Yours, mine and not theirs

#m312 #tellyourmpeverything #cdnpoli - 

On April 26th, on the floor of the House of Commons, the rights of over 1/2 of this country's citizens will be placed on the table in a motion to "study" whether that block of citizens should have their inalienable human rights stripped away.

No matter how you interpret Motion 312, in this century, in an age where we have spent countless lives in the struggle to progress human rights, the women of this country, without their consent, are to have their right to choose a medical procedure debated.

Stephen Woodworth, a right-wing, religiously motivated, Harper Conservative male back-bencher, is going to have at Canadian women.

All Canadian women.

He would like to discuss when "life begins" and would like to strike a special parliamentary committee to investigate that "issue".

Not one of the members of such a committee would be a scientist or a bona fide physician, but you can bet that most of them would come from male-dominated "churches", the likes of which promote the subjugation of women by laying claim over their reproductive organs.

In this century, in this supposedly enlightened age, we are allowing a bunch of superstitious males to bring their religious beliefs into the secular environment of Parliament to seek the "answers" to "questions" which they could find at any walk-in medical clinic.

It goes beyond disgusting. It is dangerous in the extreme.

The reproductive organs of every human in this country belong to the individual. The immorality of placing them on the table for debate should sicken you. 

Take action. Download and sign the petition. Support the Radical Handmaids. Stop Stephen Woodworth dead in his tracks.

Defund Catholic Schools

I've never agreed with the public funding of schools run by an organized superstition in the first place and this just reinforces my reasons why.

While we're at it, let's remove the tax-exempt status from the entire so-called "church".

The Government Chief Whip is clearly an ineffective whimp

There is a reason Gordon O'Connor has found himself descending the ladder of the Harper cabinet hierarchy. Simply put, he can be rated anywhere from useless to a complete political liability.

One would have thought that having been moved out of the high profile Defence portfolio and down to National Revenue would have taught him something. Nope. So, down to the crowd of junior ministers he goes and ends up with the job of Government Chief Whip - which he clearly cannot handle.

How do I know? This crap, that's how.

The chief whip is supposed to be a disciplinarian and the person with a finger on the pulse of the back benches. And when the heartbeat of the back benches gets irregular, it is the job of the chief whip to pound on the chest. When a back bencher strays, it is the job of the chief whip to put them back on the path. Sometimes that means being nasty.

While I may be among a handful of Canadians to view Harper as a relatively unsophisticated individual, I do believe he can read a poll. One of those polls would have told him that jumping into the religio-conservative wet dream of controlling the reproductive rights of women would create a national debate which would lead to the rending of his political base. Given the population of religiously-driven freaks in the Harper caucus, it falls to the chief whip to keep them silent.

So, how does a Stephen Woodworth get loose?

Simply put, either the Government Chief Whip isn't up to the job or Harper is dumber than a sack of hammers and is using Woodworth as a stalking horse for something he truly wishes to pursue. Let's assume, for the time being, that it's the former.

Woodworth, despite not having won a position in the Private Members' Bills lottery, managed to squeeze in a private members motion. And you can suggest that the contents of his motion won't pass all you like. You have to ask, how it got out there in the first place? Doesn't the Government Chief Whip have sufficient control of the back benches?

No.

For one thing, O'Connor, as has been pointed earlier, is a notorious ass-kisser. He's also weak in the leadership department. His deputy is Harold Albrecht, a former pastor with this outfit. Maybe not so surprising is that he represents the riding of Kitchener-Conestoga which virtually surrounds the Kitchener Centre riding of Woodworth. And Albrecht, along with being a vocal homophobe, is clearly anti-choice.

It's not a stretch to speculate that Albrecht ran ram shod over a weak O'Connor.

That, or Harper is actually the one allowing Woodworth to proceed, which would suggest that O'Connor lacks the necessary influence to hold the position as Government Chief Whip.

Going to the so-called "science" that Woodworth is suggesting needs to be explored by a parliamentary special committee to satisfy his completely false interpretation of the Criminal Code, some things need to be pointed out: (in the event his motion passes)

So far the Harperites have rejected all science which does not embrace their ideological view. A definition provided by science is definitely not what Woodworth is pursuing.

If such a committee is formed then I will make it a personal mission to highlight other science Stephen Woodworth needs to study. Things like the science of Catholic priests molesting young boys, things like the science of Catholic priests enslaving young girls and things like the science of the Catholic church covering up those activities by their members.

You see, if Woodworth's efforts have anything to do with science, than so will my questions. And I'm not making a threat. It's a straight out promise.

