A Challenge: Canadian Bloggers for Choice
Next Tuesday, Jan. 22, is Blog for Choice Day in the U.S. of A.
The past two years, pro-choice bloggers have come together on January 22nd - the anniversary of Roe v Wade - to write about reproductive health and justice and to keep choice in the national spotlight. And we've been amazingly successful.
Great idea. Why not do it here?
January 28th marks the 20th anniversary of R. v. Morgenthaler, the Canadian Supreme Court decision, the one that declared it unconstitutional to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. In Toronto, on Saturday January 26th at 7, there will be a tribute at Ryerson University's Student Centre. Check out the Toronto Social Forum for more info.
Just so you know, the Morgenthaler decision is not a sure thing. It doesn't guarantee that another court can't decide against a woman's right to choose. Emphasis mine:
However, in the US, the Roe decision established "rights" to legal abortion. In Canada, the Morgenthaler decision invalidated a section of Offenses Against the Person and did not outrule the possibility of future anti-abortion legislation.
That means, despite the fact that, for most Canadian women, access to abortion is easier than for U.S. women, that it will stay that way. There are many people here in Canada who want to take away women's reproductive rights.
So here's the deal: Why not start a Blog for Choice Day in Canada, on January 28?
I am calling you out --Canadian Cynic, Sooey, Dr. Dawg, POGGE, Galloping Beaver, Scott Tribe, Zorpheus, YaYa, Red Jenny, Unrepentant old Hippie, StageLeft, Birth Pangs, Hope and Onions, Antigone, WordyLefty and all the rest of ya.
Just do it.
UPPITY DATE (21/1/08): Some people are just keeners. Sooey jumps the blogburst gun:
... Pro-Life political activists do not recognize intent as relevant to the matter of reproductive rights for women. Which means that their logic runs entirely counter to the spirit of the law. Intent matters in our justice system. A lot. Some might argue it's the essential tenet of it.
But to Pro-Lifers, women who have no intent to conceive are as liable for conception as women who do. And liability is the correct term to use in the matter of conception because for women who have no intent to conceive, conception is a liability. Unless it isn't. In which case a woman is quite free to choose to carry on with the pregnancy.
But Pro-Lifers want a State that can demand a woman who had no intent to conceive carry the pregnancy to term - such that she is, in fact, a de facto birth vessel for the State with no rights over her own person simply (or not so simply) because a sperm fertilized one of her ovules.
Sooey no longer accepts comments so I guess I am the one carrying this load here.