Painful delivery

On Wednesday evening, the Harper government -- aided and abetted by Liberal leader Stephane Dion's inability to lead - voted to take this country one step closer to robbing women of their reproductive rights.

Here's part of today's treeware column on this, with added links:

It should not be lost on anybody that the party with the fewest number of women MPs in the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-484 on Wednesday.

It passed 147-133, with one lone woman Opposition MP – Liberal member AlbinaGuarnieri – voting yea. Even the Bloc Québécois' Raymond Gravel, a Roman Catholic priest, rejected it.

C-484 is the private member's bill from Conservative MP Ken Epp who, last December, when he moved that it get second reading, crowed that he had "been waiting for this moment for over 14 years."

Yes, well, he has indeed been standing against women's reproductive rights for a long time.

Wednesday evening, all the women of the Conservative caucus stood with him, with the notable exceptions of Quebec MPs Sylvie Boucher and Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner who, it should be noted, is also responsible for the Status of Women.

Epp's Bill C-484 is properly called "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)" but is usually cited by its short title, "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act."

Sneaky that.

For one thing, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered "one person." That means there are no "unborn victims'' of crime.

For another thing, amending the Criminal Code, which states that personhood begins at birth, to recognize a "human being" in utero is about a whole lot more than what the bill's supporters claim it is.

"This is all about protecting the choice of a woman to give birth to her child," said Epp last fall. "It is about condemning the actions of those who would take it upon themselves to criminally assault a pregnant woman and the child she wants and loves."

So how about a bill protecting all women from abusive partners, with the money and the muscle to back it up, instead? Or is that too much for a government that shut down mechanisms through which women can sue for equality?

That said, murder – mostly by intimate partners – is a leading cause of death for pregnant women.

A little rant break here ...

Today I received an email from one of my misogynist regulars -- hey Andrew, does your boss know what you do on your supermarket chain's account? -- who wrote:

Your article shows how stupid you are. Women kill more of their own unborn children than men kill women. That is why we need legislation to protect unborn children from their mothers. Women are more violent than men after all. They commit more murders. They just call it abortion.

I wonder if Andrew would have preferred a bill that puts all women of child-bearing age in a form of forced confinement -- remember that term? -- so that they are protected from their partners? That way, those who might prefer to end their pregnancies can't, and will serve as baby incubators, with no control over their bodies, lives, health or futures.

Because that's much of the mentality out there.

Epp and his supporters claim no such thing would happen if Bill C-484 is passed. That this is not aimed at eliminating women's right to control their own bodies. They say that the bill, as currently worded, protects abortion rights.

But, experts say, those protections can easily be struck down by the courts.

Now the bill is off to committee, one step closer to passage.

One last note: Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was among 10 of his caucus members who did not show up to state their yea or nay.

He was hosting a party marking International Women's Day,  tomorrow.

Have a happy one.

While this has received minimal coverage in the mainstream media which, as usual, is more concerned with raw politics than policy, it has consumed the femme-o-sphere. Blogs such as Birth Pangs and Unrepentant Old Hippie have been all over this since Epp introduced his a-fetus-is-now-a-person bill. Because, make no mistake, if you have an ''unborn victim,'' you can also have an "unborn person.'' And, judging by the jubilation in the anti-abortion circles, that's what's next on their agenda.

Just for the record, along with NDP member Peter Stoffer, here are the 28 Liberal MPs who stood with the Conservatives:

Raymond Bonin; John Cannis; Hon. Raymond Chan; Hon. Roy Cullen; Sukh Dhaliwal; Hon. Albina Guarnieri; Hon. Charles Hubbard; Hon. Jim Karygiannis Derek Lee; Hon. Lawrence MacAulay; Hon. Gurbax Malhi; Hon. John McKay; Hon. Joe McGuire; Hon. Dan McTeague; Hon. Shawn Murphy; Massimo Pacetti; Francis Scarpaleggia; Hon. Raymond Simard; Lloyd St. Amand; Paul Steckle; Paul Szabo; Hon. Robert Thibault; Alan Tonks; Roger Valley; Tom Wappel; Borys Wrzesnewskyj; John Maloney.

