Personhood for All, Courtesy ALL

It's the latest thing in the anti-choice movement: Personhood for All!!!!

Five USian states have introduced bills to give a fertilized human egg constitutional rights. Two more states are working on such bills. And in North Dakota today, the bill passed in the House.

The fetus fetishists are revved, despite the fact that such an initiative in Colorado last fall got trounced.

Here is Kay Steiger of RH RealityCheck reporting on The Personhood Conference held in January just after the zygote zealots' annual March for Life bunfest.

On Friday, dozens of pro-life activists gathered at the Personhood Conference in Washington, D.C. On Thursday, the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, they had marched with the tens of thousands of anti-choice activists, but today these activists were talking about personhood, a new plan of attack for the anti-choice movement. These activists are frustrated and tired of incrementalist approaches to abortion. "It's not working," announced Shaun Kenney of the American Life League. "It's failing."

The Personhood Conference, organized by the American Life League (ALL), enlisted speakers from a variety of segments of the pro-life movement, including a rising star, Kristi Burton. Burton is a 21-year-old woman who spearheaded the campaign for a state constitutional amendment in Colorado that sought to define life as beginning at fertilization. Burton says the Colorado personhood movement projects a "positive message," unites pro-lifers, and doesn't personally attack pro-choice activists.

(The American Life League is, of course, the gang of nutters that brought us 'The Pill Kills' campaign, so that makes sense.)

Feeeel the momentum. Personhood has its own website, run by Christian ministers 'who are missionaries to preborn children'. I am not making this up. Read their About Us page.

Personhood USA is committed to:
-Protecting every child by love and by law.

-Moving churches and the culture to make the dehumanization and murdering of pre-born children unthinkable.

-Build coalitions and organizations or local, State, National and International pro-life individuals and organizations that will work together on personhood legislation/ amendments.

-Honor the Lord Jesus Christ with our lives and actions

They really think this boat will float? Really?

I'm calling it: The forced-pregnancy movement has now jumped the shark.

This is going to be fun.

UPPITY-DATE: JJ, in the comments to another post, offers Pandagon's take.

The Pre-Born Personhood Initiative

Boo-hoo-hoo.

An anti-abortion group in Ohio is facing a significant shortfall in the number of signatures needed to ask voters in the presidential battleground this fall whether the state constitution should declare that life begins when a human egg is fertilized, putting up another obstacle for the "personhood" movement.

They've got just 5% of the signatures needed.

And they don't seem to be trying very hard. They're not spending any money. Even the the Catlick Church isn't on side.

I wonder why.

Oh look.

The personhood movement has already faced setbacks in other states this year. Supporters fell short of the required number of signatures to qualify for the November ballots in Nevada and California. And in Oklahoma, the state's highest court halted an amendment effort there to grant personhood rights to human embryos, saying the measure is unconstitutional.

Voters have rejected similar proposals that made ballots in 2008 and 2010 in Colorado.

They also defeated the initiative in November 2011 in Mississippi, which has some of the nation's toughest abortion regulations.

Coz it's a loser idea?

On Twitter, I've been annoying the heck out of @roseblue/SUZYALLCAPS by characterizing Woodworth's Wank (M312) as a personhood initiative and posting links to possible implications of it, including criminalizing miscarriage, outlawing all abortions, banning hormonal and IUD birth control, possibly even banning in vitro fertilization treatments.

Those concerns have been raised in Ohio, but are dismissed by the measure's proponents.

Supporters in Ohio have hoped to alleviate those concerns by rephrasing their proposed amendment to say it wouldn't affect "genuine contraception" or in vitro fertilization procedures.

Well, then.

On Twitter, when I asked if M312 would entail investigation of miscarriages. @roseblue/SUZYALLCAPS said: 'No'.

And we all felt reassured.

@fernhilldammit You & Canada have >@Roseblue 's< word on that! (Well I'm sure everyone will sleep better now - NOT.) ;-) #m312 #prochoice

— Lynne A (@lahtay44) June 21, 2012

Thing is, SUZYALLCAPS doesn't like the characterization as 'personhood'. SHE knows that under that rubric, it has LOST big time, and among the strongest voices against it are 'infertility advocates'.

(Plain text to avoid juvenile fetal porn redirect.)
http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2012/05/one-way-to-fight-personhood.html

SUZY says:

This is why I think pro-lifers should use the label "fetal rights" or "unborn rights" advocate.

Because that's what it ultimately is about.

Right, then.

Here's your assignment, fans of women's rights: Tweet, blog, and talk about Woodworth's Wank as a 'personhood' initiative.

It's not, of course, but as I'm saying on Twitter:

@roseblue doesn't want us to call #M312 a #personhood law. OK, it's a #preborn law on #personhood. #Preborn thingies exist, dammit!!!!

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) June 21, 2012

The Dog Ate My Personhood Initiative. . .

After getting their collective ass handed to them in Mississippi, those persistent personhood peeps aren't giving up. They've got a raft of similar abortion-killing, birth-control-banning, miscarriage-criminalizing dealies rarin' to go.

All over the blogosphere and Twitter, fetus fetishists are advancing whacky reasons why their supposed slam-dunk failed so miserably. Here's some interesting speculation on what happened between the opinion polls -- that indicated it would pass easily -- and the voting booth by Amanda Marcotte. (Hint: secret ballots are excellent things in conformist conservative jerkwater places like Mississippi.)

But my favourite load of BS is by SUZYALLCAPSLOCK. This is a link to the tweet linking to HER post. Two clicks but no juvenile redirect to fetus pr0n.

