Happy anniversary SRR! Today marks 23 years since Canada's abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional after a long battle by Dr. Henry Morgentaler. This date marks an important landmark in women's rights in Canada, and the importance of women being able to access safe, legal abortion cannot be stressed enough.
In 1969 Parliament passed a bill allowing some abortions to be performed in hospitals as approved by a Therapeutic Abortion Committee in the event of endangerment to a woman's life or health. As a result, abortion access was applied unevenly across the country; while some hospitals would approve almost all abortions, others would allow very few, and abortion was largely unavailable to women outside major cities. After many years of hard work by abortion provider Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the 1969 law was a violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to Chief Justice Brian Dickson, "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
But as the recently defeated Bill C-510 illustrates, the fight to ensure a woman's right to control her body is far from over. As we look to our past and celebrate this historic landmark, we must continue to affirm our commitment to fight for reproductive rights. I would like to thank Dr. Morgenaler for his invaluable contributions to women's rights, and encourage all supporters of reproductive rights to continue their fantastic work!
Friday, January 28, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
On Single Mothers
Today as I was reading the paper while waiting for the bus, I was quite disturbed by a feedback comment submitted to 24 Hours regarding the NDP's Jenny Kwan's call to reinstate certain exemptions for single mothers. In response to the article, a person whose name we will not republish on this blog wrote back chastising impoverished women for daring to have children, and argued against the government making any effort to assist mothers who struggle to provide for their children. She writes:
It is beyond reprehensible to suggest that we should punish children by withholding financial support for their parents in order to impress some sort of moral lesson on the mother that she should not have had sex or become pregnant. Because if we content ourselves with saying "she shouldn't have gotten pregnant - she can deal with her own problems" it is invariably children who will end up suffering. Many single parents are faced every day with the choice of buying food for their families, or paying to keep a roof over their heads. By the reasoning espoused by the response - that it is not the responsibility of the government to assist these families - I suppose children should consider the financial position of their parents before having the temerity to be born. And as was noted above, it is entirely possible that a mother might have a child when she is experiencing relative financial stability, and then later find herself struggling to make ends meet due to unforeseeable circumstances. What do we say to these women? That they should have expected and planned for a recession in the economy before becoming parents?
The suggestion that mothers should simply move to more affordable areas is equally short-sighted. Is the commentator under the impression that there is currently a plethora of affordable housing in Vancouver that these mothers could easily access if they so chose? We currently have one of the highest costs of living and one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. To suggest that struggling single mothers and their children have no place in Vancouver is horrible. Recently, we managed to find over $1 billion to pay for the Winter Olympics, ostensibly under the premise of showing to the world the love and pride we have for our country. What does it then say when we would deny disadvantaged children in Canada any assistance we can give them? Is that how we show our love for our country? By telling the children of our nation that they are neither wanted nor our responsibility to care for?
The idea that anyone should have the right to dictate to a woman when she should or should not have children is exactly the mentality that anti-choice advocates promote when they suggest that society should be allowed to force women to carry to term pregnancies they do not wish to. As supporters of reproductive rights, we must defend a woman's right to all her options, whether that is abortion, adoption or parenting. It is never the place of strangers to tell women when it is the proper time to have children, and it is my hope that readers of 24 Hours will have realized the deeply problematic nature of the comment.
I don't think single mothers should be getting government extras. If you can't afford a child on one income in Vancouver, don't have children or move to a more affordable area. Procreation isn't our God-given right...people still have to be accountable for their behaviors. So all of you women need to stop making excuses and deal with your own problems. The government can't be responsible for every man, woman and child. Where are the fathers of these children anyway?What callous disregard for the children that this comment seems willing to throw under the bus in a rush to condemn women for having children at a time that she does not feel is appropriate. The suggestion that women who cannot afford children should not have them is not only patronizing in the extreme, but also quite useless: these women already have children. What purpose is served through this ridiculous moralizing? Does it help these children to inform their mothers that they should not have gotten pregnant in the first place? For that matter, is it the place of a complete stranger who knows nothing of a woman's situation to be dictating to her when it is and it not acceptable to have a child? The fact is, circumstances change, sometimes beyond our control. Family members get sick, creating an unexpected financial burden. Parents get laid off from jobs, resulting in an unexpected loss of income. There are many things that can lead to financial hardships.
