That's how I feel about a certain segment of Americans and their misogynist blathering these days. It's too loud and it's too close. It hurts my ears, my head and my heart.
Their woman hating ways are bound to have an impact on Canada. It is still too soon to say what that impact is going to be. The impact might be positive, affirming of women's rights and equality. I think that Canadians will see the hatred being spewed at women and decide they don't much care for it. I think it will show us how important it is to be vigilant and make sure our politics don't turn into religion.
Speaking of which, Motion 312 is around the corner. I was delighted to see the Radical Handmaids come out with a drinking game for the debate. Good to treat it like the joke that it is. I think if I were to use this game watching the RNC, I would have had alcohol poisoning by the end of the night.
I'd also like to point you to a new and informative article by our friend Nick van der Graaf about how Canadian women won our exemplary right to abortion on demand, how Canada became the only country in the world where there are no legal restrictions on abortion at all, or in other words, how abortion came to be understood not as a legal matter, but as a medical matter, a matter between a woman and her doctor. Written for an American audience, I think this article could teach Canadians quite a bit as well.
And in the run up to the American election, many groups are doing what they can to educate and inform. Some are using The Abortion Monologues to get the word out and I couldn't be happier about that. Performances are being organized in Montana and New Hampshire. If you want details, stay tuned. I will post ticket information as it is made available to me.
Showing posts with label radical handmaids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radical handmaids. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
An American Perspective on Pro-Choice Strategy for M-312
A couple of days ago, I was doing an interview with Julie Lalonde and she asked me how I would respond to people who say our activism over M-312 is over the top considering most people think it will never pass. I replied that I wondered what our American sisters would say about their early activism on personhood bills and early incursions on what has turned out to be a full scale war on women. I wondered what advice they would give us. After the interview, I decided to actually ask this question of an American ally, Charlotte Taft. Charlotte Taft is the Director of the Abortion Care Network, an organization for independent providers and abortion care allies. In her long history with reproductive justice she has been a consultant and counselor with Imagine, and was the director of Routh St. Clinic in Dallas TX. This is what she said.
On What's Happening in the United States now:
Taft wonders why those creating all the anti-choice legislation in the US are "so intent on robbing women of any semblance of adult authority." She goes on to say, "My observation is that if the Republican Taliban has its way only corporations and fertilized eggs will be recognized as people with any rights!"
On Personhood Legislation:
With personhood bills passing all over the US, many of us felt that Mississipi's rejection of a personhood bill was a great win. However, Taft says, "In Mississippi the so-called 'personhood' legislation was defeated largely because a few women who were able to have children because of in vitro fertilization got very active and publicly told their stories. There was other opposition to the legislation, but I really think it was those stories that defeated the bill. In a few other states they are now putting forward similar legislation that somehow has a waiver of humanity for in vitro fertilization. That makes no sense, but it doesn't mean they might not get away with it. Apparently in this country there is no requirement for legislation to be either Constitutional or even to make a shred of sense. We have legislators arguing for anti choice legislation on the grounds that they raise livestock and this is how they deal with pregnant cows or pigs. I KID YOU NOT! I can't even choose a century that it seems we have slid into."
Again, this is good information because it indicates the lack of logic that goes into their perspective. They are doing this to end abortion, not because they are concerned about fetal personhood. If they were concerned about fetal personhood, they would be consistent. The fact that they are now trying to make exceptions to personhood so the IVF industry doesn't end reveals personhood bills for what they really are - an attack on women's rights, not a protection of the embryo/fetus.
On Nature and Biology:
Taft is always excellent on reminding us how these personhood bills fly in the face of nature itself and how personhood arguments appear ridiculous when looked at in terms of how bodies actually work. She says, "Since I've always been told that only about 40% of fertilized eggs ever implant in the wall of the uterus, it is clear that god, or nature, or biology is the greatest abortionist of them all. The personhood people have not explained whether women would have to hold monthly funerals for their sanitary products in case a corpse is residing among the cotton. Will the 17 1/2 year olds be able to vote and drink because their personhood started at conception and not birth? You can only imagine a million more ridiculous issues that would be created. But sadly, I think in the right state it could pass."
This is said with humour, but the dark side of her comments is clear. I wonder, if Woodworth gets his way and the fetus is a person, does it get to vote? If so, does the woman incubator (because that is all she will be) get to be the vessel through which the embryo vote is expressed? Will she use her arm to mark an x on behalf of the fully personed embryo? Or will Woodworth steal the embryo vote, and count all unborn persons as votes for himself because women can't be trusted? Can embryos only vote "OfStephen"?
