April Reign

Speak your mind even if your voice shakes

pregnancy

Forced Pregnancy or Forced Abortion is There a Difference?

by

Anti-choice groups are taking the recent story of officials trying to force a woman in China to have an abortion, to reiterate their hatred of UNFPA whom they claim is implicit in this action.
UNFPA’s mission statement reads;

UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, is an international development agency that promotes the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. UNFPA supports countries in using population data for policies and programmes to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.

UNFPA because everyone counts.

It is hard to see how anyone could take issue with that, but then we know that choice of any kind is anathema to the forced pregnancy types. Because they are willing to force people to adhere to their rules and beliefs they cannot fathom that those of us who believe in choice believe in actual choice Meaning that we do not support forcing issue into or out of a woman’s womb. UNFPA in fact supports the choice to be mother through their campaign to make motherhood safer;

Every minute, a woman in the developing world dies from treatable complications of pregnancy or childbirth. Every minute, a family is devastated. The lives of surviving children are put at risk. Communities suffer. And for every woman who dies, as many as 20 others are seriously harmed by fistula or other injuries of childbearing.

UNFPA’s strategy for preventing maternal mortality includes:

* Family planning to reduce unintended pregnancies
* Skilled care at all births
* Timely emergency obstetric care for all women who develop complications.

UNFPA also advocates at many levels for the right of mothers to give birth safely. It spearheads the global Campaign to End Fistula, a collaborative initiative to prevent this devastating injury of childbirth and to restore the health and dignity of those who have been living with its consequences. And it is working to address the shortage of skilled midwives in much of the developing world.

However, based on the most recent statistics, maternal deaths are declining far too slowly to meet the MDG and ICPD target for a 75 per cent reduction by 2015.

UNFPA also helps in providing contraceptives and of course preventing pregnancy is the best way to prevent abortion.

Yet the shrieking continues unabated

LifeNews.com

Egged on by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, Obama has promised to restore funding to the UNFPA, the UN agency that has worked hand-in-hand with Chinese family planning officials.

Not only do Obama and his pro-abortion friends ignore the plight of women like Tursun, they’re willing to send our money to the UN group that gives the people who imprisoned her in a hospital for a forced-late term abortion a pat on the back.

“Obama to fund forced abortions” screams another.

Strangely we are to believe that their desire to force pregnancy is somehow less coercive or less a denial of human rights than forced abortion.

For a more realistic assessment we turn to RH Reality Check

UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, does not support coercion or abortion. It follows the mandate of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) which clearly states that reproductive health-care programmes should provide the widest range of services without any form of coercion. All couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so. In addition, the global community has decides that abortion should never be promoted as a method of family planning.

[emphasis mine]

Congratulations to Arzigul Tursun on her continuing pregnancy. May all women around the world have the opportunity to control their reproductive choices.

I’m supporting the Liberals!

by

Ok well one of them at least. Brent St. Denis has an answer to Bill C-484, Bill C-543 which says; “This enactment amends paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code by adding pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing … evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person who he or she knew or ought to have known was pregnant.”

Brent St. Denis
Brent St. Denis

When queried about why he decided to do this, St. Denis said, “Mr. Epps’ bill traded off a dilemma — many pro-choice members of Parliament felt trapped. And, after all, it’s hard to say you are against something the way Epps set it up. This will give MPs an option. This trumps Mr. Epps’ bill and his hidden agenda.”

Something else pointed out to me by St. Denis was what is happening in the United States where fetal protection laws have been passed.

“In 37 states, fetal protection laws make it a crime to cause harm to the fetus, but it has been shown that pregnant women are more likely to be punished for other behaviours and conditions that are not criminalized for other people. Such as drug or alcohol abuse or mental illness.”

That doesn’t seem like something we would want to happen in Canada, but don’t fool yourselves — Epps bill will do just that.

{emphasis added} SOURCE

Contact your MP

and email the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to let them know there is a sensible alternative to the bill currently before them. One which recognizes that protecting women is the best way to protect fetuses. JUST@parl.gc.ca

And if you would like to send support to St. Denis;
Parliamentary Office:
584 Confederation Building
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Phone:
Fax:
Email: (613) 996-5376
(613) 995-6661
stdenb@parl.gc.ca
Constituency Office:
121 Barber Street
Espanola ON P5E 1S4
Phone:
Fax:
Toll Free: (705) 869-0059
(705) 869-5341
1-800-463-3335

I don’t fill prescriptions at your church, don’t preach in my pharmacy!

by

Equivalent of abortion?
Equivalent of abortion?