Here's Birth Pangs' official statement on this:

CANADA – The Liberals’ vote – or lack thereof – on Bill C-484, the Kicking Abortion’s Ass Bill, yesterday is another empty gesture in a long list of failures by the Opposition, said BP activist and Founder, fern_hill, today.

“The Liberals went into Wednesday’s session (or stayed out of it) knowing full well that Canadian women saw it as a backdoor attempt to attack women’s rights to reproductive freedom. Still, Mr. Dion could not be found to vote for or against it. This is the latest in a string of failures by this Opposition to take a stand for Canada and for Canadian women,” said Ms. hill.

“On the eve of International Women’s Day, this is disappointing for Canadian women because it’s clear that the Liberals don’t take women’s equality seriously. We urge the Liberals to stop turning back the clock, and come up with a vote that supports women’s rights,” she said.

Hill noted that many Canadian organizations representing women’s rights urged Dion to whip his caucus to vote against the Bill and that the Liberal Leader’s support for women is, “All words. Little action. No support for Women.”

Hope and Onions has an excellent summary of the blogging so far. Other great posts -- and whew! some people are really really angry! -- come from The Galloping Beaver, Canadian Cynic, April Reign, Bastard Logic, Politics'n'Poetry and Sooey Says. But my favourite has to be from The Wingnuter who can't spell but who sure can spell it out.

Even thought the fetus is not a legal entity in Canadian Law, The Harper Government will now allow all pregnant mother to claim the unborn as a dependent on their taxes. Mr. Harper said "Hey if we can charge for murdering a none legal entity, the very least we can do is allow the mother to claim the unborn as dependent on their taxes too."

Happy International Women's Day.

Oh and one more thing, I look forward to a world where we don't have to have such an event, when women the world over are treated like human beings, not chattel or property, where they can walk freely where they want to go, dressed the way they please, educated, respected, not abused or murdered by the men in their lives, their genitals not mutilated, their ''honour'' not protected by their violent death.

Call me a rabid feminist. I can take it.

 

Comments

[Edson Castilho]

First, you're not even close to a rabid feminist, liberal feminist maybe, but no radical.
Having said that, your article and blog shows just how far women have left still to go in this supposedly "post-feminist" society. The mainstream media has all but ignored an issue that has the potential to have a huge impact on women's lives. The legislation is despicable and I for one hope it never gets passed into law. It would be nice if International women's day were not necessary but that will only be the case when women don't need legislation or the supreme court to "allow" them to have control over their own bodies!

[fern hill]

The media silence is stunning. Simply stunning.

Thank you for doing this, Antonia.

P.S. You are a rabid feminist. We at Birth Pangs, however, have been called Vicious Abortion Crusaders. Nyah-nyah. ;)

[Zorpheous]

Hey don't like me spell'in, get a dictionary ;-)

[Berlynn]

Thanks for the linkage, Antonia. And thanks for your work on this and other issues. I want to thank you for this, especially:

"Because, make no mistake, if you have an ''unborn victim,'' you can also have an "unborn person.'' And, judging by the jubilation in the anti-abortion circles, that's what's next on their agenda."

Well-said, m'dear!

[April Reign]

Thanks for writing about this Antonia. It is appalling that this isn't front page news.

We can see the culpability of the media in the US in letting the neo con and radical religious extremists create laws and regulations that are now seriously impeding a woman's right to not only choose abortion, but to be free of regulations while pregnant and free from charges for miscarrying.

Strong media voices of reason will be the only thing that saves us from religious dominionism http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/

[godammitkitty]

Thanks for spreading the news, Antonia! And for your treeware column, too.

