What the doctor ordered

This was not the week for to be so far from the keyboard. But he explosion of outrage surrounding Dr. Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada -- a nomination long overdue -- is still echoing through the mediasphere. Now the "fetus fetishists,'' as my friends over at Rose's Place call them, are organizing a mass protest in Ottawa.

Well, that's their right. Better demonstrations than firebombs.

Which brings me to today's column, on the subject of anti-abortion terrorism and my fears of its resurgence. Here's some of what I wrote:

Consider how anti-abortion rhetoric has been heating up.

Last fall, it began with the introduction to Parliament of Conservative MP Ken Epp's bill to "protect" fetuses from violence.

In January, it escalated as Canada marked the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision – R. v. Morgentaler – which gave women access to abortion.

Now it's in the red zone, with the vehement reaction to Tuesday's appointment of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada.

The abortion provider deserves the honour. He fought, through a jail term, death threats and even the destruction of one of his clinics, so that Canadian women could safely terminate their pregnancies.

Otherwise it would be coat hangers and Drano.

Not that those who consider the Order of Canada, to use Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins' term, "debased" now that Morgentaler has finally earned it, care much about women's well-being – except to assert that those of us who have abortions suffer emotionally for the rest of our ruined lives.

Paradoxically, most pro-lifers would accede to terminating pregnancies caused by rape or incest – as if some "unborn children" are more worthy than others.

Abortion, they say, just shouldn't be something women use for retroactive birth control.

Yes, well, that's what we do. Drop round to the clinic every other month for some gut-wrenching pain because it's so much easier than popping the pill. Bad girls.

Better we bear our children in shame and poverty than do what many of the men who impregnated us usually do. That is, go on without any consequence to life, womb and independence.

If you think I am kidding check the sorts of comments making the rounds on the blogs – and even on mainstream media sites.

Not that anybody is calling for terrorist attacks, like when Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in the leg in Vancouver in 1994 or when Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ont., took a bullet in the arm in 1995 or when Dr. Jack Fainman got hit in the shoulder in Winnipeg in 1997.

These ambushes are far more common in the U.S. – and the suspected shooter is a convicted killer from south of the border – where doctors are assassinated. There, so-called "pro-life" groups cite the Bible as justification for violence.

"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked." So sayeth Psalms 58:10 and the Virginia-based Army of God.

Thankfully, nobody in Canada seems to be quite so blood-boiled.

Still, there are concerns. For example, there has been massive protest against Epp's bill in Quebec.

He insists that C-484 won't limit abortion rights, but he might have tipped his true intentions on Tuesday when he questioned the impartiality of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who chairs the Order of Canada advisory council. Is he concerned that abortion cases might soon land on her desk, thanks to his bill? You know, the one that – cough, cough – has nothing to do with abortion?

C-484 is on its way to passage – and to blowing away women's right to choose.

So no need to worry about firebombings of abortion clinics here.

It's just women who could be terrorized.

My blogging buds at Dr. Dawg and Accidental Deliberations have some cogent thoughts on how Epp is betraying his intentions on C-484. And my Star colleague Chantal Hebert has a great column on why Dr. Morgentaler is worthy.

To this day, it is hard to think of a Charter ruling that is as prominent in the annals of Canadian women's rights as the Morgentaler decision. He should no more be consigned to the closets of history than the activists who forcefully broke new constitutional ground to champion same-sex, minority language or native rights.

But I'll give Sooey the last word:

Hey, all you kids out there, the Order of Canada has never been something that unites us rather than divides us. It's usually just a nod to members of the wealthy elite in this country. Awarding it to Dr. Morgentaler is overdue, but it's still nice to know that real political activism can sometimes, if rarely, make a difference in this country.

Power to the people.

 

Comments

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Linking to a previous article in Broadsides (Hitler would have loved your pretty white babies- I'm sure you can guess which links I was following), I recall that every October I permit myself a chuckle, during "Women's History Month".

The "Famous Five" women in the "Persons Case" are honoured by Francophone, Irish, Catholic, etc. feminists, blithely oblivious to the fact that the "Famous Five" themselves were in favour of sterilisation of many members of these groups. If the "Famous Five" had had their way, a lot of these feminists simply wouldn't exist.