Commenter lastchancetosee sums up HER increasingly desperate explanations of the fiasco:

So to recap:
a) even Pro-Lifers opposed it, preferring to actively pursue a humiliating defeat by voting against it than succeeding in passing it and thus stopping the "abortion holocaust" at least temporarily, not to mention the PR advantages, and precedent etc.*
b) if the Catholic Church with its negligible following in Mississippi had recommended voting for it, hundreds of thousands of non-Catholic voters would have marched to the polls for this, when their own convictions and religious leaders weren't enough to do so.
c) due to unspecified "circumstances" people decided to kill an initiative they supported
d) this is actually a huge win for the pro-life cause because a vote that was expected to be a close thing was a very clear knock-down, and that is a good thing.
e) this result still has absolutely nothing to do with 60% of the people, including many pro-lifers, opposing this measure.

The nile is not just a river in egypt.

* you do know what the purpose of all these initiatives for amendments, laws etc. is, do you? To get as many as them passed as possible, so that they get challenged in the courts, until you find one case where a court sides with you, thereby creating precedent. The people who push these things KNOW that they will be challenged. They WANT them to be challenged. Why do you think it is that most of these things have so very obvious constitutional issues?
This being challenged in the Supreme Court is a BONUS, not a drawback. But sure, pro-lifers opposed it because they feared it might be overturned ….

h/t for cartoon to @IAmDrTiller.

Link to original cartoon.

ADDED: The liars at LifeShite speak truth for once:

As pro-life political scientist and abortion law researcher Michael New explains, if the amendment can’t win in Mississippi, it’s likely not going to win anywhere in the current political climate.

“It is difficult to see where Personhood proponents go from here. Tuesday’s election offered Personhood supporters their best opportunity for electoral success. They qualified a citizen initiative in Mississippi — among the most pro-life states in the country — during a low-turnout election in which Democrats fielded relatively weak statewide candidates,” he explains. “In spite of all this, the Mississippi Personhood Amendment still lost by a double-digit margin.”

Knowing that the personhood amendment lost by a landslide twice in a swing state and a lopsided 17-point margin in arguably the most pro-life state in the nation, there’s little realistic expectation that the personhood amendment will be approved anywhere in the country. As the amendment continues to rack up defeats, support from pro-fie advocates willing to invest in what will almost assuredly be a losing proposition will wane. Media reports will continue focusing on the pro-life movement losing at the polls and the pro-abortion side will continue gloating that they are in the majority despite clear polling data showing America is pro-life.

The damage to the pro-life movement from suffering defeat after defeat in the polls will become more and more palpable as the losses mount.

LifeShite's strategy is to get more misogynist Supreme Court justices.

Slavery Bad. No. Slavery Good. Wait. I'm Confused.

In the Excited States, they really like to punch those hot buttons, but really you gotta hand it to the odious Tea Baggers for rolling so many of them into one gigantic nookular flustercluck.

Again, today, we present the malignant confluence of racism, abortion, and homophobia.

Fetus fetishists have used race to present the case for fetal 'personhood' and to assert that the abortion 'industry' is perpetrating a racist genocide on duskier hued USians.

They have a history of such shenanigans.

For example, in 1976, journalist William F. Buckley wrote, “One hundred years from now Americans will look back in horror at our abortion clinics, even as we look back now in horror at the slave markets.” That same year, Dr. Jack Willke, founder of the National Right to Life Committee, compared Roe v. Wade to the 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford in his book Slavery and Abortion: History Repeats. This argument continues to resurface even as recently as January of this year, when Rick Santorum argued on Fox News that Roe denies fetuses “personhood” the same way Dred Scott denied African Americans “personhood.”

But Ms. Magazine goes on to point out that they have it bassackwards.

The slavery analogy makes much more sense as an argument for choice, not against it. Slavery is about losing one’s freedom and personal autonomy over one’s body and life. As Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, so eloquently put it: “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”

In addition, laws prohibiting or restricting access to abortion treat women as chattel, enslaving them physically by controlling their bodies and ideologically by subjecting them to the tyranny of an imposed morality.
. . .
We must turn the anti-abortion movement’s use of the slavery analogy on its head. Let’s remind the world that even though we may never agree about the personhood or rights of the “unborn,” the personhood and rights of living women are indisputable.

OK, got that? Slavery bad. Abortion = slavery of fetuses. Or something.

But wait. No. Slavery good.

Recently, there was the spectacle of the Fetus Fetishist Pledge to be signed by all ReThuglican presidential candidates.

Now, there's a new one: The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY, also to be signed by ReThug hopefuls (link to PDF of whole nauseating thing there).

A quote from the document:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Take your time blinking at that.

Now to commentary from Jack & Jill Politics, which bills itself as 'A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics':

Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive. I mean, putting aside the statistics on this, which are likely off-base, I could not be more angry. When will Republicans inquire with actual Black people whether or not we’re ok with invoking slavery to score cheap political points? It has to stop. It is the opposite of persuasive and is another reason Republicans repel us. It’s hard to believe that Michele Bachmann would be foolish enough to sigh this pledge.

Oh yeah, Crazy Eyes is the first -- no doubt of many -- to sign it.

I read the whole thing. It's really really difficult to pinpoint the MOST offensive and/or stupid bit of it. Go read and consider yourself.

But hands down, this is the creepiest bit (italic in original).

Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

Robust? 'Robust' seems to be a dog whistle to Christianists. Indicating just what, I'm not sure. But I am pretty sure that these opportunistic ignoramuses would not approve of 'robust' reproduction among the OTHERS: non-Christians, Blacks, gays, Latinos, progressives. You get the idea.

Or as commenter The Mound of Sound put it here on another post about Crazy Eyes: 'Three words: crazy - shit - bat. Rearrange and repeat and repeat.'

ADDED: Go read Anthea Butler. Seems this 'slavery good' gonna bite ReThugs BIG TIME.

Personhood: 'Against Science & Scripture'

Yay! I got an answer to my question: 'What experts would pro-Wankers propose MPs listen to on prebornchildology if M312 passes?

This morning I noticed that SUZY said:

‪@j_tick‬ ‪@fernhilldammit‬ Scott Gilbert. I think he'd come up to Canada to give his information. ‪#M312‬

Note lack of helpful link for a quite common name.

