One specific area of vengeance that is sure to come up is that of some women toward men.  Men who, whether out of courage or naïveté, think they can join the abortion conversation in a reasonable way soon find out otherwise as virtually all female commenters zero in on this poor easy target.

The retaliation is swift and certain as it is predictable: who are men to tell women what to do with their bodies?! Men can’t have babies, men abandon women all.the.time, men live lives free of consequence and responsibility, men are controlling, overbearing, anti-feminist, likely even downright abusive and dangerous.  In short, who are men to have an opinion on whether a baby lives or dies?

Let’s take a moment to release some of that anger in a big ol’ breath.  Because ladies, we actually really like men. If it weren’t for men and our dealings with them, we wouldn’t be talking about abortion at all, would we? Maybe we hate that they can walk away without taking responsibility for their child, and maybe we hate that we have to carry a baby for 9 months before its ready to come out (and preferably abstain from alcohol, sushi, unpasteurized cheese and other fun things during that time), and maybe we hate to be held to the same standard of beauty we were before having babies while our bodies have undergone so many changes we no longer recognize parts of them.  But does all of this mean we hate men? Even more, does it mean we hate men willing to take a principled stand on a major issue?  I think we should be grabbing those men and marrying them and having their babies on purpose.

Men who are willing to enter the abortion debate should theoretically be the same men who would not leave a pregnant girlfriend without financial support, the same men who would not leave a wife for a newer model and never send a child support check, the same men who would have principled ideas on the value of women and on how a woman should be treated.

The men willing to join the abortion debate are men with principles.  These principles, in the men I know, extend far beyond an online debate about abortion. These are men who are willing to care deeply, and willing to stand behind decisions and responsibilities even when the going gets tough.

To attack a man for having an opinion on abortion is to say we can only have opinions on things that directly relate to our own life experiences. I have never been homeless, so who am I to have an opinion on homelessness? I have never murdered someone, so who am I to give an opinion on whether murder is right or wrong? I will never have prostate cancer, so how dare I have an opinion on whether treatment for it should be publicly funded?

Personally, I think more men should have an opinion on abortion. Too many women who find themselves pregnant also find themselves with a man who tells her it’s “her decision” when that’s the last thing she wants to hear. That, really, is the ultimate excuse for a man: “It’s your decision” says “I don’t care – about you, your health, our baby, or my role in this.” She actually wants support, someone to talk to, and likely the assurance that she and her child will both be supported, loved and wanted regardless of the circumstances.

If men want to support choice, they need to support women. If men want to support women, they need to have principles. Principled people take a stand regardless of how popular that makes them (hint: usually not very.)  Ladies, stop attacking men just because they don’t get pregnant. Instead, engage them on what their opinion really means. Find out if they’re men of principle who genuinely oppose the killing of pre-born children, whether their own or someone else’s, or really the authoritarian, paternalistic control freaks you fear.

In fact, motherhood should be viewed for what it is: a unique and powerful opportunity for women to shape the next generation, teaching both boys and girls that equality is not defined by sameness, but by value and respect.

Girls face immense barriers to equality around the world, despite repeated attempts and international initiatives to balance these inequities. The International Day of the Girl should focus on gender-based violence and injustice, on access to excellent medical care, quality education, and the ending of child marriage. To shift the focus to pregnancy and abortion access does nothing to enhance girls’ prospects, but only reinforces the message that women earn equality by becoming more like men.

Read the full article at MercatorNet.

There is a new film out that is celebrating abortion and is hitting theatres with much fanfare and acclamation. Interestingly, the critics that are praising this film are the same ones who called Bella, the story of a young woman who considers abortion but chooses adoption, “corny”, “simplistic”, “clichéd”.

So what does it mean to be empowered?

“We are empowered when we act from a place of strength and virtue. We are weakened and enslaved when we act out of fear and hatred.”

This is a summary of Matt Walsh’s blog post “5 reasons why abortion never empowers women”. Read his full blog post here.

In Monday’s Sudbury Star, Ruth Farquhar, an Ontario freelance writer, wrote that it was a sad day for women as New Brunswick’s only private abortion clinic announced that it would be closing its doors due to lack of government funding of private centres. She expressed her disbelief that the province required the opinion of two physicians prior to an abortion procedure being performed. And since abortion was obviously a “medically necessary” procedure, she declared that the province was “clearly, from a legal standpoint, in violation of the Canada Health Act.”

Unfortunately Farquhar and others who argue that clinic procedures must be government funded don’t quite have the law on their side. Neither do they seem to be in favour of rigorous medical standards to protect women’s health.

If women want to undergo any surgical procedure, it is cautious and in fact ‘pro-woman’ to require that they consult a physician, and more so to require the opinion of more than one. No medical procedure is without risk.

Last weekend I had to undergo a Dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure due to a complication following the birth of my son. Now a D&C and an abortion aren’t unrelated procedures. A D&C is a surgical procedure where the lining of the uterus or some contents found in the uterus are removed. The same procedure is used for early abortions. In that case, it is the developing child in the womb who is removed.
Even though I was a fairly non-urgent case for Ottawa’s busiest hospital, no fewer than three doctors were involved in the decisions surrounding my D&C. Then four other physicians attended my surgery. I thought it was overkill, but clearly those with medical expertise thought otherwise. In fact, they thought it medically necessary.

Given my experience of undergoing a fairly simple and straightforward D&C, is it that unreasonable that the New Brunswick government requires two medical opinions stating that an abortion is necessary prior to a citizen undergoing surgery?

Farquhar also claims that abortions are “medically necessary.” What she is referring to is a term that provinces and territories may assign to certain medical procedures under the Canada Health Act. If a province determines that a procedure is “medically necessary”, it must fund that procedure with tax dollars through its public health insurance plan. But what is “medically necessary”?

I’ve had the painful experience of reading through the Canada Health Act as well as consulting all available court decisions which address the question of “medical necessity.” The reality is that the Act is vague and no court in Canada has provided a clear list of criteria help provinces, or Canadian citizens for that matter, determine on a case by case basis whether or not a medical procedure should be classified as medically necessary. This isn’t some clear and established legal term or test.

Farquhar is brazen in claiming that the New Brunswick government is in clear violation of the Act. I can’t imagine any lawyer worth their salt making that kind of legal assessment. In fact, Health Canada even states that it’s up to each province to determine for itself which procedures are considered medically necessary.

Even the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada states that the determination of whether a procedure should be deemed “medically necessary” is “a matter of professional medical judgment, based on the patient’s particular circumstances and needs.” Heck, that almost sounds like New Brunswick’s policy – two physicians assessing each patient individually, on a case by case basis, in accordance with their professional judgment.

Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves “pro-choice.” Indeed, “choice” is the governing principle of their movement. “My body, my choice” is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?

Faye Sonier is a human rights lawyer practicing in Ottawa. She’s also a regular contributor to the ProWomanProLife.org project.