[Wamvan] Top 10 Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Attacks on Women’s Rights
Natalie Hill
nhill10 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 16 07:54:35 PDT 2012
It already has:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2012/03/parliament-debate-abortion-april
Parliament to debate abortion in April
By Mercedes Allen <http://rabble.ca/category/bios/mercedes-allen>
| March 15, 2012
- Print<http://rabble.ca/print/blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2012/03/parliament-debate-abortion-april>
- Write to editor
<http://rabble.ca/contact/editor/%5Bletter%20to%20editor%20for%20rabble.ca-node-91240%5D>
- Support rabble <http://rabble.ca/supportrabble>
- Corrections
<http://rabble.ca/contact/corrections/%5Bcorrection%20for%20article%20rabble.ca-node-91240%5D>
- <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php>
Conservative Party backbencher Stephen Woodworth has put forward a
motion that will result in a debate in Parliament on abortion in the guise
of "when life begins," in April.
This debate is tentatively scheduled for Monday, April 26th, and will call
for the creation of a special committee dominated by Conservatives. The
motion calls for 7 of the 12 members to be from the Conservative Party, and
all to be selected by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
(PROC)<http://www.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMembership.aspx?Cmte=PROC&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1>.
At least two members of this committee are suspected to be current or
former members<http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2012/01/abortion-debate-2011>of
the semi-secretive Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus (PPLC), which (along
with Woodworth) has vowed to end abortion altogether. I'll examine their
voting records shortly.
Here is the text of Motion
M-312<http://www.stephenwoodworth.ca/canadas-400-year-old-definition-of-human-being/motion-312>
:
*"That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review
the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which
states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete
birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;*
*
* *"that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members
which shall include seven members from the government party, four members
from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party,
provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the
members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the
special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days
after the adoption of this motion;*
*
* * * * "that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be
allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);*
*
* *"that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee
as provided in the Standing Orders; and*
*
* * * * "that the special committee present its final report to the House
of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers
to the following questions,*
*
* *" (i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is
not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,*
*
* *" (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the
declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the
moment of complete birth?,* *
* *
* *" (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1)
on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete
birth?,*
*
* *" (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of
its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions
of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection
223(1)?*
News of Motion M-312 has been slowly rolling out, following a public
declaration by Jim Hughes last Thursday, claiming that the "perfect storm"
has arrived that will result in the abolition of abortion.
*Jim Hughes declares the Canadian war on reproductive rights
*
I guess if any Canadian far-right figure would want to be known as the
person who officially declared the Canadian war on women's reproductive
rights, it would be Jim Hughes. Hughes is the head of Campaign Life
Coalition (CLC), and also the Vice President of the International Right to
Life Federation. CLC operates the 40 Days For Life campaign, the March For
Life, and the media project, LifeSiteNews (LSN), which I've examined
before<http://dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/aarchive-anti-abortion-lobby-dances-on-the-graves/>.
He made his declaration on
YouTube.<http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/perfect-storm-is-brewing-to-reopen-abortion-debate-in-canada>
Hughes claims that three events have created a "perfect storm" in which it
is now impossible for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to avoid debating laws
to restrict or outlaw abortion in Parliament. It's worth noting how he
characterizes these three events. You'll probably hear about them, because
Woodworth's rhetoric has been fairly lock-step with Hughes' -- I'll dissect
the points as we go along.
Parliament to debate abortion in April
By Mercedes Allen <http://rabble.ca/category/bios/mercedes-allen>
| March 15, 2012
- Print<http://rabble.ca/print/blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2012/03/parliament-debate-abortion-april>
- Write to editor
<http://rabble.ca/contact/editor/%5Bletter%20to%20editor%20for%20rabble.ca-node-91240%5D>
- Support rabble <http://rabble.ca/supportrabble>
- Corrections
<http://rabble.ca/contact/corrections/%5Bcorrection%20for%20article%20rabble.ca-node-91240%5D>
- <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php>
Conservative Party backbencher Stephen Woodworth has put forward a
motion that will result in a debate in Parliament on abortion in the guise
of "when life begins," in April.
This debate is tentatively scheduled for Monday, April 26th, and will call
for the creation of a special committee dominated by Conservatives. The
motion calls for 7 of the 12 members to be from the Conservative Party, and
all to be selected by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
(PROC)<http://www.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMembership.aspx?Cmte=PROC&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1>.