On What's Happening in the United States now:
Taft wonders why those creating all the anti-choice legislation in the US are "so intent on robbing women of any semblance of adult authority." She goes on to say, "My observation is that if the Republican Taliban has its way only corporations and fertilized eggs will be recognized as people with any rights!"
On "Relax, it will never pass":
Taft says, "'It will never
pass' is a dangerous conversation. In this country all that had to happen
was that a radical group (I won't call them conservatives because they are not)
got elected in enough numbers in enough different states that they were able to
dominate the legislative agendas. Absolutely unbelievable things have passed! I
can't even keep the states straight--but we now have legislation on the books
that protects from lawsuits doctors who lie to their patients about potential
fetal abnormalities if the doctor thinks the woman might choose abortion. We
have legislation in more than one state that currently requires clinic staffs
and physicians to lie to patients about issues such as connection between
abortion and breast cancer. We have had legislation passed that required any
woman seeking an abortion to first be 'counseled' in an anti-abortion fake
clinic. The list goes on. All of these are pieces of legislation that could
never possibly have passed in the 21st century. And they did."
I read this as a clear validation of throwing everything we have at every single incursion, no matter how small, into our rights. We all have to understand that the US is a cautionary tale for us.
On Personhood Legislation:
With personhood bills passing all over the US, many of us felt that Mississipi's rejection of a personhood bill was a great win. However, Taft says, "In Mississippi the so-called 'personhood' legislation was defeated largely because a few women who were able to have children because of in vitro fertilization got very active and publicly told their stories. There was other opposition to the legislation, but I really think it was those stories that defeated the bill. In a few other states they are now putting forward similar legislation that somehow has a waiver of humanity for in vitro fertilization. That makes no sense, but it doesn't mean they might not get away with it. Apparently in this country there is no requirement for legislation to be either Constitutional or even to make a shred of sense. We have legislators arguing for anti choice legislation on the grounds that they raise livestock and this is how they deal with pregnant cows or pigs. I KID YOU NOT! I can't even choose a century that it seems we have slid into."
Again, this is good information because it indicates the lack of logic that goes into their perspective. They are doing this to end abortion, not because they are concerned about fetal personhood. If they were concerned about fetal personhood, they would be consistent. The fact that they are now trying to make exceptions to personhood so the IVF industry doesn't end reveals personhood bills for what they really are - an attack on women's rights, not a protection of the embryo/fetus.
On Nature and Biology:
Taft is always excellent on reminding us how these personhood bills fly in the face of nature itself and how personhood arguments appear ridiculous when looked at in terms of how bodies actually work. She says, "Since I've always been told that only about 40% of fertilized eggs ever implant in the wall of the uterus, it is clear that god, or nature, or biology is the greatest abortionist of them all. The personhood people have not explained whether women would have to hold monthly funerals for their sanitary products in case a corpse is residing among the cotton. Will the 17 1/2 year olds be able to vote and drink because their personhood started at conception and not birth? You can only imagine a million more ridiculous issues that would be created. But sadly, I think in the right state it could pass."
This is said with humour, but the dark side of her comments is clear. I wonder, if Woodworth gets his way and the fetus is a person, does it get to vote? If so, does the woman incubator (because that is all she will be) get to be the vessel through which the embryo vote is expressed? Will she use her arm to mark an x on behalf of the fully personed embryo? Or will Woodworth steal the embryo vote, and count all unborn persons as votes for himself because women can't be trusted? Can embryos only vote "OfStephen"?
On the Radical Handmaids:
Taft says, "I love the
Radical Handmaids!!! We MUST have humor along with our
outrage. This is a war on women--not a war with women. After
all, we are unarmed!"
I always say what the anti-choice don't have is a sense of humour and they can't handle it when faced with it. Humour brings life to our activism and keeps us energized. And the hats are fabulous.
My sincere thanks to Charlotte Taft for her words of wisdom. We can all benefit from them and feel energized to keep up this fight.
I also want to put a plug in here for Niki Ashton, whose words in the House literally brought tears to my eyes. You can see it here. (If you do not speak French, keep listening. Ashton is bilingual and her second remarks are in English.) Niki, you are a rockstar, and that CONman who responded to you was too smug for words. Clearly, Parliament is a game to him and he doesn't give a crap about the issue. As Justice Minister, you'd expect him to understand that women's rights are at stake here, but I see nothing to indicate he cares. We've all gotta know that Harper and the Harperettes approve of this motion. My fingers are crossed for today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