They get quite ratty when it's pointed out to them ,,,,,,,

There's a similar memory loss with Hitler "Hitler would have loved your pretty white babies" is, to a great extent, nonsense. Think of all the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Jews too in this context, etc. swept up in his murderous spree. ....

Then recall that as mass murderers go, Hitler was only third in line, after Mao and Stalin, so it is somewhat of a mystery (actually, it isn't really) why he's so often singled out as the pitome of evil.
BUT
If you ask "who was the greatest murderer of "Whites/Europeans", etc.?", he moves up into SECOND place (again, behind Stalin).

One piece of Nazi grotesquerie involves a rather worried letter from an SS man in the Polish Corridor in late 1939 to Himmler saying "We're deporting all these blonde Poles and replacing them with darker "Germans". Shurely shome mishtake ...."

Himmler's response is not known.

And I haven't begun to touch on the links between Margaret Sanger and Hitler......

Maybe the person who inspired this discussion was corrupted by his time in Oswiecim .........

PS Am I really the first to comment . . . . . . . .

[sooey]

The political right has infinite excuses to deny women the rights of people (i.e. men). And the unborn is just another one - which handily trumps even her right to control over her own reproduction. It's ironic how intrusive the right believes the State should be where women are concerned, isn't it?

But fair's fair, I suppose, with regard to the people who object to Dr. Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada. Afterall, I'm not impressed with the Men of God named to the Order who have made restricting human rights here on Earth their mission, either.

Of course, I include women and gay people in my definition of human because I'm a Feminist and not a Holy Man.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

etymologically, fetus is the same word as deti, dzieci, deta, etc., in Slavic languages (from Indo-European *dhe-, which also gives us femina in Latin, etc.), meaning .... CHILDREN .. maybe the connection is closer than "pro-choicers" would have us believe.

and while we're on the subject of "choice", I put it in quotation marks to ask:

are we seeing semantic change where choice means "infanticide", etc.

so-called "pro-choicers" are often the same ones opposed to choice in schools, choice in healthcare, choice in where tax dollars go (compulsory welfare instead of private charity), freedom of association, etc., etc.

and if the CBC really belongs to all Canadians, why can I not choose to sell my shares?

[Jacquie Fraser]

Why is it that women have to constantly fight men on every front? Our foremothers had to fight for us to get the right to vote; to be able to attend higher education; to be able to work for a living AFTER having children.
Since when is it any man's business if I choose to abort a baby? There are many women who do because they realise they will not be in a position to handle the burden for the rest of their lives.

I suggest to religious fanatics and pro-lifers that unless YOU are willing to help raise the unwanted child, keep your nose out of that woman's life. The last thing women need is someone guilt-tripping them and painting a picture that is anything but rosy.

As for those within the Catholic faith: here is where the pot is calling the kettle black. Explain to us why it was ok for nuns and priests to shack up secretly, have babies and thus bury them in unmarked graves - only to be dug up years after the fact. Yes, this happened on the east coast many years ago. Why is it ok to bury a newborn but not abort it before it's born??????

[deBeauxOs]

Even though they're are barely intelligible and quite abhorent, thank you for posting the comments from "The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs". It's important for people to read the rantings of individuals who would prevent physicians from providing safe health care and force women to carry unintended pregnancies to term or to resort to life-endangering back-street abortions.

Creeps like him don't seem to understand that when pregnant women die as a result of illegal abortions, the fetus does not survive.

[mozo]

stygian wrote: "The "Famous Five" women in the "Persons Case" are honoured by Francophone, Irish, Catholic, etc. feminists, blithely oblivious to the fact that the "Famous Five" themselves were in favour of sterilisation of many members of these groups. If the "Famous Five" had had their way, a lot of these feminists simply wouldn't exist."

That's okay because the all knowing men did it for them. If I recall correctly the Alberta government did it into the 1970's.

If you want to dig into the past of any "hero" you find warts and sometimes worse. And it's always worse when you try to apply current morals/ethics/popular thought to different eras.

[Mary Sunshine]

Yes, the religious right is on the march in Canada. They've had overwhelming success in the USA. In a country that will elect Harper to power, abortion rights are very much under the gun.

Women need to go back to female solidarity here, and reclaim the know-how to perform abortions for each other outside the realm of male control.

It doesn't work to plead for freedom - we need to take it.