At least two members of this committee are suspected to be current or
former members<http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2012/01/abortion-debate-2011>of
the semi-secretive Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus (PPLC), which (along
with Woodworth) has vowed to end abortion altogether. I'll examine their
voting records shortly.
Here is the text of Motion
M-312<http://www.stephenwoodworth.ca/canadas-400-year-old-definition-of-human-being/motion-312>
:
*"That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review
the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which
states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete
birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;*
*
* *"that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members
which shall include seven members from the government party, four members
from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party,
provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the
members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the
special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days
after the adoption of this motion;*
*
* * * * "that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be
allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);*
*
* *"that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee
as provided in the Standing Orders; and*
*
* * * * "that the special committee present its final report to the House
of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers
to the following questions,*
*
* *" (i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is
not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,*
*
* *" (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the
declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the
moment of complete birth?,* *
* *
* *" (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1)
on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete
birth?,*
*
* *" (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of
its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions
of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection
223(1)?*
News of Motion M-312 has been slowly rolling out, following a public
declaration by Jim Hughes last Thursday, claiming that the "perfect storm"
has arrived that will result in the abolition of abortion.
*Jim Hughes declares the Canadian war on reproductive rights
*
I guess if any Canadian far-right figure would want to be known as the
person who officially declared the Canadian war on women's reproductive
rights, it would be Jim Hughes. Hughes is the head of Campaign Life
Coalition (CLC), and also the Vice President of the International Right to
Life Federation. CLC operates the 40 Days For Life campaign, the March For
Life, and the media project, LifeSiteNews (LSN), which I've examined
before<http://dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/aarchive-anti-abortion-lobby-dances-on-the-graves/>.
He made his declaration on
YouTube.<http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/perfect-storm-is-brewing-to-reopen-abortion-debate-in-canada>
Hughes claims that three events have created a "perfect storm" in which it
is now impossible for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to avoid debating laws
to restrict or outlaw abortion in Parliament. It's worth noting how he
characterizes these three events. You'll probably hear about them, because
Woodworth's rhetoric has been fairly lock-step with Hughes' -- I'll dissect
the points as we go along.
Advertising
<http://ads.rabble.ca/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=1253__zoneid=52__cb=77aea87156__oadest=http%3A%2F%2Flists.rabble.ca%2F>
*The Edmonton Infanticide Ruling*
Jim Hughes cites the lenient sentence given to Katrina Effert last year in
Edmonton as his first factor. Effert was convicted of infanticide for
killing her newborn son and given a three-year suspended sentence. She was
able to walk out of court, but will have to abide by several conditions.
Which sounds awfully lenient, when you hear it all summed up in one
sentence. Hughes adds:
*“The judge explained her reason for letting her go by arguing that since
Canada accepts abortion, it shows Canadians sympathize with the mother..."*
What needs to be remembered is what Hughes is not saying.
Effert was first arrested in 2005, and while serving about eight months in
pre-trial custody is sometimes seen as insignificant, she has also mostly
been in the court process since then (six years fighting a conviction for
murder is probably not a cake walk). In 2006, she was convicted of
second-degree murder, receiving an automatic life sentence with no chance
of parole for 10 years. This sentence was upheld on Jun. 23, 2009. It's
probably worth noting that the judge who delivered the more lenient
sentence last year -- Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Joanne Veit -- appears
to be the same judge who rejected calls for a mistrial and upheld the
original verdict in
2009<http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Mistrial+rejected+Alberta+mother+killed+baby+gets+life/1725168/story.html>
.
Canada has a separate law for infanticide, because the Criminal Code of
Canada recognizes that the emotional and hormonal tumult that some women
experience after birth that may cause them to undertake something they
wouldn't normally do. There are periodic concerns raised with the law from
the perspective of both the socially-right and the socially-left (i.e. the
viewpoint that the law may potentially undermine womens' ability to make
decisions for themselves). Infanticide is still a punishable crime, but not
punishable to the same extent as second-degree murder -- infanticide
carries a maximum sentence of five years. Judicial practice has been to
consider both charges, but juries have usually opted for the infanticide
conviction. In recent years, though, there has been a shift away from
that<http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Effert+case+revives+questions+about+Canada+infanticide+laws/1725901/story.html>
.