The Bush administration in it’s continuing efforts to appease the crazies appeal to it’s base is drafting legislation which would

  • consider contraceptives abortifacts
  • require family planning clinics to hire staff opposed to family planning
  • allow any health care provider to refuse care based on their religious beliefs
  • consider fertilized eggs not implanted fetuses to be a pregnancy (even though there is no way to test for this )

Under the draft proposal, federally funded hospitals and clinics that provide family planning services would be required to promise in writing that they will turn a blind eye to health care providers’ views on abortion and certain kinds of birth control, such as emergency contraception.

The proposed rule defines abortion as “any of the various procedures–including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action–that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Organizations that do not comply would forfeit financial aid distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

SOURCE

While it goes without saying that women have the right to choose to reproduce or not.  I wonder if they have considered that many women are on the pill for reasons other than reproductive control. Other medically indicated reasons include;

  • acne control
  • Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
  • irregular or absent menstrual periods
  • severe cramps
  • endometriosis
  • hormone replacement therapy
  • estrogen replacement due to such causes as anorexia nervosa, damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy
  • anemia from heavy periods

from the draft pdf available here

Ambulance Firm Faces Bias Suit; Worker Fired After Refusing to go to Abortion Clinic, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 9, 2004 at C3 (“An ambulance worker who was fired after she refused to transport a woman to an abortion clinic filed a religious-discrimination lawsuit against her employer Friday…‘I just felt really strongly it was something that I couldn’t do,’ said Adamson, a devout Christian who is adamantly anti-abortion. ‘It would be against everything that I believe in and everything that I support.’”);

This is used an example of bias against people’s religious values. Now what if a gay man requires transport to the hospital is it ok for him to have to wait until an ambulance with a human being non religious person arrives? What about a JW refusing to do a life saving blood transfusion? How about as an atheist or non christian your caregiver declines to contact your priest for last rites because it doesn’t jive with their beliefs? Yes this is a can of worms for choice but also for religious war. And if churches are deciding laws and politics is it not time that their tax exempt status was revoked?

An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. Whether an organization has attempted to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities is determined based upon all relevant facts and circumstances. However, most IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations may use Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, to make an election under IRC Section 501(h) to be subject to an objectively measured expenditure test with respect to lobbying activities rather than the less precise “substantial activity” test. Electing organizations are subject to tax on lobbying activities that exceed a specified percentage of their exempt function expenditures. For further information regarding lobbying activities by charities, download Lobbying Issues.

For purposes of IRC Section 501(c)(3), legislative activities and political activities are two different things, and are subject to two different sets of rules. The latter is an absolute bar. An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the forum or debate shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity. The motivation of an organization is not relevant in determining whether the political campaign prohibition has been violated. Activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria, violate the political campaign prohibition of IRC Section 501(c)(3).

SOURCE

It is said that there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, it is obvious that there can be no such thing as being a little bit pro-choice. American women need to come out in droves and support pro-choice candidates. Not just for themselves but for their daughters and granddaughters and sisters. There is a war on American soil. It is the war of religion against reason, lies against science, and a war for control of your body. Don’t let the Bush administration, as did the Nazi’s, as did the Ceausescu regime, make your body property of the state.

And to Canadian readers, this is why we cannot as Ms. May insists have ‘dialogue’ with the anti-choicers. It only emboldens them. Bills C-484, C-537 and Bill C-338 are all bills designed with the purpose of creating a climate where women’s choices are defined for them by others beliefs.

Related articles by Zemanta
  • Contraception = Abortion? Bush Plan Enrages

Your body Your choice?

by

Dateline Romania: 11 year old girl raped by her uncle is refused an abortion.
Now she not only must suffer the indignity committed upon her young body by a predator, she is further raped by the system which is forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term.

No doubt according to some she just should have said no and the pregnancy would never have occurred. To some it will be perfectly palatable that this young girl be subjected to nine months of sharing nutrition that she herself needs at this time in her life. Nine months of wonder and fear as to what birth will be like. This scares adult women who have made the choice to have a baby. She will in all likelihood have to have a surgical delivery as her pelvis is underdeveloped and vaginal delivery would be difficult if not impossible.

fuck-your-abortion-ban

Even those who have made the choice to carry a pregnancy to term are not safe from interference in their reproductive choices.