Can't believe I've scarcely seen a word of this mentioned in the Canadian media. How can we let this go unnoticed?

Well, as you pointed out: a lot of us DID notice. We have our "s-list" and we're working from there.

Pink cakes indeed. Hmmm...what is it with our leaders and "little cakes" in a crisis?
http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2007/10/channeling-jfk-with-little-cakes-for.html

You're awesome, AZ. And thanks so much for linking to us!
GDK

[matttbastard]

Thanks for the link love, Antonia.

:-)

FYI:

"Just wanted to let you know I spoke to my MP, Peter Stoffer this afternoon. He explained why he voted for this bill, and said that his vote was consistent with his approach to private members bills (This is true - he has 38 on the go right now, for instance). However, I still strongly believe he should have made an exception to such an incendiary piece of legislation.

Stoffer puts a lot of emphasis on private members bills, and likes to send as many to committee as possible. To paraphrase to the best of my memory, he said he was aware of the concerns about this bill, and expects the committee to address these concerns, by either letting it die in committee or amending the heck out of it. And he also emphatically assured me he is pro-choice, and will continue to be."
http://tinyurl.com/3xqtys

Well, doesn't that warm your heart? Happy effing International Women's Day. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[Antonia]

Date: March 7, 2008

For Release: Immediate

Statement by the Honourable Stéphane Dion, Leader of the Official Opposition, on International Women's Day

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary caucus, I would like to join with all Canadians in celebrating International Women's Day.

On March 8, we recognize the struggles and honour the achievements of women around the globe. We look back over our history as a nation and remember the tremendous contributions of pioneers like Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby, whose fierce determination overcame the prejudices of their time to pave the way for women to be fully integrated into Canada's democratic institutions.

We also look around us at today's impressive female role models and recognize the profound impact women have on every aspect of our daily lives. And we look ahead to the limitless potential of future generations with the confidence that true equality is within our reach as a society.

Challenges remain - women are still not paid equally for their work, and too many are victims of domestic violence, or find themselves marginalized because of their economic and social realities - but together we can work to eliminate these injustices and build a safer, more inclusive Canada.

This year's theme for International Women's Day, Strong Women Strong World, reminds us that our success as a country and a global community depends upon the empowerment of all women regardless of their age, race, religion, nationality or socio-economic status. It encourages us to continue the fight for equality - a fight I firmly believe starts with having more women in Parliament. Only by bringing more female voices to the table, will we ensure that our government accurately reflects the needs and dreams of all Canadians.

-30-

Contact:

Press Office
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
(613) 995-5904

[Beijing York]

Thanks for giving this important issue attention Antonia. The media is totally ignoring this unfortunately.

[Alison]

As Kuri at Thought Interrupted put it : "The Liberals failed to stand up against the Conservative agenda they warned us against."

And then the media didn't report it.
Thanks for what you're doing here, Antonia

[matttbastard]

Let's try this again:

Thanks for the link love, Antonia!

;-)

[Martin Dufresne]

Susan Delacourt reports that Mr. Dion's Stornoway IWD reception - at the precise time where 26 of his boys (and Ms. Guarnieri) voted with Harper's anti-choice minions - was quite the gay affair with pink canapés and tiny hamburgers on pink buns.
We will be expecting Dion with similar pastries the next time he dares show up in Montreal. We know how to throw a Party too, and the Liberals are about to find out just how far...

[Miss Kitty]

Many, many thanks for this and all your other well-written pieces. I'm livid that this thing passed, but so happy that you have posted this response.

[JJ]

Thankyou, thankyou thankyou!, for getting the word out about this thing. Other than a 2-minute interview with Epp on Duffy last night (where of course no probing questions were asked), I've seen nothing about it in the MSM.

Thanks again, you rock!

JJ

[Prole]

Thanks, Antonia. It's maddening that so many people either know nothing about C-484, or don't realize (or admit) the intent behind it.

