely personal decision and DOES NOT NEED PUBLIC REGULATION of any sort.

This proposed bill is the start of a very dangerous and slippery slope which would one day end in abortion being criminalised in this country. While we have courts in this country to protect us from such heavy-handedness, it would be far better, both for the country and for the careers of the parlementarians involved to never enact such fascist regulations. With a conservative government in power it is truly a pity that social liberals like myself have to be on guard against the party that in theory at least should be on our side.

I dare to presume that you and your party members will vote against this bill. I also hope that the so-called liberal MP who introduced this bill will be severely punished by the party. It is time to live up to your liberal credentials and squash this assinine bill immediately.

Thank you,

---

I don't want to offend you, but I'd like to play devil's advocate with this e-mail you sent, if you're willing to indulge me.
I think the two of us would have some relatively minor disagreements on this topic, but because I respect your right to have, express, and persue your own opinions and interests, it is my sincere hope to perhaps help you refine your lobbying technique, to see if there's something you may or may want to do differently in future.

-My first question is: did you e-mail any other Liberal party MPs, MPs from other parties (including Conservative party MPs), or the leaders of other parties (including Stephen Harper). If so, then why? If not, then why not? Do you feel that casting a wider net in this way would help your cause? If so, then why? If not, then why not?
-You wrote "This bill is not worthy of the Canadian parliament and belongs more in the legislature of our American neighbours." Do you feel that bringing up the example of the United States has any relevence to the particular bill you're opposing? If so, then why? If not, then why not?
-You wrote "And the reason is just that - abortion is an intensely personal decision and DOES NOT NEED PUBLIC REGULATION of any sort." Can you think of absolutely no situations in which the law should intervene in an abortion decision? Consider this scenario, if you will: a young woman, 19 years old, is being forced to have an abortion by her 21 year-old abusive "boyfriend". Should this story come to the attention of police, should they persue legal action against the abusive boyfriend in a regular manner, or should they also find some way to address the issue of the abortion as well, given that may not have been her choice, if allowed to decide on her own? Should such a scenario actually be treated as intervention by the law in an abortion decision, or simply a standard domestic abuse intervention? Why or why not?
-You wrote: "This proposed bill is the start of a very dangerous and slippery slope which would one day end in abortion being criminalised in this country." You used a "slippery slope" analogy. These are often dismissed when brought up by anti-abortion activists as "silly". Is there a difference when the argument is used by pro-abortion activists? Why or why not? Is this the argument you really want to use? Is there a better argument you could be using?
-You wrote: "While we have courts in this country to protect us from such heavy-handedness, it would be far better, both for the country and for the careers of the parlementarians involved to never enact such fascist regulations." Are you concerned that the use of the word "fascist" in the context of your e-mail will not provoke a negative emotional response, and perhaps hurt your ability to convince the recipient? Is this a seed that you feel will bear fruit for you?
-You wrote " also hope that the so-called liberal MP who introduced this bill will be severely punished by the party." Do you feel that perhaps you are asking for too much in asking this particular MP to be punished? Do you worry that, should this happen, critics of the pro-choice movement will use this as an opportunity to denounce the movement? Are you certain that the punishment of an MP who has tabled an anti-abortion bill will garner the kind of public attention you want your cause to recieve? Why or why not?
-You wrote: "It is time to live up to your liberal credentials and squash this assinine bill immediately." Do you feel that the Liberal party squashing a private member's bill would hurt the party's public image? Why or why not? If many pro-choice activists are encouraging the Liberals to do this, are you worried this could become a weapon in the hands of anti-abortion activists? Why or why not? Do you worry this could harm the public image of the pro-choice movement? Why nor why not?

But if you want me to say what I think, I will.

Planteater, I'm not sure if this email will get you the response you would like it to. I think this email will make you appear to an extremist pro-choice zealot. I don't that Graham will be very receptive to this email, and I don't think that it comes down to the message you are trying to send, but entirely comes down to the message you ultimately do send.
I think you need to be careful that both of these are the same message.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Ross:

Planteater, I'm not sure if this email will get you the response you would like it to. I think this email will make you appear to an extremist pro-choice zealot.

---

Is that like an extremist anti-racist zealot? Someone who opposes racism even in cirumstances where it is justified?

And, just so we're clear: Specter is a chickenshit and a fuckwit.

[ 24 June 2006: Message edited by: Patrick Ross ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Ross:

I don't want to offend you, but I'd like to play devil's advocate with this e-mail you sent, if you're willing to indulge me.
I think the two of us would have some relatively minor disagreements on this topic, but because I respect your right to have, express, and persue your own opinions and interests, it is my sincere hope to perhaps help you refine your lobbying technique, to see if there's something you may or may want to do differently in future.