The AMA is advocating that women only be allowed to choose a hospital setting for their delivery

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HOUSE OF DELEGATES

Resolution: 205
(A-08)

Introduced by: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Subject: Home Deliveries

Referred to: Reference Committee B
(Craig W. Anderson, MD, Chair)

Whereas, Twenty-one states currently license midwives to attend home births, all using the certified professional midwife (CPM) credential (CPM or “lay” midwives), not the certified midwives (CM) credential which both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) recognize ; and

Whereas, There has been much attention in the media by celebrities having home deliveries, with recent Today Show headings such as “Ricki Lake takes on baby birthing industry: Actress and former talk show host shares her at-home delivery in new film” ; and

Whereas, An apparently uncomplicated pregnancy or delivery can quickly become very complicated in the setting of maternal hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, eclampsia or other obstetric emergencies, necessitating the need for rigorous standards, appropriate oversight of obstetric providers, and the availability of emergency care, for the health of both the mother and the baby during a delivery; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support the recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) statement that “the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers” (New HOD Policy); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA develop model legislation in support of the concept that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the AAP and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers.” (Directive to Take Action)

Fiscal Note: Implement accordingly at estimated staff cost of $1,929.

Received: 04/28/08

This statement comes despite the fact that a study in Britain shows

Supporting the Midwives Model of Care

www.cfmidwifery.org . 888-236-4880
Fact Sheet
Copyright © Citizens for Midwifery 2005. Permission to reprint with attribution.
New landmark study shows that
Planned Home Births Are Safe
The largest study of home births attended by Certified Professional Midwives, as published in
the British Medical Journal, has found that home birth is safe for low risk women and
involves far fewer interventions than similar births in hospitals.
Safe & Healthy Outcomes
• Results are consistent with most studies of planned home births and low risk hospital births
• Zero maternal deaths
• Intrapartum and neonatal mortality: 2.0 per 1000 intended home births (only 1.7 per 1000 intended
home births when planned breech and twin births are excluded)
• Immediate neonatal concerns resulted in just 2.4% of newborns being placed in neonatal intensive
care
• At six weeks well over 90% of mothers were still breastfeeding their babies
Low Rates of Medical Intervention
• Much lower rates of interventions for intended home births compared to low risk hospital births:
Planned home birth Hospital birth
Induction of labor (only with oxytocin or prostaglandins) 2.1% * 21.0%
Stimulation of labor (only with oxytocin) 2.7% * 18.9%
Electronic fetal monitoring 9.6% 84.3%
Episiotomy 2.1% 33.0%
Vacuum Extraction 0.6% 5.5%
Cesarean Section 3.7% 19.0%
* These numbers differ from the BMJ article where data for CPMs included forms of induction and stimulation
only used by midwives and not comparable to hospital births.
Satisfied Mothers
• Only 1.7% of the mothers said they would choose a different type of caregiver for a future pregnancy
Few Transfers to Hospital Care
• Only 12.1% transferred to hospital intrapartum or postpartum
• Five out of six transfers were before delivery, most for failure to progress, pain relief or exhaustion
• Midwife considered transfer urgent in only 3.4% of intended home births
High Credibility
• Included all home births involving Certified Professional Midwives in the year 2000
• 5,418 women in U.S. and Canada who intended to give birth at home as of the start of labor
• Prospective – every planned home birth was registered in the study prior to labor and delivery
“Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America.”
Kenneth C Johnson and Betty-Anne Daviss. BMJ 2005;330:1416 (18 June). This article and related letters to the
editor are available online, free, at http://www.bmj.com. (Use the search feature and type Daviss for the author.)Copyright © Citizens for Midwifery 2005. Permission to reprint with attribution

Lisa J. Patton and her newborn LaVergerray

And of course there is also the “a fertilized egg is a person with full legal rights supporters”. Will women who have miscarriages now be subjected to court dates to prove they didn’t in fact murder the legally recognized person in their womb? Is stillbirth manslaughter? If you know you have difficulty carrying a pregnancy to term yet keep trying are you a serial murderer? If you have an illness or accident and what would save you may kill the “person with full legal rights and status” in your womb, who’s rights prevail? Will there be courts in hospitals to determine if pregnant women can receive treatment? Will doctors even want to treat pregnant women when they could be held accountable for murder should any treatment result in death or injury to the fetus womb person with full legal rights and status?

These are not rhetorical questions. They need to be considered carefully and most especially by those who do see children in their future.

Abortion and time travel

by

Those who like to think of themselves as “pro-life”, “pro-family”, “pro-values” are in fact far from it. The governments and policies these people support has done more to hurt families than perhaps any government before it. Save for the injustices done to the native Canadians and the internment of the Japanese families during the war.

These ‘not your father’s Conservatives’, are an unhealthy blend of blinkered, literalist religion and unshackled corporatism. In no way should they be confused with the likes of Bill Davis.

These anti choicers often claim they want a return to the 50’s and 60’s as if there was no sex then, no out of wedlock children, no rape, and that corporate profit was valued above all.

Being the product of a 1950’s out of wedlock sexual experience I can testify that even then teenages felt the urge to merge. The sad thing was that so many were forced into giving their babies away or giving them to family to raise. Which impacted not only thier lives but the lives of the children involved.

