Spawn of the Dark Ages

This is fresh off the turnip truck:

FREDERICTON – A Tory member of the New Brunswick legislature has apologized for writing on his Facebook page that women should make more babies.

In responding to the provincial budget Tuesday, Carl Urquhart posted on Facebook: "Another Liberal budget ... Another $1 billion on the debt by March ... Girls we need more babies or we will never be able to support our future."

Liberal member Joan MacAlpine-Stiles told the legislature Wednesday that she found the comment offensive.

"To suggest to New Brunswick's young women that their only role in society and their only contribution to the New Brunswick economy is to have babies is demeaning and outdated thinking," she said.

"Society has evolved to recognize all the contributions women make and it's a shame the member for York hasn't evolved at the same pace."

Note that this is about a provincial legislature member.

But it does speak to the mindset of many who are card-carrying Conservatives at any level.

Which brings us to today's treeware column. (I added some links.)

Yeah, yeah.

Last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he doesn't "intend to open the abortion issue."

But he has also promised a lot of other things. "Merit-based'' political appointments. No recession. More government accountability. No recession. Fixed election dates. No recession.

All those words about everything from the federal deficit to daycare spaces ... and nothing.

That's why I don't believe him when he talks about reopening the abortion debate. Not that it has ever really been closed.

His credibility isn't helped by Conservative caucus members who constantly harp on the subject by introducing private member's bills, making speeches, attending pro-life rallies and putting out news releases.

Which brings us to the member of Parliament for Saskatoon- Wanuskewin. Maurice Vellacott is past co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus, an unabashed opponent of gay rights, and so vindictive in his attack on former Conservative-converted-to-Liberal MP Belinda Stronach that he used the "prostitute'' word.

Vellacott stepped in it once again last month when he put out a release commending local doctors for "reducing the availability of abortion in our city." It came in response to news that Saskatoon women had to leave town to terminate their pregnancies.

Now, as if this weren't unsympathetic enough to the plight of scared teenagers and desperate women, Vellacott added that "a growing body of research reveals significant health problems caused by abortion, including a greater risk of breast cancer, cervical lacerations and injury, uterine perforations, hemorrhage, and serious infection."

This is not only incorrect, it's pure propaganda espoused by those who would rather that pregnant women act as walking incubators for all those couples on adoption waiting lists.

Both the Canadian and American cancer societies dismiss the correlation between cancer and abortion. Furthermore, there is no "growing body of research" on the matter. And the Mayo Clinic debunks any connection between abortion and infertility.

It's not the first time Vellacott has made such claims: In 2006, he and Paul Steckle, the former Liberal MP for Huron-Bruce, promoted the idea that "the sexual revolution and the women's liberation movement are largely responsible for the rampant breast cancer we see today."

Whores and feminazis brought it on themselves.

Despite Harper's promise not to reignite the very hot abortion debate, last week there was no apology for Vellacott's claims by the Prime Minister or even Helen Guergis, Minister of State for the Status of Women.

Coincidentally, or not, all this happened just as the Ottawa-based "educational" LifeCanada issued its survey on attitudes toward abortion. "For the ninth year in a row, a majority of Canadians have rejected the status quo on abortion in this country," its statement said. "Over half say there should be legal protection for human life before birth and over two-thirds say abortions should only be paid for by taxpayers in medical emergencies or in cases of rape or incest."

But a closer look at the numbers reveals that only 30 per cent of us feel there should be no abortion rights. The rest say that abortion should be available only up to various trimesters.

As for who pays, the number has been virtually flat since 2002. (And, let's not forget, removing health care-funded abortion would only punish the poor.) As Dr. Delores Doherty, LifeCanada's president, told me, "Even though year after year people are saying they want some controls on abortion, they want some protection for the unborn, it still doesn't translate into action from the government."

There by the grace of a few more seats in the House.

So, according to polls, just how far from a Harper majority are we?

So, once again, the Cons exposed their not-so-secret playbook in reproductive rights.

It's getting to be a habit.

Now, some would say that Vellacott is just one guy and he doesn't represent the entire caucus. True. But lets look at the record, shall we? Bill C-484. Resolution 213.  This. This. And this. Rod Bruinooge. And let us not forget about this.

Vellacott took it to a whole other level though, spouting off about how choice is all about empowering predatory men instead of women who want to control their own lives, health and destinies.

Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available. With widespread abortion access, the male partner also has come to think that he can blame the woman if she chooses not to have an abortion after an unplanned pregnancy.

Oh yeah. Think of the women. 

Shorter Maurice Vellacott: Women should oppose abortion because men are superficial jerks who only think of their own pleasure.

Snicker.

Oh, and here's a guy who despises feminists, unless they're ''pro-life feminists.''

While it's true that many women are targeted for extra abuse by husbands who don't want to compete with a child for their partners' attention, to the point where femicide is one of the leading causes of death during pregnancy, most women CHOOSE to terminate their pregnancies for other reasons -- too many children already, an insecure economic situation, etc.

Hey, has Vellacott ever spoken out against violence against women?

Why yes. Yes he has. But, based on my extensive Googling, only when they're acting as the living hardware units for the ''unborn.'' Or when they're female fetuses.

Maurice Vellacott. Long on long guns. Short on sympathy for women.

Special shout-out to Emily for the photo illustration of Vellacott and to Pale for the video from last year's election campaign.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: How could I forget this?

Comments

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Despite Harper's promise not to reignite the very hot abortion debate, last week there was no apology for Vellacott's claims by the Prime Minister or even Helen Guergis, Minister of State for the Status of Women."

pity Carl Urquhart couldn't have been that robust. He should have said something like "well, it's either that or mass immigration - take your pick."

[JR Jake]

No what we are looking at is the future of man. Man working for a common cause before we all destroy ourselves. If you are willing to learn, there ae many willing to teach. Each of us have untapped potential and there are only a very few who have untapped that resource. It will take time, patience and the willingness to listen when instruction is given. But the greatest asset we need to tap is trust. That trust will take time, and if we look within we can see the qualities of goodness override the desires to manipulate.

[Jim M]

Besides fudging numbers and claiming that abortion causes diseases like cancer, another common method of deception used by the people apparently running to become sheriff of unborn baby town is using oversimplification to create false polarization. For example, pro-choice is often referred to as pro-abortion. I do not see the same false polarization created when referring to pro-life as anti-abortion.

Same with how pro-lifers often say that being pro-choice is like committing infanticide, except, of course, in cases where a high risk of maternal death is to be avoided. But to ignore the wide variety of other pressing, survival-related reasons women have for choosing abortion is like ignoring the well-being and health and safety risks to the same unborn life and parents.

[Anne JW]

"...pro-lifers often say that being pro-choice is like committing infanticide..." except, of course, when a woman chooses to become pregnant, carry the foetus to term, and responsibly raise the child (with or without the participation of the biological father). So, anti-choicers, tell me what's wrong with choice.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: the opposite of pro-choice is NOT pro-life -- it's anti-choice.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"pro-choice is often referred to as pro-abortion"

"So, anti-choicers, tell me what's wrong with choice."

Jim & Anne,

It's just that, with overwhelmingly more than chance frequency, people who claim to be "pro-choice" regarding abortion are "anti-choice" in just about everything else:

e.g., schools, TV channels, association (in a lot of senses), even light bulbs these days .....

[Jim M]

Since I don't have a cable subscription, Stygian, people are free to choose any TV channel they want when visiting me, just like they're free to fill any light bulb sockets found empty. ;)