It is beyond reprehensible to suggest that we should punish children by withholding financial support for their parents in order to impress some sort of moral lesson on the mother that she should not have had sex or become pregnant. Because if we content ourselves with saying "she shouldn't have gotten pregnant - she can deal with her own problems" it is invariably children who will end up suffering. Many single parents are faced every day with the choice of buying food for their families, or paying to keep a roof over their heads. By the reasoning espoused by the response - that it is not the responsibility of the government to assist these families - I suppose children should consider the financial position of their parents before having the temerity to be born. And as was noted above, it is entirely possible that a mother might have a child when she is experiencing relative financial stability, and then later find herself struggling to make ends meet due to unforeseeable circumstances. What do we say to these women? That they should have expected and planned for a recession in the economy before becoming parents?
The suggestion that mothers should simply move to more affordable areas is equally short-sighted. Is the commentator under the impression that there is currently a plethora of affordable housing in Vancouver that these mothers could easily access if they so chose? We currently have one of the highest costs of living and one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. To suggest that struggling single mothers and their children have no place in Vancouver is horrible. Recently, we managed to find over $1 billion to pay for the Winter Olympics, ostensibly under the premise of showing to the world the love and pride we have for our country. What does it then say when we would deny disadvantaged children in Canada any assistance we can give them? Is that how we show our love for our country? By telling the children of our nation that they are neither wanted nor our responsibility to care for?
The idea that anyone should have the right to dictate to a woman when she should or should not have children is exactly the mentality that anti-choice advocates promote when they suggest that society should be allowed to force women to carry to term pregnancies they do not wish to. As supporters of reproductive rights, we must defend a woman's right to all her options, whether that is abortion, adoption or parenting. It is never the place of strangers to tell women when it is the proper time to have children, and it is my hope that readers of 24 Hours will have realized the deeply problematic nature of the comment.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Welcome back!
Happy New Year SRR! It's great to be back for another term, and we're all looking forward to starting up meetings again. This term, our meetings will be held every Monday at 3pm in SUB 42V. However, our first meeting on January 10th will be held in an alternative location which we have yet to determine. We will send out the location as soon as we have the information. Everyone is welcome to join us as we discuss events we have planned for the upcoming term. Snacks are provided!
In awesome news over the Winter Break, Canada's anti-choice bill C-510 was officially defeated on December 15th. This was a thinly-veiled Private Members Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge and designed to make it harder for Canadian women to obtain abortions. Bruinooge, along with his supporters, attempted to use the tragic murder of Roxanne Fernando to prohibit coerced abortion. They argued that the murder was the result of her refusal to have an abortion, but as the prosecution and judge in the case have both stated, the motive was Fernando's refusal to end a relationship with her boyfriend. While the death of Roxanne Fernando was horrid, what's even worse is Bruinooge's attempt to use her death to promote his own political agenda.
So what exactly is the problem with this bill? While coercion is wrong and women should always be able to freely choose between terminating or carrying to term a pregnancy, coercion is already illegal in Canada. In addition, councilors at clinics already screen clients for coercion. What this bill does is intimidate abortion providers, many of whom already live with regular harassment from anti-choice protesters. The bill is also extremely patronizing, suggesting that women would not make the choice to terminate a pregnancy unless they were being coerced to do so. In reality, it is much more common for women to be coerced into not having an abortion! But by far the worst, the bill defines abortion as causing the death of a child - clearly attempting to open a door for the criminalization of abortion.
Thankfully, this bill was not passed. To see how your MP voted on this issue, click here.
In awesome news over the Winter Break, Canada's anti-choice bill C-510 was officially defeated on December 15th. This was a thinly-veiled Private Members Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge and designed to make it harder for Canadian women to obtain abortions. Bruinooge, along with his supporters, attempted to use the tragic murder of Roxanne Fernando to prohibit coerced abortion. They argued that the murder was the result of her refusal to have an abortion, but as the prosecution and judge in the case have both stated, the motive was Fernando's refusal to end a relationship with her boyfriend. While the death of Roxanne Fernando was horrid, what's even worse is Bruinooge's attempt to use her death to promote his own political agenda.
So what exactly is the problem with this bill? While coercion is wrong and women should always be able to freely choose between terminating or carrying to term a pregnancy, coercion is already illegal in Canada. In addition, councilors at clinics already screen clients for coercion. What this bill does is intimidate abortion providers, many of whom already live with regular harassment from anti-choice protesters. The bill is also extremely patronizing, suggesting that women would not make the choice to terminate a pregnancy unless they were being coerced to do so. In reality, it is much more common for women to be coerced into not having an abortion! But by far the worst, the bill defines abortion as causing the death of a child - clearly attempting to open a door for the criminalization of abortion.
Thankfully, this bill was not passed. To see how your MP voted on this issue, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