[Kim]

First off, let me say that I love reading your blog. I too am on a weight loss struggle (LOTS more to go then you though) and I like reading about someone else's trials with the same problems.

Secondly, I'm embarrassed because I was one of those girls who thought we'd reached equality and didn't see any issues with the world at hand. Reading your blog has opened my eyes a little. Thank you.

[...pat.]

You're a rabid feminist. I thank you for being so.
The older I get, the more outspoken I get. I'm still working on issues in my workplace.
Not just for me, but for all women. And men (why don't we have company-sponsored child care?)
Bet I only earn about 60% of what the guys are pulling in.

[Karol Karolak]

Antonia, you wrote quote, "On Wednesday evening, the Harper government -- aided and abetted by Liberal leader Stephane Dion's inability to lead - voted to take this country one step closer to robbing women of their reproductive rights."

Do you mean to say that Canadian women in will no longer be allowed to become pregnant?? Do you mean to say that Harper's government decided to force all women that would even dare to defy Harper's government dictum of no more children and get pregnant will be forced to have an abortion???

Antonia this is terrible, this is even worse than what Communist Government of China used to do when they introduced one child policy.

In know that there is this gender war in Canada and I know that women use their ability to carry pregnancy and deliver children as ultimate weapon in their quest of total domination of Canadian men.

I know that it is patently unfair to Canadian men and infertile women of Canada that they cannot get pregnant and give birth to children they would like to have. I know that Canadian men are very upset about custody rulings in Family Courts of Canada that automatically grant custody of children to women on premise that children are their personal property (extra limbs of some sort and extension of women’s bodies) but banning all women from having children just to enforce gender equality and level playing field seems to me as an extremely harsh measure.
I know that Conservatives are trying to cut government spending and such extreme measure would allow them to realise great many savings and eliminate costs of daycare, education and so on but at what cost??
Besides, how are they planning on sustaining Canadian population?? Are they going to increase immigration to Canada fivefold to over a million people a year?? What about immigrants with children are they going to be let into the country?? That would be unfair to the rest of us.

Antonia, I think that I have a better idea why not ban all abortions and set up a law that men upon providing proof of paternity will automatically get custody of children that they sired.

In this way women would be relived from having to bear full responsibility for their poor choices of sexual partners, and be free to seek better ones (nine months of pregnancy and childbirth) is not that harsh punishment for a night of fun. Men would become much more responsible for their sexual behaviour, old hags that had their asses scraped so many times that they no longer are able to get pregnant will have many cute babies with uncertain parentage to choose from and adopt without spending a fortune on it and having child stolen from poor single mother that is trying to find for herself reason for her own existence.

All nonsense of deadbeat dads would disappear overnight and we would scrap Family Responsibility Office and Family Courts.

Divorce rates would plummet as women who truly love their will sacrifice their freedom to find new and better partner for keeping company of their own kids.

Antonia, this is much better deal than gender equality without kids, you better talk to Harper about that.

[Dr. M. McKay]

Dear Antonio:

Your self-described rant about equality demonstrates effectively your ability to rant but does not demonstrate any understanding of equality, an understanding which starts with giving a voice to the voiceless. Your dogma would leave no room for the rights of unborn children. According to the femo-fascist creed, women should have complete, utter power and control over their unborn children--even to the point of denying their existence except as protoplasm that exists only at the pleasure of the host(ess) who at any time may have it excised like a wart. The femo-fascist approach to dominance over those weaker far exceeds those of the most Neanderthal male chauvinist’s impulse to control his woman and well beyond the eastern family despots we sometimes see in Toronto with their entourage of black-clad wives following respectfully behind their master.

You and your cronies have yourselves in a bit of a contradictory position which may be part of why you are more than usually testy. Normally, you would wish to see a man who assaults a woman experience the full brunt of legal punishment available—and then some. However, if the woman is pregnant, you do not want him to have a harsher punishment, so you are actually ending up espousing a position that would protect a male abuser from facing harsher penalties. I sympathize with the conundrum that you have gotten yourself into. It’s not a pretty sight when a feminist is put in the position of essentially mitigating penalties for abusive males in order to protect her rights to destroy unborn children.