I googled and hit this as most likely, but alas it has no linkie either.

Biologist Scott Gilbert, an expert in human development, tells us that there are at least four distinct moments that can be thought of as the beginning of human life. Each can be said to be biologically accurate.

Googled some more and found this.

Professor Gilbert received his B.A. in both biology and religion from Wesleyan University (1971), and he earned his Ph.D. in biology from the pediatric genetics laboratory of Dr. Barbara Migeon at the Johns Hopkins University (1976). His M.A. in the history of science, also from The Johns Hopkins University, was done under the supervision of Dr. Donna Haraway.

Seems likely, eh? Real credentials in appropriate fields even.

More google and then this article by the good professsor from last year on the occasion of the thundering defeat of the personhood initiative in the Mississippi election.

In 2007, the Legionaries of Christ, one of the most conservative Catholic orders, asked me to speak about the question Mississippi voters confronted this week: When does personhood begin? I was surprised at the invitation because, as an embryologist and historian of biology, I had written that there was no scientific consensus on this issue.

He then lists the various points at which religious and non-religious people have speculated 'life' begins.

Sounding good for the fetus fetishists, eh?

Oh-oh.

The conclusion.

Still other biologists contend that only birth itself makes us physically distinct individuals, independent of maternal physiology. The anatomy of our heart, lungs, and blood vessels changes at our first breath.

This, interestingly, is where the Bible claims personhood originates. Genesis 9:6 says that one who murders a man must himself be destroyed. But Exodus 21:22 says a man who causes a woman to miscarry is not to be put to death, but rather should pay a fine. In the Bible, personhood is a birthright.

The advocates of "zygote rights" - who plan to pursue measures in several other states following their Mississippi defeat - are going against both science and Scripture. It is a dangerous thing to equate a fertilized egg with an adult human. It not only makes the zygote like the person; it makes the person like the zygote. As less than half of normal human conceptions make it to term, most zygotes don't become babies. Zygotes can be cheap, and human life never should be.

Weeks after I started asking about experts, Chief Fetus Fetishist comes up with ONE.

And -- surprise! -- he's NOT on HER side.



UPDATE: Apparently that was a (weird) fetus fascist joke.

Suzanne Fortin ‏@Roseblue

@fernhilldammit Haha. I knew you'd fall for that. #M312 #cdnpoli

I don't geddit. He has exactly the right sort of credentials to speak to the subject.

MORE UPDATE: I still don't geddit.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2012/08/why-does-this-poor-choicer-think-scott.html

But SHE does admit that when life begins is merely an opinion, NOT as SHE has been screeching on Twitter a Fact.

The article also does not give Scott Gilbert's opinion on when life begins. And it is his opinion that will matter when he testifies in Parliament (assuming he would come to Canada for this purpose.)

SHE says he's staunchly 'pro-abortion' so I think we know his opinion.

Nope. This "Preborn" Victims Law Won't Pass Either

I'm loath to get into this one again, as it drives people cuckoo-bananas, but this is my beat and this story is part of it.

Just about a year ago, we reported on the fallout from a brutal murder of a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of her fetus.

That fallout was a petition titled "Molly Matters: Reconsider and Pass Bill C-484."

Ken Epp's private member's bill C-484, or "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," was hugely problematic, as it sought to redefine a fetus as a person for the purpose of adding another murder charge.

It was, simply, a "personhood law", and therefore unsupportable by reproductive rights proponents.

Personhood laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception.

Personhood laws criminalize abortion with no exception, and also ban many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and health care for pregnant women. Personhood laws also increase an already dangerous trend of criminalizing pregnancy, by mandating that women who terminate a pregnancy be arrested, prosecuted, and even imprisoned because of the supposed injury done to a separate “person”—namely, the fetus. So-called fetal homicide laws are already being used in many states to arrest and prosecute women who miscarry pregnancies or are otherwise seen as “harming” the fetus.

In short, "personhood laws" do nothing to protect women or fetuses, but DO create a premise to criminalize contraception, abortion, and pregnancy itself.

Yesterday, a new private member's bill attempting to accomplish the same end as C-484 was announced. Here's the press release.

Note that the murdered woman is referred to as "Cassie" only and her full name, Cassandra Kaake, is never mentioned.

I can't find the text of the bill online yet except for this anti-choice site.

Note the language. "Unborn" from C-484 has been replaced by "preborn."

1 This Act may be cited as the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law).


2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

Definition of preborn child

238.‍1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.

Beyond the language and the erasure of Ms Kaake, there are some other MASSIVE flags here.

First, the proponent of the bill is MP Cathay Waganall, who has a "perfect" anti-choice record according to Campaign Lie.

Next, the accompanying FAQ document, in trying to slither around anticipated pro-choice objections, gets into some weird territory.

Such as equating fetuses with animals and property, albeit NOT animals or property presently encased in a living person's uterus.

If the fetus is not a “human being” or “person,” then how can you create an offence for killing it?

Not being recognized as a human being under the Criminal Code does not mean that a preborn child does not deserve some protection under the law. The criminal law can be used to protect entities other than what is covered under the Criminal Code’s definition of ‘human being.’ For example, the Criminal Code has laws against animal cruelty and the unlawful killing and injury of animals (sections 444-446). It also has protections against the destruction of private property.

We at DJ! have no problem with legislation to protect pregnant women from assault, especially since it is reported that for 1 in 6 abused women, the abuse began during pregnancy.

But a vengeance-driven law focussed on the "preborn" promoted by fetus fetishists intended to be twisted to attack reproductive rights is not the way to do it.



ADDED: CBC story.

ADDED March 4/16: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's position paper (pdf). Hint: Nope.

Update on the Humpty-Dumpty Initiative

Here we go again. Another 40 Days of Harassment begins, not that it ever ends. (Lard, I'm dim betimes. I just realized that there are two of these bun-fests a year. The persecution high is too intense for only once a year.)