When announcing the suspended sentence with conditions last year, Justice
Veit stated that Effert's was a "classic case of
infanticide<http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110909/alberta-mom-suspended-sentence-110909/>."
There is another Alberta woman facing three counts coming to
trial<http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/22/calgary-woman-accused-of-dumping-baby-facing-two-murder-charges/>,
surrounding similar occurrences in 2008, 2009 and 2011, so this case and
the question of infanticide are probably going to be around for awhile.
Veit's verdict hinged on several factors, including evidence that supported
Effert's claim of being in an emotionally distraught state, that the case
fit the classic parameters of infanticide (which the Criminal Code
considers a partial defense to murder), that the life sentence did not fit
the crime and that there were questions about Effert's state of mind after
the birth. Unfortunately, in an interview afterward, Veit also
commented<http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html>
:
*"... while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal
solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally
understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and
childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support..."*
This has sparked an outcry from anti-abortion activists, who have spun the
entire ordeal to make it sound like the very existence of abortion has now
led to letting women off the hook for infanticide, without any punishment
whatsoever, and leading down the slippery slope toward legitimizing
child-killing.
*Motion M-312 and the toe-in-the-birth-canal argument*
The second element Hughes cites is Stephen Woodworth's campaign to debate
abortion in Parliament. Woodworth has been angling toward prompting this
since a few short days before Christmas, when he issued a
statement<http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1105522>
:
*"Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children
before the moment of complete birth. This results from an unusual Canadian
statute which defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded
in a living state from the mother's body, whether or not the child has
breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be
sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if
he or she is breathing."*
The toe-in-the-birth-canal argument is one of his favorites, second only to
his complaint that the only statute in Canadian law defining when life
begins is over 400 years old (which we'll revisit in a second). For some
reason, the meme has resonated with younger Canadians, many of whom don't
remember the struggle for reproductive rights and have been misled about or
trained to disregard the implications on womens' lives. Never mind that
at-birth abortions performed by medical personnel virtually never actually
happen, except perhaps in the possible event where the mother's life is at
stake. This appears to be a roundabout way to declare that legal personhood
of the foetus is necessary, and then work backward from there to determine
when thast personhood comes into effect. The theory behind personhood bills
is that if the foetus can be legally declared a human being, then it
acquires legal rights that can trump those of the human being carrying it
and whose life would be inalterably changed by it. The idea is also that if
abortion can be elevated to murder at any stage, it then becomes a small
stretch to argue that all abortions should be considered murder.
When I expressed my support for reproductive
justice<http://dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/coming-out-for-reproductive-justice/>,
I wrote a bit about this:
*"Foetal development goes through a myriad of stages. Pro-life advocates
often define [life] as being at conception / fertilization (or sometimes
even before<http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-life-begins-before-conception>),
the moment that the ovum is fertilized by sperm to form a zygote.
Certainly, that’s when “personhood” amendments are designed to establish
human life as beginning. Even then, though, the foetus’ quest to live is
only starting. Then, it needs to attach itself to the uterus, begin
undergoing cell division, and then start cellular differentiation. At any
of those stages spanning at least eight weeks, development can fail and the
zygote is flushed out during menstruation. If you maintain that life begins
at fertilization, then the human body has an entirely natural process that
routinely causes uncountable numbers of abortions globally.*
*"That’s why the anti-abortion lobby also fosters studies to establish life
at the first heartbeat, at the first neural signals, at the ability to
sense pain, at the first kick. At times, pro-life idealogues have gone even
further back to assert that anything that affects gametes (sperm and / or
ova) is immoral (thus calling in-vitro fertilization and
masturbation<http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-encourages-young-children-to-masturbate>into
moral question), so while we can speculate on motivations, the
pro-life side doesn’t provide any clear answer on when life actually
begins. None of the benchmark moments occur at the same stage, so the
inevitable conclusion is that life, birth, creation and human genesis as a
whole are part of a nine-month process. A foetus isn’t a baby. It’s not a
tumor, either. It is life potential. Any hardline stance on either side of
that question is doomed to fail.*
*"The question then becomes whether people are or are not justified in
making the decision as to whether that life potential does indeed become
life. Should every fertilized egg be made to develop into a human, or are
we sometimes justified in stopping that process?"*
The toe-in-the-birth-canal is a deflection from Woodworth's real argument
-- that the idea of life beginning at birth is outdated, and needs to be
backdated several months -- preferably nine, but he'll take what he can
get, and work on widening it from there.