From a non-feminist woman who does not believe that some are more equal than others,

Dr. M. McKay

[April Reign]

Dr. M. McKay

You apparently,(and I say apparently as anyone can claim to be anything on nets) have studied medicine this obviously left no time to be cognisant of law. Were you to study even the basics you would know that Canadian courts A) already have the power to deal more harshly with those who cause injury to the fetus in connection with a crime on a woman and B) do not give consecutive sentencing which this copycat American law is based on.

Seems you have yourself in quandary. Speak from truth or smear those with whom you disagree. Though I see the quandry was solved.

[Prole]

Dr. M. McKay - you're not too bright for a doctor. I understand that when one is obsessed with something, like oh, fetuses, or the very private lives and decisions of total strangers, it's hard to learn things outside the scope of one's narrow view. If you actually read anything written by people opposing C-484, you would have learned that we DO very much want people who assault, abuse, or kill women to have longer sentences. The thing is, that is already possible under the law. And without consecutive sentencing, C-484 will most definitely not give longer sentences to people who assault or kill a pregnant woman.

You see, what we have learned, by reading and comprehending C-484, and the position of those in favour of it, is that the true intent of the bill is NOT to somehow magically protect pregnant women, but to be the first step in criminalizing abortion.

So you see, no contradictory position here.

C-484 does NOTHING to prevent violence against women. Not. one. thing.

[Gigi]

Dr. McKay,

As the Supreme Court acknowledged, it is impossible for two beings inhabiting one body to have the exact same set of rights. Your view seems to be that the one whose body it actually is deserves to be secondary in consideration. Mine does not.

As you so deftly pointed out, no one in Canada is forced to have an abortion. It is merely an option for those who choose it - those who reconcile it with their own beliefs and move forward in that direction.

You seem to want to close that door - inflicting your beliefs on those who do not share them. (And there are those who do not share them at all.)

Mine is simply to leave the door open to a woman to make up her own mind, knowing her own conscience. My belief is not being inflicted on anyone. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It really is that simple.

[mhvdm]

So I rather clearly see your fear that this could/would be used against abortion, but what about the law itself? Excuse me for possibly basing my opinions on emotion here, but I'm kind of thinking that more laws against people who would attack pregnant women are a good thing ...

[Jeremy Swanson]

Now isn't that Mckay letter a whole bunch of deliciously honest truth? I would call it a return-fire "Broadside" back at Antonia Z and her flotilla of hardcore fanatics. So caught between a philosophical rock and a hard place eh Antonia? What d'ya have to say now?

By the way I would say your supporters are not being fair to you at all in their descriptions. You are not a rabid feminist. That is far from your true status. In the view of many you are a blatant, disgraceful and disgustingly hostile, radical, and rabid mysandrist feminist. There is a difference. I know and respect real feminists. You know-the the ones who believe in equality rights for all

In your defence though I think that beneath all the blather and bull you are probably a nice person but are simply caught up in this rather cruel 'feminist icon' role you feel obliged to play up to because of your blog readers and because of your job. Thats really unfortunate because it prevents you from recording and reflecting your true self.

In time I suspect you will tire of this radical feminist playacting and become a real woman and a real 'gender unbiased' feminist. You will become completely honest with yourself at that time and become a superb journalist as a result.

I look forward to the day.

[Tara]

Antonia,
Thank you so much for publishing stuff like this. I have been so angry at our government for even considering this, and at the media for largely ignoring it. If anyone wants to hear Mr. Epp defend his bill, and then get totally out-argued: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200803/20080303.html
When I first listened to Mr. Epp, I could see how non-critical people could think it was a nice, friendly idea. Of course I want to protect pregnant women! But then, if that was really Mr. Epp's intent, we'd be looking at a bill that worked to prevent violence against women. Our MPs need to know that we're not that naive, and that we're not going to stand for them voting for this, or for ducking out on the vote! Thanks for spreading good info on this, Antonia.