So, over the next while, when you see tiny shivering groups of DUOPs (dried-up old prunes) holding tattered signs with the usual fetal pr0n, you'll know you must be near a women's health clinic.

I thought this might be an opportune moment to update the Egg as Person Initiative.

There are 31 USian states working on crafting legislation or amending their constitutions to redefine 'person' as a fertilized human egg.

But the campaign is not going too well.

First up, Colorado, where the fetus fetishists are banging their collective head against a wall trying again despite being clobbered by a 3 to 1 margin the last time they tried this.

On Friday, Personhood Colorado turned into the Secretary of State 79,817 signatures in support of its initiative – not even 4,000 more than the 76,047 needed to land its proposed anti-abortion “personhood” proposal on the ballot in November. Thousands of signatures are routinely thrown out in the process of validating initiative petitions. The group’s amendment seeks to grant fertilized human eggs the full spectrum of rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens. The difficulty its sponsors seem to have had gathering support suggests the idea they are promoting is no more attractive now to Coloradans than it was in 2008, when they defeated a similar proposal in a landslide vote.

Next, that free-wheeling state of Nevada.

The Personhood Nevada organization has filed a state Supreme Court appeal of a district judge's decision prohibiting the circulation of a petition aimed at ending abortion.

Kenneth Wilson, treasurer of the organization, said Monday the group hopes that justices will overturn District Judge James Todd Russell's decision and allow the circulation of the petition. Russell ruled the petition was too vague and violated a state law that limits a ballot question to one subject.

On to Mississippi, where, it seems, the entire exercise was a charade from the git-go.

It appears to be all over but the cryin' for supporters of the Mississippi "egg-as-a-person" initiative to ban abortion. RH Reality Check has discovered that a unique provision in the state's Constitution prohibits modifying the Bill of Rights by voter referendum.

A fact known by the Personhood campaign and ignored for political reasons.

Facts? Pish, say the fetus fetishists.

More Quixotic efforts in Montana.

Legislative efforts similar to CI-102 failed in Montana in 2007 and 2009 and another initiative in 2008 fell about 18,000 votes short of making the ballot.

And Iowa and 26 other benighted places.

So, while it's encouraging that the Humpty Dumpty Initiative is falling off the wall all over the place, what's depressing is that we -- the normal people -- have to keep fighting. There is so much work to be done to improve the lives of people in so many ways, but the fetus fetishists keep sucking us into this kind of idiocy.

And it must be fought. Every time. Everywhere.

With hard times facing individuals, organizations, and governments everywhere, precious time, energy, and money is spent countering this dippy delusion.

Leave aside the whole abortion/contraception bollocks and women's rights problem for a moment and consider this.

During the last Colorado battle, I read an argument against the amendment from a lawyer who did not declare her- or himself on either side. The argument was: The word 'person' occurs about 10,000 times in Colorado state law. If this measure passes, thousands and thousands of lawyer hours will be billed to the state to examine every instance of 'person', to determine how the new definition impacts that law and what should be done about it.

Property law, inheritance law, family law, criminal law. Every kind of law would have to be revisited with the new definition of person in mind.

What a colossal waste of time and money.

And the fetus fetishists have the gall to label us pro-choicers as 'selfish'.

(Isn't that a gorgeous illustration?)

Sarah Can't Catch a Break

Via TPM, this shocking news:

On a day where most critics are attacking Sarah Palin for being too conservative, one group of anti-choice activists is slamming former Alaska governor for not being conservative enough when it comes to the issue of abortion.

American Right To Life, the self-proclaimed "personhood wing of the right-to-life movement" attacked Palin today for using "liberal, pro-choice, socialist terminology" in her political rhetoric on abortion and for distinguishing "between her 'personal' and public pro-life views" ("personally pro-life means officially pro-choice)," the group says.

ARL has launched a new website to promote its 'personhood' idiocy initiative.

It ranks Sarah in Tier 4, 'Personhood Never', along with pro-abortion Mitt Romney and George W. Bush.

I am not making this up.

At the top of her page, there's this:

As a candidate whom many pro-lifers want to support, her actual abortion record and rhetoric is shocking to the conscience.

Then a long list of sins against personhood, including this:

Uses Liberal, Socialist Terminology: Palin's Facebook page uses liberal, pro-choice, socialist terminology even in a very politically sensitive context (trying to defend her pro-life credentials after appointing a Planned Parenthood board member to the Supreme Court). America is told that Palin believes in a culture of life "from cradle to grave." This is poor, even harmful, communication and shows a lack of political savvy. On the economic spectrum from freedom (capitalism) through socialism, to communism, Palin commits an economic faux pas by using a term that describes a socialist government which gives entitlements including health care, "from cradle to grave." Regarding abortion, using the phrase "cradle to grave" seems to betray a pretend ownership of pro-life values.

Here she is dancing with another liberal, pro-choice socialist.



Photo snaffled from Pink Sheep of the Family.

Unicorns and Fetuses

I've just discovered Lynn Beisner*, by way of Steph Herold.

Why the Christian Right Is Wrong about Abortion

I learned a dirty little secret in Bible college: It is easier to prove the existence of unicorns by using the Bible than it is to establish the personhood of a fetus. In fact, it is so hard to make a case against abortion using Christian scripture that for decades most Evangelicals did not even try. Instead, their leaders were silent on the issue or told their followers that abortion was part of the larger feminist agenda to destroy families.

So what changed?

A deal was made.

We know from those who were present at the birth of the Christian Right that it was actually a series of horse-trades by powerful men in conservative religious groups. Each group came with its own non-negotiable agenda and problems with the agendas of others. Catholics demanded that any alliance they joined must back the Pope’s edict against abortion, but Evangelicals were resistant since there was not enough in the Bible about fetuses to support a ban on abortion. Evangelicals, on the other hand, needed an unfettered capitalist market to perpetuate their dominance, and that ran afoul of the Catholic Church’s teachings about economic and social justice. Catholics agreed to down-play the issue of social justice (which is why Nuns on the Bus is such a problem), and Evangelicals agreed to take an anti-abortion stance despite the lack of Biblical support for it.