Rape was as common then as now, it was just blamed on the woman. Heh, I guess that hasn’t really changed much.

Corporations, however, did pull their own weight, paid their taxes like good citizens and in fact carried a much heavier tax load than did the average hard working Canadian, as is appropriate. Interestingly, they managed to do all that and still provide plentiful and usually decent paying jobs.

The upside of this besides the job availability was that schools, health care and other social programs were being properly funded and there was increasing recognition that taking care of “the least of these my brethren” was not only a proper Christian thing to do, but benefited society in general.

I remember schools being open during the summer months with arts & crafts, sports, movies, and other programs being run by university Recreation students. These provided stay at home moms with a break and kids with something to do. These programs were free of charge, drop-in and definitely “family friendly”. I very much doubt the so-called pro-family sorts would support their tax dollars going to it however. Other free programs that provided entertainment for children were swimming pools, ice rinks, and parks provided programs and places to play ball.

Health care funding came into being and was amply supported by the corporate tax base. Now that that base has been so throughly eroded health care appears to be an undue burden when in fact it is the change of tax base that is the unfair burden.

It had been recognized that providing at least a semi decent living for families out of work, single mothers and the children associated with these families was a good thing. Then the CONservatives came along and othered the poor. Now there are Canadian children going to school without boots or properly warm coats, going to bed without dinner and poverty related businesses like pawn shops, buy & sells and pay day loans are booming. Diseases like TB once thought to be under control are flourishing again as are other poverty related illnesses.

Anti-choicers in the U.S. and Canada are working ‘incrementally’ towards making abortion unconstitutional. Well lets look at that in practice.

Section 12 of the Philippine constitution reads;

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

oooh a fetus fetishers wet dream come true.

Or maybe not so much. Let’s look at how this works in practice.

Official estimates put annual abortions at 400,000 to 500,000, and rising. The World Health Organization estimate puts the figure at nearly 800,000, one of the highest rates of unsafe abortions in Asia.

Seventy percent of unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion said Jean-Marc Olivé, the country representative of the World Health Organization. One of four pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion, according to Pro-Life Philippines, an anti-abortion group.

According to the Department of Health, nearly 100,000 women who have unsafe abortions every year end up in the hospital.

The Philippines, with its high population growth rate (2.6 percent) and low rate of contraceptive use (an estimated 35 percent) also has an increasing number of teenage pregnancies. As many as 17 percent of all unsafe abortions are done on teenage or young mothers, according to the Department of Health.

Use of contraceptives is actively discouraged

Women in the Philippines are trapped in an unbearable dilemma: the Catholic Church, whose influence over the country is strong, prohibits all forms of contraception, but extreme poverty prohibits large families. As a result, the Philippines has a very high abortion rate: 20-30 out of every 1,000 women of childbearing age have had an abortion, despite its illegal status. Filipino women, in an effort to keep their abortions secret, use crude methods, such as inserting sharp objects into the uterus or drinking toxic chemicals. The problem is so severe that illegal abortion is now the fourth leading cause of death among Filipino women.

Well now doesn’t that sound terrific? And I mean that as in the Latin terrificus : terr?re, to frighten + -ficus, -fic

Before you decide that bills like C-484, and campaigns like The Pill Kills, are of no consequence remember the stats above. Making abortion illegal, making contraceptives illegal does not stop the reality of the need for abortion. Indeed all it does is make criminals out of women exercising control over their bodies and of mothers trying to ensure there is enough for their already born children. From Reuters, ” Most women who have abortions in the Philippines are married, Roman Catholic and mothers already with at least three children. The majority terminate their pregnancy because they cannot afford another child.”

Those who truly believe in families, in values and indeed in a glorious being, will recognize the value in a political system which does not seek to make women’s reproductive capacities state infrastructure.

Related articles
  • Wide variation in potentially preventable hospitalizations for chronic conditions across Canada [via Zemanta]

Our Glorious Dead

by

In times of war we are called upon to honour our glorious dead. Our Glorious Dead

Indeed the memory of the fallen is used to raise our collective patriotic ire at anyone who does not support any military action. This has become known colloquially as “not supporting the troops.”

It does not matter if the cause they were fighting is just. If the people they killed were innocent. If the war they fought a sham. Honour must be paid.

Compare this to the all too common occurrence of women being killed by partners or strangers. Too often in both courts of justice and courts of opinion these women’s memories are not honoured but desecrated.

Excuses are made, she provoked him, she was dressed or acted provocatively or was a sex worker, she was out alone at night, she was the violent one. [Read more…] about Our Glorious Dead