Happy Anniversary!

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!

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:

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.

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.

The Inherent Misogyny of the Abortion-as-Genocide Argument

Today, Jojo Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform will be giving a lecture entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust: comparing abortion to other human rights violations”. The Centre for Bioethical Reform is the group that sponsors the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) display--a display that depicts images of genocide and holocaust next to photos of supposedly aborted fetuses. While Students for Reproductive Rights does not contest Mr. Ruba’s rights to share his views, we are strongly opposed to the comparison of abortion to genocide, and would like to offer our opinion of the debate.

Students for Reproductive Rights believes that it is wrong to compare abortion with the tragic events of real genocides, and that it is also extremely offensive. To compare abortion to the real genocide of real people is highly insulting to the relatives and descendants of Holocaust victims and survivors. Genocide is an intolerable act of hatred against a particular community of people. Abortion is an essential, legal medical procedure that women desperately need, not only to give them control over their bodies and lives but to preserve and improve the lives of their families. But let us assume for the moment that the comparison is a legitimate one. Who, then, are the perpetrators of the genocide? Who should be put on trial for crimes against humanity? The answer depends on how we view the nature and status of women.

Most of us believe that women should not be limited to the sole role of bearing and raising children. We believe that women are entitled to the same respect and opportunity that men enjoy. We also believe that women are autonomous beings who have the right and the ability to make decisions in their lives. These are reasonable beliefs. And if they are true, then women must bear full responsibility for the abortions they choose to have. If, as the CCBR would argue, abortion is comparable to genocide, then women are by default genocidal murderers. This is why some consider the abortion-genocide comparison to be hate speech against women.

Do anti-abortion activists blame women for abortion? Generally, the answer is no. Instead, they place the blame on doctors, clinics, politicians, judges, and the “culture of death”. Does this refusal to acknowledge women’s responsibility for abortion stem from compassion for women? No. Anti-abortion activists are not concerned with helping real women live real lives. Their main goal is to outlaw abortion. The consequences of illegal abortion for women’s lives, health, and rights are tragic. 60 000 women are killed every year as the result of an unsafe, illegal abortion. But somehow, anti-abortion activists believe that stopping abortions will help women. How can this belief be reconciled with the awful realities women are confronted with when abortion becomes illegal? The contradiction is resolved when one realizes that anti-abortion activists truly believe that women are victims of legal abortion.

A certain view about the nature and status of women comes into play here, and it is a view that many anti-abortion activists seem to hold. It is the view that women’s natural, primary role is to bear and raise children. It is the view that women are easily victimized and led by people around them. It is the view that women are not ultimately responsible for their actions, because like children, they require direction and moral guidance. If these beliefs are true, then women do not bear responsibility for their abortions. They have been coerced and misled by others into having them. Society itself is the genocidal murderer, and doctors and politicians become scapegoats.

Such a patronizing and traditional view of women is offensive to the notion of women’s equality and autonomy, and it is for this and many other reasons that Student’s for Reproductive Rights opposes the comparison of abortion to genocide. We encourage viewers to think critically about the claims made by Mr. Ruba, and to consider the offense that this presentation represents not only to women, but also to the multiple groups whose real experiences with genocide are being appropriated. While there is certainly a need for discussion regarding the complex issue of abortion, its comparison to genocide causes great offense to many, and does nothing to promote civil debate.

Movie Night Update

Hey everyone, just a quick update that the movie shown on Thursday, September 30th (tomorrow!) will be 12th and Delaware, a documentary about the experiences of an abortion clinic and crisis pregnancy centre which are located directly across the street from one another. The movie will start at 6pm, and will be held in SUB room 42V. You do not have to be a member to attend - anyone who would like to can drop by, and feel free to bring friends. We expect the movie to last about an hour and a half, and will have a discussion session afterward for those who would like to stay. We look forward to seeing you there!

Upcoming Movie Night

Hi everyone! SRR has gotten off to a great start this year, recruiting new members during clubs days and getting to know each other at our weekly meetings. This Thursday (September 30th) will be our first event. We're hosting a pro-choice movie night, open to members and non-members alike. The movie will start at 6pm, and will be followed by an informal discussion of what we thought of the movie.

We will vote for which movie we would like to see at our meeting on Tuesday, September 28th, so be sure to come out and give your say. Options that have so far been suggested include 12th and Delaware, Citizen Ruth, and Dirty Dancing. For those who cannot make it to the meeting, don't worry; we'll be sure to send out an email to let you know what movie will be playing. Hope to see you there!

Welcome back!

The leaves are falling, classes are beginning, and SRR is ready to get back into high gear this year. Tomorrow is imagine day, an orientation and welcome back for all students. From 2-5pm all the UBC organizations will have displays along Main Mall on campus. SRR will be there with our display, so drop by and say hello! An e-mail will be sent out to our mailing list at the end of the week with a doodle link to figure out the best time for our weekly meetings this semester. E-mail us (srr.ubc@ gmail.com) to be added to the mailing list.

Stay tuned for more SRR news. In the mean time, check out this local pap screen awareness campaign by the LACE (live aware create empowerment) campaign: www.lacecampaign.com. Pap Awareness Week is coming up on October 24-30 and you can read more about it on their website.