She goes on to say that many Evangelical Christians lack in 'biblical literacy' (not too surprising when one considers their regular literacy) and don't know that there is so little support in the bible for fetal personhood.

She thinks they can be persuaded to abandon the personhood movement and are, in fact, looking for an 'escape clause'.

The one problem that I can foresee is that the Biblical teaching about personhood does not come in one easily quotable package. But if gay rights leaders could find a way of countering the passages in the Bible which are explicitly anti-homosexual, we can counter the incredibly weak and nebulous Biblical arguments against reproductive rights. It is up to the witty writers of our movement to craft succinct and even humorous arguments that will go viral across social media.

I don't know if we have enough fundies in Canada to make this tactic worthwhile. I've always been told that a basic difference between USian and Canadian fetus fascists is that theirs are predominantly Evangelical while ours are Catholic.

But I know a witty writer who's got the feminist, Christian, socialist chops to pull it off.

Go read the whole thing.



*Lynn Beisner is a pseudonym. Read about her life in 'I wish my mother had aborted me'.

UPDATE: Luna turns in her homework and a dandy read it is too.

Definition of Insanity

Back in May, Chantal Hébert predicted that the failure of Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312, would be a 'crushing defeat to the anti-abortion cause'.

Not if events in Colorado are any guide.

We remember Colorado, don't we? Where twice so-called personhood initiatives have suffered what any sane person would call 'crushing' defeats -- like 3 to 1 votes against?

The monomaniacs are at it again only this time they failed to get the required number of valid signatures to put the initiative on the November ballot.

(One reason that Colorado keeps getting targetted, I learned, is that the required number for such a ploy is relatively low, compared to other states. Personhood failed in ultra-conservative Mississippi by a majority of 55 per cent in 2010. Surely, it can't be good for the cause to continue to get stomped by such wide margins in a more liberal state like Colorado? But then, as the M312 fiasco here has demonstrated again, intelligence is NOT fetus fetishists' strong suit.)

They needed 86,105 signatures and submitted 112,121. But a bunch were deemed invalid.

How many were 'invalid'?

The State of Colorado rejected 23,873 signatures as invalid. By my math, that is 21 percent of the signatures.

That's a whack of dishonesty and/or incompetence. Or, of course, both.

And a look at the actual text of the amendment reveals more of the usual chicanery.

The amendment’s text would make it illegal to intentionally kill “any innocent person”—with “person” defined as “every human being regardless of the method of creation,” and “human being” defined as “a member of the species homo sapien[s] at any stage of development.”

But the proposed text doesn’t define what to my theological ears is the more provocative term: “innocent.” 

Presumably, its use here is meant to do several things: (1) portray the fetus as an agent with moral standing, one in need of protection; (2) allow for the taking of guilty human life (since many social conservatives support the death penalty while also being opposed to abortion); and (3) contrast the innocence of the fetus with the guilt of the father. Indeed, on the last point, the amendment draws this contrast specifically: “No innocent child created through rape or incest shall be killed for the crime of his or her father.” 

But notice, where rape and incest are concerned, it is only the fetus’ innocence that’s stipulated.

They've gotten around any difficulties with the death penalty but kinda left somebody out of this careful moral balance, haven't they?

As per fucking usual, the woman is nowhere to be found.

Well, as we now know from wingnut science, if a woman gets pregnant from rape, it wasn't a legitimate rape. She must have enjoyed it, at least a little, eh?

Now that they've lost three times -- twice in thundering electoral failures, once caught in flimflammery -- they'll give up, right?

Nope.

Personhood USA vowed to fight the Colorado rejection in court. The group argues some of the signatures were improperly rejected, including some on which a notary public changed a date.

"We are going to be filing to have those ballot signatures recounted, and we are confident personhood will be on ballots this fall," Mason said.

To those of us who've been thinking that a MASSIVE defeat on Woodworth's Wank will shut our fetus fetishists up for a while, I have three words: Not bloody likely.

Reminder: the final hour of debate on M312 is scheduled for September 21, with the vote on September 26. If you haven't already done so, shoot your MP a little note about how you'd like her or him to vote.

The 'Every Sperm Is Sacred' Amendment

In Oklahoma, where legislators have been glorying in an orgy of anti-abortion bills and laws, one senator added a mocking amendment.

Anti-abortion lawmakers vowed Wednesday to continue pushing for tighter restrictions in Oklahoma as hundreds of advocates flooded the halls of the state Capitol as part of a rally to urge lawmakers to pass more anti-abortion laws.

But one Democrat, in a seeming attempt to fight the measure, added an amendment to the bill stating that “every sperm is sacred,” according to Think Progress.

State Sen. Constance Johnson, D-Oklahoma City, added language which states that masturbation and sex acts other than vaginal intercourse could be considered detrimental to unborn children as abortion.

The Oklahoma bill is, of course, part of the 'personhood' movement, an attempt to confer rights on fetuses that would effectively render women third-class citizens, after menz and baybeez. Not to mention probably outlaw IUDs, hormonal birth control, emergency contraception, and in vitro techniques.

Which is where we're going here in Canada if Stephen Woodworth is successful with his private member's motion to create a Parliamentary committee to examine when 'life begins' and thus, when a fetus has rights in competition with the incubator's, er, woman's.

Some of the boyos are all revved by this opportunity to discuss the weighty matter of when life begins. Here's a classic mansplanation on the subject, kindly supplied to me yesterday in a Twitter spat.

While sane people understand that biological life is completely irrelevant to legal personhood, that fact won't deter Woodworth's sneaky back-door attempt to muddy definitions of 'human' and 'person' and get that feverishly wished-for debate going.

We sane people will not let that happen.

We at DJ! suggest that all 'personhood' legislation be called ESIS bills. Because that's what their proponents believe.