Mopping the floor with the KoC MP

You simply have to go over to DAMMIT JANET! Fern Hill gives Harper`s abortion stalking horse, Stephen Woodworth, a twitter flogging.

That's right... there's a CHOICE

No thanks to the group Sarah Palin addressed in Indiana on Thursday.

Palin unknowingly indicted the very group she was addressing by indicating she had one thing the fetus fetishist crowd that was listening would remove from all women - choice and the right to keep that choice between a woman and her doctor.

At minute 4:30 of the video note how Palin tells the approving audience that she considered her options, not once suggesting that she was obliged to anyone but to her own conscience.



She exercised an option. At least that's what she says. Whether it was said in an effort to elevate herself in diefic synergy or whether it was something that she actually considered, she must now acknowledge that she actually had one and nobody is criticizing her decision.

What drives this right off the white line is that after having supposedly considering a possible option, which exists, she and the group she was addressing would eliminate that choice completely forcing other women take her direction.

That's very convenient. Now that Palin sees no further need for that particular right to exercise an option in her life, remove it from everybody else.

Perhaps Palin should concentrate more on other options she exercised. While she was out of Alaska doing "Indiana Wants Me" to a crowd of anti-choicers, back in Juneau the Alaska Legislature threw her choice for Alaska State attorney-general under the bus in a historic first ever rejection of a governor-appointed head of an Alaskan state agency.

No doughnuts, just holes

What is it with wingnuts and doughnuts?
Admit it, you didn't think they could top the weirdness of the boycott of Dunkin Donuts over a scarf worn in an advertisement, did you? Sadly, you were wrong. This tops CC's discussion with a conservative for the funniest thing I have seen all year. And it isn't even intended as a joke.

KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS

Washington, DC (15 January 2009) – The following is a statement from American Life League president, Judie Brown.
"The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand – including his sweeping promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as he steps in the Oval Office, Jan. 20.

The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday:
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.
President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.
Celebrating his inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts – only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion – is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.
A misconstrued concept of "choice" has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free
doughnuts to celebrate this "freedom.""

I know, I know, you read it and you think "Wow, the Onion is really pushing its luck." I wanted to invoke Poe's Law , but I checked it out and it seems to be a actual organization that is run by and caters to people who really need some professional psychiatric help. Seriously, the reeducation camps cannot open soon enough.
The somewhat popular diabolical conservative ridicule machine has more

What could possibly have motivated them?

When Justice minister Rob Nicholson cut loose Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime act he didn't stop there. He added this:

I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights.

That's nice, but what suddenly motivated the Conservatives to so blatantly abandon the heavily coded bill in the first place? It was playing into the demands of the base. As much as all of us were aware of what C-484 was all about (an incremental bill to eventually criminalize abortion), the Conservatives' nutball religious followers were also identifying it as that.

It could be that the embarrassing question being put to Harper by Stephane Dion was causing a lot of discomfort. Harper still hasn't answered, but he did vote in favour of C-484 at first and second* reading.

April Reign provides the answer. And yes, it because the last thing the Conservatives need is a leader in charge of a party who has a question hanging over his head like the Sword of Damocles. Get rid of the reason for the question because something of a light just went on in the head of some Conservative strategist.

With all the rumours of war election, it is hard to see this as anything but an abusive government suddenly recognizing that women have the vote and that vote is unlikely to go their way after forcing themselves into Canadian womens’ private parts.

Which then begs the question, why didn't the idea get dropped completely? Why the reference to a "new" bill?

Easy answer. They have to play back to the base... with something. Nicholson is providing reassurance to the fundie wingnut element that this whole thing will get revisited. That means the fight against this lot, on this subject is far from over.

Nicholson's suggestion is still focusing on the presence of a fetus. Judges already have the power to impose stiffer sentences on those who do harm to others who are either pregnant, incapacitated or otherwise likely to endure increased aggravation as a result of a personal condition.

By Cheryl:

Why single out pregnancy? If Nicholson felt a compelling need to do this he also needs to include elderly women, elderly men, disabled people and anyone else who could be considered weak and unable to remotely defend themselves.

The thin edge of the wedge is still there.

=====

* Corrected - Thanks skdadl.

And in the continuing war on women...

The Arizona state legislature with nothing else to do, (what's a little desertification anyway), and in an endless fight with Governor Janet Napolitano has passed two measures to further assert the Republican right to interfere with reproductive freedom.

The Senate, on a voice vote, gave preliminary approval to a ban on allowing nurse practitioners to perform surgical abortions. That move comes just a month after the state Board of Nursing concluded that practitioners with special training are medically qualified to do the procedure.

Ah! The State Board of Nursing decided nurse practitioners are qualified.