CBC's Kady O'Malley is optimistic that the motion will be defeated, but points
out that<http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/02/woodworth-watch-the-human-being-motion-and-whats-likely-to-become-of-it.html>
:
*"... what's interesting about this motion is that, as far as I can tell --
and yes, I've asked the speaker's office for a definitive answer -- unlike
the vast majority of private members' proposals put forward for the
consideration of the Commons, this one would actually be binding. *
*"If passed, it would direct the House to do something that is entirely
within its aegis; namely, strike a special committee with a clear mandate,
and a requirement to report back to the House within a certain period of
time."*
Like it or not, Canada, the debate has been reopened. The only question now
is whether Stephen Harper will live up to his public stance against
reopening the debate, and restrict his party's vote and/or punish the
backbencher who defied him.
*The Sex-Selective Abortion Claim Comes to Canada*
The third event in Jim Hughes' "perfect storm" is a little more insidious:
*“The third event, and really the kicker,” Hughes states, “was a January
editorial published<http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sex-selective-abortion-of-girls-is-evil-and-must-stop-canadian-doc-in-leadi/>in
the Canadian Medical Association’s journal. It called for an end to
the
abhorrent practice of sex-selection abortion."*
In January, the interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association
Journal (CMAJ), Dr. Rajendra Kale, argued in an editorial that immigrants
(Kale singled out India, China, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines) are
bringing sex-selective practices to Canada. India and China have developed
reputations for parents aborting female children after obtaining
ultrasounds, because of population restrictions and/or the poor to
negligible value that those societies are felt to have for women. Kale has
recommended restricting access to ultrasound imaging until after 30 weeks
of pregnancy<http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Article+concealing+fetus+gender+sparks+debate+across+country/6004927/story.html>,
although some testing products on the market could easily fill that void
and render his point moot. The CMAJ publication quotes Gwen
Landolt<http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/3/E163.full>,
of the anti-abortion and
domesticity-idealizing<http://dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/real-women-selectively-oppose-human-rights/>REAL
Women of Canada, as an authority and uses statistics that peg South
and East Asian populations at 105 males to every 100 females as evidence.
Others have responded that the editorial makes racially-based assumptions
on data that could have several possible explanations.
This is a classic example of the cross-border pollination of tactics from
the American far-right anti-abortion industry. Only one month before, U.S.
Republicans introduced<http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/12/20/naacp-opposes-proposed-federal-ban-on-so-called-race-and-gender-based-abortions>the
"Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination
Act
of 2011" in the House of Representatives, which proposed to ban race- and
sex-selective abortions. There was no evidence that such a problem existed
to any noticeable degree in America (can you imagine authorities accusing
an African-American woman of choosing to abort because the resulting child
would be black?), but the tactic was thought to have some potential inusing
the energy of racial and gender equality movements to divide feminists (who
decry sex-selective practices as representative of social hatred toward
women) and to attempt to conflate the choice in "pro-choice" with racial
and sexist bias.
In Canada, a recent Angus-Reid poll on sex-selective
abortion<http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44310/canadians-call-for-legislation-to-deal-with-gender-based-abortion/>followed
Kale's publication almost immediately (excellent timing!), and
found 60% of Canadians supporting a ban, with the number higher for women
(66%). I guess it really is all in how you ask the question.