Here's their hymn.

North Dakota: Grown-Ups in Charge

There are several 'personhood' initiatives at various stages in various US state legislatures. Fetus fetishists want to use a religious -- as opposed to accepted medical -- definition of pregnancy and to create rights for a two-celled blastocyte.

While the measure passed the House in North Dakota, the Senate is obviously saner.

Senators voted 29-16 Friday to reject legislation that sought to define as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens." The "personhood" status would include a developing embryo from the moment of conception, whether inside or outside the womb.

Hmmm. 29 to 16. Pretty convincing majority of normal people, eh?

Yeah, well, we know they will never give up. Blob Blogging Wingnut said of the 'personhood' initiatives:

It's only a matter of time before the equality of all human beings is recognized. Get used to it.

Um. No. YOU get used to having grown-ups in charge.

Is Sarah Palin Secretly Pro-choice?

In another instalment of 'DJ! Visits the Dark Side So You Don't Have To', here's the latest on $arah.

She's secretly pro-choice.

Sarah Palin may be America's pro-life sweetheart, but a story making the rounds on conservative websites paints a different picture. It turns out Palin might actually be pro-choice.

Conservative news website Free Republic made their case against Palin's pro-life claims. They say that while governor she appointed a former Planned Parenthood official to the Alaska Supreme Court and that she supports the use of the abortion drug RU-486.

One of the most damning pieces of evidence against her is her continued claim to be "personally" pro-life. This phrase is generally used by pro-choice candidates to make their views seem more palatable to the conservative Christian voting block. It amounts to agreeing that women should have the right to choose but that the candidate wouldn't personally opt for an abortion.

In Sarah Palin's first book, "Going Rogue," she mentions that when she found out she was pregnant with her youngest child (a son who was born with Down's Syndrome) she briefly considered an abortion.

Additionally Sarah Palin has never supported so-called Personhood amendments, which are attempts by conservative lawmakers to grant personhood to fetuses, thus making harming them (such as would happen during an abortion) illegal.

That link cites Free Republic -- and yeah, I went there too -- but the ultimate source is ProLife Profiles, sponsored by American Right to Life.

And woo baby, this gang is Fetus Fetishists on Steroids! They slam National Right to Life for its 'immoral' incrementalist strategy and offers its own strategy.

ARTL Three-fold Strategy

1. Criminalize: recriminalize the intentional killing of the unborn and other innocents through state and national personhood efforts.

2. Demoralize: create unbearable social tension and ensure that there is no child killing with tranquility in order to coerce the government to correct the injustice of shedding innocent blood.

3. Evangelize: persuade individuals by education and evangelism to honor the God-given right to life.

Is this just FF infighting? Who's holier, more fetus-worshipping, panty-sniffing, slut-shaming, woman-controlling than thou?

Or is it just politics, über-whacky Rethuglican-style?

A commenter at FD named smallLliberal speculates:

Interesting stuff.

What I take from this, the GOP knives are being sharpened to make sure she stays out of the race.

There are all kinds of quotes from Rove, Roger Ailes and the other GOP bigwigs attacking her. They clearly think if she is the GOP nominee then Obama will crush her.

If she does not announce soon that she is not a candidate, this will get uglier. Mark my words.

Woo-hoo!

Fetal personhood used to deny women who chose pregnancy their rights.

It gives us no pleasure to say we told you, but here it is. From Salon:

We all know that establishing the "personhood" of microscopic Americans is a means of characterizing abortion -- legally, and even culturally -- as murder. Though the Supreme Court decision making abortion legal turns largely on the right to privacy, it also notes -- in an aside that has become anything but -- that if fetuses were "people," they would be entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment, ergo entitled to "life." The Center for Women Policy Studies has stated that "legislative efforts to establish fetal patienthood, victimhood and, therefore, personhood represent the primary threat to Roe v. Wade." But as the National Advocates for Pregnant Women point out in a brand-new video, they also represent a threat to pregnant women -- all pregnant women, including those who plan to carry to term.

One woman featured in the video became critically ill at 25 weeks pregnant. Her doctor's hospital board filed for an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus. The court supported the hospital's contention that an emergency C-section should be done without the pregnant woman's consent. Her doctor objected, stating the surgery could kill her. The operation was performed; neither woman nor fetus survived.

Thus Lifeshite and their posse of fetus fetishizing goons continue to bully legislators in their willingness to sacrifice the female vessel (aka pregnant woman) to achieve their political goal: the recriminalization of abortion.

Bravo for the National Advocates for Pregnant Women for their activism!

Un grand merci to Pareta.

The Science of Personhood

Because I was getting no action on my oft-posed question to supporters of Woodworth's Wank, aka M312, I decided to help them out.

I went looking for the sort of experts fetus fetishists would want to hear from and found this *science* page at Personhood Canada. (BTW, it is a project of Alliance for Life Ontario, the gang behind the Merkin anti-abortion ads currently showing on CTV.)

I was doing my debunking thing, when I hit the bit from the 40+ year-old pamphlet from New Zealand and got that déjà vu all over again feeling.

Yup, I had LMAO'd at it more than two years ago. But, despite the strong evidence that it hasn't changed -- why leave in that lame-o reference if they actually had anything better? -- I'm going to do it again in the current context of M312. (Also. I had already found a buncha links.)

Here's the page, unaltered, except broken up.

There is no question about when human life begins.

In the widely used medical textbook, The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states on page 2 that “The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ....” On page 18 this theme is repeated: “Human development begins at fertilization ....”

From a website at University of New South Wales, the first text listed is indeed Moore, Persaud, et al., but not surprisingly, the 2011 edition, which is not the edition cited. Does the newer edition not contain the key words -- 'baby' and 'new human being' -- so ardently desired by the fetus fetishists? Dunno, do we?

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” and discoverer of the cause of Down’s Syndrome, stated, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

‪Jérôme Lejeune‬ is who they say he is and if he said that, big surprise. He was Catholic and tight with the Polish Poop.

