Gettin the Wimmenz vote!

Yeee haw!

Approx 53% of the population of Canada, is made up of women.

An important voting block? One would think.

Steve's numbers have been falling recently. Many pundits think it is simply a temporary blip in the rise to stardom of Harper the Master strategist......I always hear John Lovitz's voice when anyone calls him that....

But it begins to look like a "structural" deficit after a month of dropping polls. 

The really galling part is that, despite the way the Harper Conservatives have been treating 53% of the population (minus the .254424% of self loathers who call themselves "REAL wimmin") for the past 4 years, Mister Harper and his anti women MP's have decided that they can make us think they are suddenly all about maternal health. 

A couple years ago the Conservatives tried to sneak in a couple "private members bills" that despite all the nay saying, were all set to undermine access for women, and to backdoor their way into what has become a woman's right to make choices of bodily autonomy for ourselves.

First there was Ken Epp's bill: C- 484. The language around it was supposedly to give longer sentences to those who harmed a fetus when harming a pregnant woman. Even though Judges have always had the ability to do just that.  The title they gave it was pretty similar to the US version, put in by Bush..."Unborn Victims of Crime Act". Like the US bill, women were just secondary thoughts, and not really protected in any way by it. If protecting women was actually the real goal, it would make more sense to go after domestic violence, and prevent it. No no......This stuff just made it easier to do this:

In Utah, prosecutors publicly declared that their state’s version of the law provided the basis for arresting a woman who decided to wait to have a Caesarean section. They argued that she could be prosecuted for murder, because by exercising her right of informed medical decision-making, they claimed she caused one of her twins to be stillborn.

According to the Quebec federation of medical scientists, an 8000 member body:

The bill, according to its wording, would make "it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother."

The bill also proposes a minimum prison term of 10 years.

Barrette expressed concern that were the bill to become law, anti-abortion
groups would quickly take advantage of it to take a case to the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal again.

"This bill is the first step to giving rights to the fetus and those groups are very happy about that."

It also had a get out of jail free clause for abusive spouses......Now that is some kind of woman protectin' bill eh?

Interesting to note is how the Bill will protect perpetrators of domestic abuse to some degree by giving them an out:

Reduced offence

 (2) An offence that would otherwise be an offence under paragraph (1)(a) may be reduced to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation within the meaning of section 232.

So if a woman provokes the man and he beats her, causing a miscarriage, his sentenced could be reduced, because, you know, she provoked him. Epp is also very dishonest in presenting statistics to support his claim that most women and Canadians agree with his Bill. Again, the truth and trickery is revealed in the wording. Epp uses statistics to show....

We know they want abortion banned. For all reasons, not just after the "magic" 24 weeks.  And we know that this kind of stuff is going to be deadly to women.  We know that the laws were changed because it was deadly here in Canada.

Then there was this one, the brainchild of Pastor Vellacott....C-537. A moral conscience bill as it is called....

Basically, it identified a fetus as a human as soon as the egg and the sperm met up. Then it went on to allow any health professional, well, ANY professional to refuse to do their jobs if they had any issue with the treatment, or the reason for the treatment ETC ETC. An example would be.....A pharmacist refusing to fill out a prescription for birth control pills.....An Ambulance attendent refusing to transport a woman to a hospital if they think she may have an abortion....Or even someone refusing medical services to someone who is gay. Now, I know that some reading this may be saying....Oh cmon.......They would not allow that to happen? 

Well, as usual we have the examples set by the US to refer to. 

Currently, Manion is representing an Illinois emergency medical technician who was fired for refusing to drive a woman to an abortion clinic.

According to Manion, the technician, Stephanie Adamson, said her Christian beliefs prevented her from transporting the woman, who had abdominal pain, for an elective abortion. She is suing the ambulance company, Superior Ambulance Co. of Elmhurst, Ill., claiming religious discrimination. Adamson v. Superior Ambulance Service, No. 04 C 3247
(N.D. Ill.).

Manion argues that the elective abortion was not an emergency situation.

In the US there are many many pharmacies that simply do not stock the morning after pills, or any contraception. Or, they will even go as far as to not fill out antibiotic RX's, if they come from a woman's clinic. 

No one is making any of this stuff up. It is happening right now in the US. There is a whole bunch of religious right pharmacists who do not even carry condoms. They figure that every sperm is scared or some such nonsense.

Pastor Vellacott has been known to get up on his bully pulpit and tell baldfaced lies. He uses discredited studies, and fake propaganda. (With the help of that bastion of truthiness, the Glib and stale. Jeebus even I know how ro do better research than that. SHAME on you G&M...)  That's Pastor MP Vellacott. BTW.  So considering Pastor Vellacott's cozy relationships with the Right wing religious types in the US, we know this was just another backdoor to incrementally allow healthcare to become dependent on those who may or may not do their jobs that day depending on who they like, or not. This could even be used to deny services for Ideological differences of opinion, it was that open ended.  It could kill people even by delaying care. 

The Harper Conservatives who are overwhelmingly anti choice, even though the majority of Canada isn't, have been trying to sneak this kind of ideological claptrap in for 4 years now. They are STILL trying.

So back to Harper's little play to the women voters with his false concern for maternal health? 

BWHAHAHAHAHHA!

Let us make sure that these little tidbits don't get swept under the rug.  Oh no, let us open up the dialogue and ensure that everyone realizes what has really been going on.....Eh?

Oh. And Iggy? Your Liberal MP's were of little help in many instances. Abstentions and all that stuff? We have not forgotten that either. Keep in mind that we are also watching you. Your words and actions will be measured, and should you be found wanting???
Best not to think about that......Better to think about how you can support the women of Canada, and the already born children's best interests...

Now, about that Universal Childcare deal.....That would be a good place to start too. Single mothers and all families need help NOW.