*Neither Panic, Nor Be Complacent*
Josey Ross points out that Canada's *R. v. Morgentaler* affords
significantly more
protection<http://www.gender-focus.com/2012/02/19/woodworth-attacks-abortion-rights/>for
Canadian women than the U.S. Supreme Court's
*Roe v. Wade* decision, by hinging on the security of the person:
*"Since the Morgantaler decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of
Canada in 1988, precisely zero laws have been passed that regulate or
prohibit abortion. However, there have been nearly 40 bills and motions
introduced that sought to limit or prohibit abortion. In 1991 women’s right
to bodily autonomy was maintained by a single vote when it tied in Senate.*
*"And while I’m confident that Bill C-43 would have been deemed
unconstitutional if not for that single vote, it would have been a
nightmare. And it would have been women who paid the steep price of years
of legal wrangling."*
Even so, much of the U.S. far-right approach has been to (among other
things) cut funding for women's health organizations, cut public health
funding for abortion and contraception, ban private insurance funding,
place unreasonable operating restrictions on clinics that offer abortion,
require women to view ultrasounds and/or consult ideolocially-driven
anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), make them wait several days
or weeks for the procedure, and issue conscience-based legislation to make
it possible for medical practitioners to obstruct if they're so inclined,
while saddling them with other legislation that requires them to read a
discouraging (and sometimes medically and factually inaccurate) script
against their conscience, if they're not so inclined. With Canada's
precedent, it is also illegal to restrict access, but that doesn't mean
that there won't be attempts, like this drive to delist health care funding
in Alberta<http://arpacanada.ca/index.php/mn/1535-alberta-pro-life-rolls-out-defund-abortion-campaign>.
The Harper Conservatives long ago started the process of disproportionately
defunding womens'
organizations<http://www.dennisgruending.ca/2011/03/stephen-harpers-hit-list/>in
the name of fiscal austerity and have also tried
to drop contraception from health
initiatives<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/birth-control-wont-be-in-g8-plan-to-protect-mothers-tories-say/article1502796/>
.
There's no cause to panic, but no cause to be entirely complacent, either.
The U.S. has entered an age of gambit-style litigation and legislation in
which anti-abortion activists are less concerned about whether a law is
unconstitutional than they are with exploiting those few that pass (whether
upheld or judicially overturned) long enough and effectively enough to
establish other favourable precedents. Far right ideologues have a more
difficult job in Canada, but they've been watching the fights down south
studiously. Whether this will result in lasting damage there or here is
anyone's guess -- we're entering uncharted social territory. I'll elaborate
on gambit tactics in a future post.
*Woodworth Wants a Committee to Determine When Life Legally Begins*
So Stephen Woodworth and Jim Hughes have angled for Parliament to debate
abortion. The motion directs that if Parliament agrees, a committee should
be created, its members selected by the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs (PROC). Campaign Life Coalition provides a handy
guide<http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Find_Your_MP>to
PROC committee members' and other MPs' votes (click the Votes tab) on
abortion, personhood and other social issues (including another anathema of
Hughes' -- the possible extension of human rights to include transsexual
and transgender people). PROC Chair Joe
Preston<http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=237>has
a perfect record of opposing reproductive justice by CLC's count, as
do Harold
Albrecht<http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=4>(believed
to be a current or former member of the Parliamentary Pro-Life
Caucus), Scott Reid<http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=246>(also
suspected with the PPLC) and Tom
Lukiwski<http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=177>.
Conservative Laurie
Hawn<http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=137>has
one strike but still gets a CLC green light, and Greg
Kerr<http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=157>gets
a 2 out of 3 (same no vote as Hawn) -- that's half of the committee
right there. Three others of the twelve are new MPs and have no voting
history listed as of yet.
That would appear to stack the deck a little, assuming Motion M-312 ever
carries. I encourage Canadians who support reproductive justice to be vocal
and visible, so that women can speak without shame or fear and so
legislators (including your
MP<http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC>)
know they can make a positive stand without political recrimination.
(Crossposted to Dented Blue Mercedes<http://dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com/>
)
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Joanna Chiu <chiu.joanna5 at gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks for sharing, Fiona. RH Reality Check is another great resource for
> reproductive health news from the US. Does anyone know whether the
> increasing attacks on women's rights and healthcare in the US will have any
> effects on Canadian politics?
>
> Joanna
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:10 AM, Fiona York <fionayork at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> US-based but informative and well-written column:
>
>
> <http://emilyslist.org/blog/Top_10_Terrible_Horrible_No_Good_Very_Bad_Attacks_on_Womens_Rights/>
> http://emilyslist.org/blog/Top_10_Terrible_Horrible_No_Good_Very_Bad_Attacks_on_Womens_Rights/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wamvan mailing list
> Wamvan at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wamvan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wamvan mailing list
> Wamvan at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wamvan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/wamvan/attachments/20120316/d2011ef3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Wamvan
mailing list