Afterward, Dr. Lejeune regularly traveled to Rome to meet with the Pope, to attend meetings of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and to participate in other events, such as the 1987 Synod of Bishops. The Holy Father wanted to name Jérôme Lejeune as the president of a new pontifical academy that was dear to his heart: the Pontifical Academy for Life[1]. Dr. Lejeune painstakingly drafted its bylaws and the oath of the Servants of Life that each member of the Academy must take. He wanted the Academy, founded on February 11, 1994, to be a true center of contemplation and action to expand the culture of life.

But the doc died before he could get things really rolling. He's up for sainthood though.

Now the howler from New Zealand, from a pamphlet intended for new parents, mind.

"The unborn baby is alive from the first moment of conception of a single egg and a single sperm." N.Z. Health Department: Pamphlet No 83 Your New Baby (Government Printer) 1969.

Next one is kind of interesting.

"Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor of the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Googling the good doctor nets one a bunch of links to fetus fetishist sites citing that very quote. And searching the University of Tennessee's site gets one bupkis. Total fabrication?

Then they trot out poor conflicted Bernard Nathanson, the Abby Johnson of his day. (Blogpost coming on Ms Johnson.) Note helpful paraphrase in square brackets.

Former abortionist and founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, said "It is atrocious for anyone now to maintain that a fetus [unborn child] is simply a lump of meat, or something insignificant or an unprotectable life."

From Wiki:

Nathanson grew up Jewish and for more than ten years after he became pro-life he described himself as a "Jewish atheist". In 1996 he converted to Catholicism through the efforts of an Opus Dei priest, Rev. C. John McCloskey.

And he was married four times. Some issues there.

The most breathtaking piece of chutzpah is citing Dr Evil Incarnate, Alan Guttmacher.

In 1933, abortion advocate and former medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, wrote, “We of today know that man is born of sexual union... and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells, the ovum and the sperm. This all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time when it was not part of the common knowledge.” And in 1961 Dr. Guttmacher wrote, “Fertilization, then has taken place; a baby has been conceived.” If a man who has dedicated his life to promotiong contraception and abortion can acknowledge the scientific facts of when life begins, why can’t we?

Dr Guttmacher also said:

"No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."

The page ends with some links to videos of THE MIRACLE of mammalian fetal development.

So, some of these people are dead and others are, er, difficult to locate. The dates are not terribly recent, which is the supposed point of this whole Wank -- to modernize an OLD law.

But that's all they got, people.

Bupkis.

C225, or Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill

Double-plus good fetus freak MP Cathay Wagantall's private member's bill C225, or The Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill has its first hour of debate on May 2.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), which opposes the bill, is calling on similar right-minded people to send letters to our MPs asking them to oppose it too. Here's a sample letter to cut and paste from.

There are many reasons to oppose it, but the main one is that is a "personhood" bill.

From the sample letter:

Bill C-225 is almost identical to Bill C-484 (“Unborn Victims of Crime Act”), a 2008 bill that passed second reading but got no further, and was widely criticized as a sneak attack on abortion rights. Like C-484, the new bill ascribes an implicit form of legal personhood to a fetus. Although it defines the fetus as not a human being, I think that’s disingenuous because C-225 would modify the “Offences Against the Person” section of the Criminal Code, and give the fetus the human right not to be injured or killed. But legal precedent in Canada has already established that a pregnant woman and her fetus are considered “physically one,” and that separating them would risk infringing women’s Charter rights (Supreme Court in Dobson v. Dobson). Also, I find it telling that support for the bill comes largely from the anti-choice movement. I fear that the anti-choice movement would use this law as a stepping stone to restrict abortion.

Its proponents say: no, no, no, this bill has nothing nada zip zero to do with abortion. Just as they said about C484, unless they're talking amongst themselves, and then of course it's about abortion, wink wink. Here's a link to an old blog-post by JJ, the unrepenant old hippie, with screen-caps of their "is it or isn't it?" flip-flops.

I do believe Jeff Durham, ex-partner of the murdered woman, Cassandra Kaake, and most vocal and sympathetic supporter of the law, when he says he's pro-choice and this bill is not intended (by him at least) to affect abortion rights.

But look what I found the fetus freaks saying about him amongst themselves.

After noting that Durham describes himself as "pro-choice," the piece in the Catholic rag, Interim, goes on:

Wagantall says that Durham’s public support of the bill is part of the strategy to counter so-called pro-choice objections that unborn victims laws are pro-life laws in sheep’s clothing.

Thus, my name for the bill: The Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill.

They are absolutely shameless about using a man's grief and pain and thirst for justice/revenge to advance their misogynist agenda.

And the freaks know they have an emotional wedge here. Hearing of a vicious crime in which a woman is killed along with her wanted fetus, most people react with horror and condemnation. When slyly informed that the perpetrator cannot be charged with an additional crime for the death of the fetus, these people are shocked.

When further slyly informed that there is a remedy for that in this proposed law, a remedy that will NOT impinge on abortion rights or the rights of pregnant people in general, these people will nod and be reassured.

It is precisely this knee-jerk sympathy and shock that the fetus freaks intend to exploit.

I doubt C225 will pass, but who knows? C484 got further than sane people expected.

Please take a few minutes to contact your MP. (The handy MP finder by postal code thingy is here.)

Because C225 is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Tit-for-Tat in the War on Sex

Mother Jones has a round-up of mocking legislation proposed by US women politicians and their allies to highlight the 'inherent sexism' of the War on Women.

A couple of bills recognize the personhood of eggs and sperm, creating 'egg persons' and 'sperm persons'.

Others propose mandated unnecessary procedures -- like rectal exams, patronizing educational videos, psychological exams, and my fave, an affidavit from a spouse confirming impotence -- for men wanting dick-stiffening drugs.