That isn't the belief of Rep. Bob Stump, R-Peoria, the sponsor of HB2269. He said only doctors should terminate a pregnancy, at least in part because of the potential complications.

That would be Bob Stump the doctor? No?

No.

Separately, the House gave final approval to SB1048, which would make late-term abortions illegal in Arizona. The state's original ban, approved in 1997, was blocked by a federal judge before it ever took effect.

Enter Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

That measure now goes to Gov. Janet Napolitano. But both face an uncertain future.

Napolitano vetoed a slightly different version of the late-term abortion bill earlier this year. And while lawmakers altered provisions she did not like, the governor said she would prefer they spend their time trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies rather than interfering with a woman's relationship with her doctor.

Napolitano has never before dealt with the question of whether people other than doctors can perform abortions. But the governor has consistently vetoed legislation she believes restricts access to the procedure.

Un huh. Which is exactly what Planned Parenthood of Arizona says will happen.

Carol Bafaloukos said the demand for abortion at the Tucson clinic is greater than the availability of doctors.

Planned Parenthood has allowed Mary Andrews, a nurse practitioner, to perform abortions in Tucson since 2001. But that fact was not widely known until a complaint was filed against her with the Board of Nursing.

It's worth noting here that Andrews is a nurse practitioner - a registered nurse with advanced training and admitting privileges with authority to act independently of doctors in most places. And the Arizona Board of Nursing approved her role with Planned Parenthood, dismissing the complaint.

Backers of Stump's measure said the issue is strictly one of patient safety.

Yup. Here comes the argument they always use and look who's using it. The Center for Arizona Policy, an anti-abortion group.

But the legislation is being pushed heavily by not just the Center for Arizona Policy but also by Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the state's Catholic bishops.

Hmmm. That figures. And one could be excused for believing that all Catholics, especially bishops, will find any excuse to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices.

Well, sit back, pour yourself a healthy three-fingers and read this. (Hardline Catholics should grab some beads and start chanting... or something.)

RICHMOND, Va. - Authorities are investigating whether a Catholic charity violated state and federal law by helping a 16-year-old illegal immigrant who was in the organization's care get an abortion.

Workers with Commonwealth Catholic Charities helped the girl travel to and from the procedure in January and signed a consent form for the abortion, Joanne Nattrass, the charity's executive director, said in a statement Thursday. She declined further comment.

[...]

The federal department is looking into the charity's actions and the role played by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The conference receives $7.6 million a year in federal funds to place unaccompanied illegal immigrant children in foster care until they're reunited with relatives, sponsored, or returned to their homeland. The girl is from Guatemala but was living in Virginia when the abortion took place.

As a plate of fettuccine is my witness the most astounding thing about this is that both stories appeared on the same day and they don't involve South Dakota or Florida.

It's called J4G

A new abstinence-only magazine targeting teens with some of the same old bullshit.

Information on Plan B starts out accurately enough but then morphs into the lies told by the religious fundie crowd. They then make the now thoroughly debunked abortion-breast cancer link.

And if you've screwed up and, well, you know, done the deed... NO PROBLEM! Just declare your Second Virginity.

Pregnant from a rape? No problem. The worst is over. Have the baby. Anyway, you probably brought it on yourself for not dressing in accordance with the instructions on page three. Once you've given birth, declare your Second Virginity.

Herpes. Of course it's a problem but in quoting the statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control they conveniently left out the fact that the incidence of Genital Herpes has been declining over the past decade.

The overarching message for teens: If you have sex before marriage you will -
- get pregnant
- contract a sexually transmitted infection
- not have great sex after marriage

Unless you declare a Second Virginity.

The information on contraception is... let's see here... complete bullshit! Get this. The writers of this crap report that even sexual sterilization doesn't work. No statistics or studies - just that it doesn't work.

Let's just say that it works better than abstinence-only education.


H/T Jezebel

There are times when "No" is against the law.

You want to be a pharmacist? You do the job. You don't get to impose your religious beliefs on others. So says the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Wisconsin.

A state appeals court upheld sanctions Tuesday against a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a woman and wouldn't transfer her prescription elsewhere.

The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment the state Pharmacy Examining Board handed down against pharmacist Neil Noesen did not violate his state constitutional rights, specifically his "right of conscience" to religiously oppose birth control.

"Noesen abandoned even the steps necessary to perform in a minimally competent manner under any standard of care," the three-judge panel said. The decision upheld a ruling by Barron County Circuit Judge James Babler.

[...]