[Berlynn]

Dear Dr. McKay,

I wonder why it is you felt the need to whip out your PhD in the comments section. Is it that you otherwise feel inadequate to comment on this issue? Because it's true that your knowledge of it is severely lacking, to be sure.

This is legislation that will not change the punishment meted out to criminals. All it does is give rights to a fetus and attack women's reproductive freedoms. If harsher punishment is the intent, then one would do better to call for that elsewhere.

And how good of you, dear Dr., to demonstrate your "sympathy" to Antonia. It shows how little you really do know and care about the issues. It must be nice to have such a narrow mind where real details don't get in the way...

[Gigi]

I'm kind of thinking that more laws against people who would attack pregnant women are a good thing ...

Yes, I agree.

So why is this Bill not about the pregnant woman?

[Karol Karolak]

The very latest feminist ploy is a notion of "substantive equality" quote, "As opposed to "formal" equality, "substantive" equality recognizes the effect on women of their own biology and accumulated social disadvantage, acknowledging that laws and policies can affect them differently than they do men -- and then correcting that imbalance."

If that is what all women want than this is also what all men want - leveling of a playing field. In view of that please re-read my post from 11:29 AM.

See reference below:
-------------------------------------------------

http://cupwsisters.blogspot.com/2008/03/womens-court-of-canada.html

===The Women's Court of Canada===
The Women's Court is a group of Canadian lawyers, law professors and activists who have decided it's time to get serious about women's equality.

Now, what's that huffing I hear?

Must be the great collective scoff from people who think that
a) feminism is a nasty and this is clearly part of its conspiracy; or b) the battle for women's equality is over, and women are, like, so totally equal in this country.

But the scoffing is misplaced.

Sure, most civilized Canadians have a fundamental philosophical belief in gender equality (even if old-school male-chauvinist sexism seems, depressingly, to be on the rise again in our popular culture. And that's another debate). But gender equality is not a fact in Canada's courts, and the repercussions of that implicit inequality are like shock waves in the daily lives of millions of Canadian women.

It's all about substantive equality, says lawyer Diana Majury, professor in Carleton University's law department and one of the founding members of the Women's Court of Canada. "It's a more complicated notion of equality, but an exciting one."

As opposed to "formal" equality, "substantive" equality recognizes the effect on women of their own biology and accumulated social disadvantage, acknowledging that laws and policies can affect them differently than they do men -- and then correcting that imbalance.

[stephen.reeves]

What would you say to the women that had her unborn baby killed by a thug, tough luck!!,?? It appears that you are not the mother of any children.

[mhvdm]

"I'm kind of thinking that more laws against people who would attack pregnant women are a good thing ...

Yes, I agree.

So why is this Bill not about the pregnant woman?"

It's against those who would attack them. ...
And if you're struggling with how this Bill seems to attribute life to the 'unborn' and (potentially) punish the attackers for removing this life, why not think of it instead as the attacker being punished for 'damaging' personal goods, effects, or whatever inanimate terms you wish to assign. Just a lump of tissue but she did have plans for it ...

[Rob Grigjanis]

"This is all about protecting the choice of a woman to give birth to her child"

My nomination for Simultaneous-Offense-To-The-Language-And-To-Logic-Of-The-Month.