-My first question is: did you e-mail any other Liberal party MPs, MPs from other parties (including Conservative party MPs), or the leaders of other parties (including Stephen Harper). If so, then why? If not, then why not? Do you feel that casting a wider net in this way would help your cause? If so, then why? If not, then why not?
-You wrote "This bill is not worthy of the Canadian parliament and belongs more in the legislature of our American neighbours." Do you feel that bringing up the example of the United States has any relevence to the particular bill you're opposing? If so, then why? If not, then why not?
-You wrote "And the reason is just that - abortion is an intensely personal decision and DOES NOT NEED PUBLIC REGULATION of any sort." Can you think of absolutely no situations in which the law should intervene in an abortion decision? Consider this scenario, if you will: a young woman, 19 years old, is being forced to have an abortion by her 21 year-old abusive "boyfriend". Should this story come to the attention of police, should they persue legal action against the abusive boyfriend in a regular manner, or should they also find some way to address the issue of the abortion as well, given that may not have been her choice, if allowed to decide on her own? Should such a scenario actually be treated as intervention by the law in an abortion decision, or simply a standard domestic abuse intervention? Why or why not?
-You wrote: "This proposed bill is the start of a very dangerous and slippery slope which would one day end in abortion being criminalised in this country." You used a "slippery slope" analogy. These are often dismissed when brought up by anti-abortion activists as "silly". Is there a difference when the argument is used by pro-abortion activists? Why or why not? Is this the argument you really want to use? Is there a better argument you could be using?
-You wrote: "While we have courts in this country to protect us from such heavy-handedness, it would be far better, both for the country and for the careers of the parlementarians involved to never enact such fascist regulations." Are you concerned that the use of the word "fascist" in the context of your e-mail will not provoke a negative emotional response, and perhaps hurt your ability to convince the recipient? Is this a seed that you feel will bear fruit for you?
-You wrote " also hope that the so-called liberal MP who introduced this bill will be severely punished by the party." Do you feel that perhaps you are asking for too much in asking this particular MP to be punished? Do you worry that, should this happen, critics of the pro-choice movement will use this as an opportunity to denounce the movement? Are you certain that the punishment of an MP who has tabled an anti-abortion bill will garner the kind of public attention you want your cause to recieve? Why or why not?
-You wrote: "It is time to live up to your liberal credentials and squash this assinine bill immediately." Do you feel that the Liberal party squashing a private member's bill would hurt the party's public image? Why or why not? If many pro-choice activists are encouraging the Liberals to do this, are you worried this could become a weapon in the hands of anti-abortion activists? Why or why not? Do you worry this could harm the public image of the pro-choice movement? Why nor why not?

Wow. That's a lot of "why or why not?" questions -- but I think they're valid, and carefully considering them might help you uncover something you may or may not want to do differently.
Good luck with your efforts!

---

This is BS! I cannot believe this kind of tripe troll is accepted in what is supposed to be a feminist forum. WTF is going on and what's happened to babble, that once-great place of progressive talk?

Sign me,

It's hard to believe that a member of the Liberal party would do this, after they did so many progressive things under Martin and Cretien, such as......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Yes, I only stop by once and a while these days, but it seems to me that Michelle has been a regular banamaniac.

It's hard to believe that a member of the Liberal party would do this, after they did so many progressive things under Martin and Cretien, such as......

HEY! maybe they ain't progressives at all!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Berlynn, sorry I can't be here 24 hours a day or notice every thread, seeing as I work 16 hours a week, and I've been offline for the last 24 hours (yes, I occasionally do that - not often!), and sometimes threads dip below my radar for a few days if I don't happen to notice them when I'm online. Maybe it would be more productive to actually notify me of someone's actions in a thread (which someone else did about this thread and look - 10 minutes after I logged in today, here I am, doing something about it!) rather than petulantly stamping your foot and claiming that people are being "allowed" to do this and that on babble. Sorry, I don't want you to leave babble, but I also don't appreciate you making like we're all asleep at the wheel here. That's not the case.

---

I've been active in women's politics for more than twenty years now and if I want to stamp my feet you can be doggammed sure I will. And I surely don't need your patronizing me, each time I bring something up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spitfire:

This is another area which is so contentious, that I wonder if part of the animosity would be removed if it were no longer funded by taxpayers, which of course would include some anti-abortionists. "It's your body, do what you want. Just don't make me pay the tab."

---

i sure hope that you get that message before your daughters end up saddled with societal brainwashing just because they are female.

quote:

---

Second, legislating a woman's body is misogyny. Those who purport doing so are hate-mongers. Pretty simple, I think.

---

So, in your opinion, do you believe that all opinions, expressions etc against allowing abortions should be made illegal?

none of us has the time to devote to your education so you might want to consider doing some work

while you are at it there is some disturbing history around facism and womens rights