Noesen, 34, of St. Paul, Minn., told regulators that he is a devout Roman Catholic and refused to refill the prescription or release it to another pharmacy because he didn't want to commit a sin by "impairing the fertility of a human being."

Oh... see how this bent little fuckwad translated his religious beliefs into a sin of faith? It goes to the old question: If I give somebody a knife have I committed murder? Clearly the woman had a prescription from a higher power. In the case of a pharmacist, that would be a medical doctor.

Make no mistake about it. Noesen was imposing his superstitious crap on another human being. And he was, with knowledge and intent, violating the regulations laid out by his state's Department of Regulation and Licensing. All he had to do was direct the woman to a pharmacy where some superstitious bible-thumper wasn't going to try to weave his religious beliefs into state governance.

The Pharmacy Examining Board ruled in 2005 that Noesen failed to carry out his professional responsibility to get the woman's prescription to someone else if he wouldn't fill it himself.

The board reprimanded Noesen and ordered him to attend ethics classes. He was allowed to keep his license as long as he informs all future employers in writing that he won't dispense birth control pills and outlines steps he will take to make sure a patient has access to medication.

The board also found Noesen liable for the cost of the proceedings against him — about $20,000 — but the appeals court ordered the board to reconsider that decision.

That was actually pretty generous. I would have stapled his license to a dartboard.

I can hardly wait for the comments.

Hat tip Cat.

It's never just about abortion

April Reign zeros in on the testimony of Matt Sande, legislative director for Pro-Life Wisconsin. Sande was testifying before a legislative committee conducting hearings on Compassionate Care for Rape Victims.

During his testimony he was asked point-blank about his group's position on, not abortion, but contraception. His answer was the typical hogwash of hormonal contraceptives being abortifacient and therefore inducing, in the eyes of the anti-choicers, an abortion. Clearly, Sande was representing the belief that the morning-after pill should not be made available to women and, given the circumstances of his appearance, that means denying it to victims of rape.

In the video (at Birth Pangs) one legislator corners Sande and forces him to expose how far the anti-choice agenda actually goes. Sande uncomfortably admits that his group is opposed to all forms of contraception including barrier methods such as condoms. Why? Because it's preventing all that precious male sperm from possibly fertilizing a possibly viable egg. Prior to being forced into giving up that answer, Sande had made it a point to suggest that his group disagrees with hormonal contraceptives because they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the woman's uterine lining.

That's where Sande's testimony becomes grossly dishonest.

Sande, (and those that make up his ilk), would have us all believe that every fertilized egg in a woman's reproductive system represents a life conceived and a pregnancy. That flies directly in the face of medical evidence. Sande didn't mention that one-third to one-half of all fertilized eggs in a woman's reproductive system never implant in the uterine lining and are naturally expelled.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists a pregnancy doesn't begin until after the fertilized zygote has implanted itself in the uterus which can occur anywhere from five to eighteen days after fertilization. If it implants.

Sande pulled another line out of the forced-pregnancy bag. He stated that the reason his anti-choice group is opposed to all forms of contraception is because that would suggest that pregnancy is a medical problem and, in his insular little world, it isn't.

News flash for Mr. Sande: Pregnancy is a medical condition and a medical problem. It's also a financial problem for some, a social problem for others and to some, a combination of the three.

What is galling about Sande's appearance before these legislative hearings is that this was a body attempting to learn more about the provision of care to rape victims and the anti-choice crowd was permitted to use it as a lever to forward their agenda. If anything good came out of it, it was the further exposure of their true agenda. Anti-abortion is only a small part of their goal.

Keep in mind that these individuals normally align with the conservative political house and are all for having less government. Until it comes to sex and then they would go to the ends of the earth to have cameras installed in the nation's bedrooms to make sure that you were toeing their puritan line.

I don't know if the hearings got around to asking Sande his group's views on voluntary sterilization but it's a safe bet that they are opposed to that too. Choice, after all, is choice, and that's up to them; not you.

If the Sandes of this world were ever permitted to run the show you could expect that this couple would be cast out of their community and be required to wear some form of symbol stitched to their clothing to indicate how they had violated Sante's forced-parenthood dictum.

And speaking of barking mad wingnuts...

Meet "Pro-life" a candidate for Governor in Idaho this year, and likely for any public office you care to name for the next 20 years. I guess you just call him "Pro" for short, though I expect most people refer to him as "that weird guy, you know, the one who's all 'abortion this' and 'abortion that' and 'abortionists hid my car keys' -- you know, that guy who's crazier than a shithouse rat, the one that keep running for office"

Maybe I should move to the U.S. become a citizen and run for office after changing my name to "Kick George W. Bush in 'Nads"? Waddya think?