[Karol Karolak]

Ladies, in case nobody told you this as of yet Unborn Victims of Crime Act is not a slippery slope that will lead to re-criminalisation of abortions. There will be totally separate Bill that will do just that. In case none of older and more experienced radical feminists ever told you; botched abortions lead to scarring of uterine walls and infertility. On top of that leaders of Canadian radical feminist movement are way too busy, too old or make too much money to get involved in such mundane tasks like pregnancy and childbirth.
They prefer instant solutions like adoption of unwanted children. Unfortunately there are not that many unwanted children born these days and Children Aid Societies are not that eager to act as baby as they used to be. There is an urgent need to increase supply to meet demand of old infertile feminists, lesbian and gay couples and professional career women working as doctors and lawyers. Current baby breeding farms (CAS run group homes for teenage girls) are too expensive to operate and they cannot produce enough babies to keep up with demand. Something has to rip and more women have to start acting as baby breeders for adoption racket. Easiest way it accomplish that task is ban abortions and radical feminist leadership is driving this change. It was not a coincident that while House of Commons was voting on Unborn Victims of Crime Act Stéphane Dion was entertaining radical feminists at a pink party held at his Stornoway residence in Ottawa. Dion and his partner had to get married, and had to spent lot of time and money and travel to Peru to find a child to adopt. None of that would have been necessary if Canada kept intact abortion ban.

If there is conspiracy to re-criminalise abortion, it is not driven by religious fanatics it is driven by greed and infertility of radical feminist movement. So now you have it ladies, you are being sold down the river by your own leaders.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberals/dion.html

“Dion grew up Catholic in a suburb of Quebec City but he has told interviewers that his family was really rather secular in its outlook. The family often went skiing instead of to church on Sundays, to the consternation of many of the neighbours. His Paris-born mother told the Globe and Mail that she had been criticized for not wearing a hat to church and not long after that the family stopped attending regularly.
And Stéphane himself does not appear to be particularly religious. He only married his wife, political scientist Janine Krieber, so they could adopt a daughter, Jeanne, from Catholic Peru in 1988. Before that the two had lived together, like so many Quebecers of their generation, for almost 10 years — from when they were students at Laval, through four years of graduate work at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (he graduated in 1986 with a doctorate in sociology), to the start of their academic careers in Montreal and, for her, Quebec City.”

Ladies, all your sisters feminists working as lawyers for big Toronto law firms make at least 200k/year each. They generate another 200k/year each for a Law firms that they work for. Healthy newborn Caucasian baby goes for 50k each paid in cash under the table. That kind of money is what each and every one of them generates in less than 6 weeks. There is big competition for these jobs so pregnancy and childbirth are loosing proposition since as soon as one takes maternity leave another one steps in her place.
Great many of them operate in family courts in Ontario so fixing adoption (legalised children trafficking) is a piece of cake for them. You must know this term “It is the economy, stupid!!!!”

[Antonia]

Mr. Karolak, once again your agenda to turn women into unwilling wives, mothers and baby incubators is showing.
You not only make unsubstantiated assumptions about ''radical feminists'' not wanting to bear their own children (which they can, with the help of their male partners, friends or turkey basters), but you also accuse them of both advocating abortion and adoption at the same time.
Which is it?
Question: Would you force women -- say pregnant teens who would prefer to have abortions -- to go through with their pregnancies and then give up their babies to feed the ''demand'' by ''radical feminists'' for children? Is that what you are saying?
That said, I am delighted that you recognize how difficult it is for women to balance challenging careers and maternity.

[Karol Karolak]

Antonia,

I am quite sure that you are "delighted that I recognize how difficult it is for women to balance challenging careers and maternity."

My view however is such that women should recognise constraints of their own biology and give up on some professions and have children of their own instead of trying to keep competition with men at the expense of "forcing women -- say pregnant teens who would prefer to have abortions -- to go through with their pregnancies and then give up their babies to feed the ''demand'' by ''radical feminists'' for children" that they could not otherwise have.

[Michael Malone]

What a farce! Does anyone actually DENY an unborn child's humanity? Abortion is a moral failure-how on earth can Jack Layton criticize China for gender-based abortion when in his case abortion is the mere removal of "tissue"?

That a SINGLE person voted against this represents a moral shame for Canada.

NB-I support abortion in case of health/incest/rape