Others seek to restrict access to vasectomies except for men risking death or serious bodily harm, or to outlaw vasectomies altogether because they leave 'thousands of children . . . deprived of birth'.

I really like the ones requiring that men or the state bear the costs of children born to unwilling women.

Oklahoma: When a zygote-personhood bill came before the state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson penned an amendment declaring that ejaculating anywhere outside a woman's vagina constitutes "an action against an unborn child." Bonus: Johnson also suggested that any man who impregnates a woman without her permission should pay a $25,000 fine, support the child until age 21, and get a vasectomy, "in the spirit of shared responsibility." In response to the same bill, state Sen. Jim Wilson proposed an amendment requiring the father of an unborn child to be financially responsible for its mother's health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment during pregnancy.

Texas: Contesting a bill mandating sonograms before abortions, Rep. Harold Dutton unsuccessfully offered three amendments in a row. The first would have required the state to pay the college tuition of children born to women who decide against an abortion after seeing a required ultrasound image. The second would have subsidized the children's health care costs until age 18. When that failed, he lowered the age to 6. That didn't fly, either.

You won't be surprised to learn that all these tit-for-tat bills or amendments have failed. But the rectal exam one failed by just two votes.

I'd love to see an avalanche of such legislation.

ADDED: Best one yet from Ohio. Eight humiliating steps men required to go through for Viagra scrip.

Okay, have you stopped laughing yet? I mean, can you imagine men subjecting themselves to a stress test every 90 days, let alone getting a paramour to put in writing that his junk’s busted?

The Ohio state legislature is controlled by Republicans. So, Turner’s bill most likely isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, if at all. Still, it’s brilliant in how it forces us to focus on the absurdity of many of the reproductive health measures littering the legislative landscape by zeroing in Ohio’s heartbeat bill. Asked yesterday by MSNBC's Chris Jansing if she were serious, Turner said she was.

Dishonesty

Woodworth's Wank has been insultingly dishonest from the get-go.

As JJ said:

Pro-#M312: if you'd just come out from the start & said what u really wanted (#personhood), I could have respected that. But u had to lie

— JJ (@jjhippie) August 16, 2012

.@fernhilldammit Exactly. Had they been honest, I'd have disagreed but would have respected their democratic right to pursue that end #M312

— JJ (@jjhippie) August 16, 2012

But no. Woody thought he was sooooo clever. Faffing about with talk of a '400-year old law' that needed 'modernizing' with input from experts.

If they were serious about imprecise, antiquated language, there is a simple fix as JJ has pointed out repeatedly on Twitter. In sec. 223 of the Criminal Code change 'human being' to 'person'. There. Problem solved.


But no. Because while SHRIEEEKING (as usual for Fetus Fascists) that their cute little ploy had nothing zip zero nada rien to do with abortion, it is about if not personhood then about gestational limits to abortion.

The ploy itself is a lie. And the ensuing 'campaign' has been a laff riot.

Why Lifesite would choose to publish this less-than-encouraging data at the height of the battle of words & wits over Motion 312 is a mystery.  But then again, why not: it’s in line with the haphazard and utterly clueless way the rest of the M312 campaign has been run, a confused and riotous crusade of Twitterspam, fetusmobiles, inconsistencies, transparent lies and general dumbness.  For an initiative thought by some to be the last kick at the anti-abortion can for a long, long time, the ineptitude of its handling has been breathtaking to behold.

And fun to watch.  Did I mention fun to watch?

They could have salvaged some cred by -- as I relentlessly asked -- offering up some examples of experts MPs should hear from should M312 pass.

Fumbled that ball too.

While JJ finds it fun to watch -- and it has been -- I'm getting really bored. (Betcha regular DJ! readers hit that wall months ago.)

It's soon over. The second and final hour of 'debate' is on September 21, with the vote on September 26.

How big will the FAIL WHALE be? According to ARCC, there are 108 anti-choice MPs. Those among that number with any political sense or ambition in Stevie Spiteful's caucus are booking dental appointments for September 26 as we speak.

How many will be left? I'm thinking Woody will be lucky to get 70 yeas.

What do you think?

Humpty Dumpty Initiative in Canada

Personhood initiative in Oklahoma.

Who does this remind you of?

I asked Skerbitz what he thought of the “war on women” rhetoric that had lately taken root. He replied, perfectly on-message, “We believe our first and foremost duty is to protect the rights of all people, including the unborn, including unborn women.”

Born women, you’re on your own.

Oh yeah. Our own Personhood Promoter.

@AntoniaZ When we allow any law to say that some human beings are not human we endanger everyone's rights #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything

— Stephen Woodworth (@WoodworthMP) March 14, 2012

We've gotta stop this in its tracks. We do NOT need a War on Women here.

Online petition approaching 2,000 signatures. Sign and pass on if you haven't yet.

Diluted Rights 200C

People in favour of diluting human womb owners' legal 'personhood' rights like to use the framing of pregnancy as justification.  The actual existence of a born individual in a society is denigrated in favour of enabling legal 'personhood' for the gestating potentiality of 'homo sapiens sapiens' replicating cells triggered by initially successful union of haploid cells.

This dilution of extant power in favour of potentiality is touted as something that makes society stronger and better and womb owners scientifically happier and healthier.

It occurred to me where else this argument is offered. Homeopathy.  Homeopathy is an alternative 'medical' practise where repeated dilution of a substance is said to make its efficacy as a a health cure incredibly potent , while negative side effects are completely neutralized.

Less is more .  It might explain why social conservatives are so often all about the fetus and not about a born baby or the woman forced to carry it to term.  There's too much humanity in the born forms, not diluted enough.  But diploid cells? A zygote? Not even implanted yet?  That's the kind of diluted cellular count Legal Persons they can invest their time and money in.  The quack science for dilution of rights and solutions seems to be pulled from the same rebutted holes.  I wonder how much overlap there is in the camps of belief?

When will the homeopaths lobbying Harper's government be getting a debate in Parliament?