joyce arthur

Union Sisters Talk Reproductive Rights

Joyce Arthur, Jackie Larkin and Judy Darcy

Joyce Arthur, Jackie Larkin and Judy Darcy

by Jarrah Hodge

In the late 70′s and 80′s feminists involved in BC’s labour movement launched “Union Sisters”, regular gatherings of union women who would share a meal, listen to a speaker, and organize on important issues.

This fall a handful of union women decided to re-launch these gatherings. Using only emails, Facebook, and social media they put the word out and attracted about fifty women to the first meeting in September, which featured Dr. Marjorie Griffin-Cohen speaking on the negative impacts of BC Liberal policy on women in BC.

I’m pleased I was able to attend the second “Union Sisters” evening in New Westminster earlier this week. The theme of the night was: “The Current Challenges to our Reproductive Rights” and included an oral history on the 1970s Abortion Caravan, as well as a presentation by Joyce Arthur, Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Addressing the current situation, Arthur put the lie to Harper’s claim that he doesn’t want to “re-open the abortion debate”, noting right off the bat by limiting funding to organizations that provide abortion and contraception in developing countries for the first time in decades, that’s exactly what the Harper government did.

Arthur also touched on the defeat of the anti-choice M-312 in Parliament this fall:

“It was quite a strong defeat but nobody was really happy about it… it was disturbing because 1/3 of the cabinet voted in favour of it, including Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose.”

Arthur identified fighting anti-choice advertisements through complaints to Advertising Standards Canada as one area in which the ARCC and its feminist allies have had particular success.

“They’re usually demeaning to women in some way,” Arthur said of the ads. Read more

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism 1 Comment

M-312 Goes Down!

Sasha Askarian and Thea Jardine at M-312 Rally

Radical Handmaids rally in Vancouver Tuesday

by Jarrah Hodge

As hoped and predicted, Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s anti-choice Motion-312 went down in flames in its final vote yesterday, losing 91 to 203. I think most of us who worked on this issue are happy but would’ve preferred an even stronger split. To see how everyone voted, alphabetical by last name, click here.

The fact that several front-bench Conservatives voted in favour of the motion was most disconcerting. In addition, to Jason Kenney, who had announced earlier this week he was voting in favour, seven other cabinet ministers and two ministers of state voted yes, including Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose.

Minister Ambrose’s move has led to calls for her to resign or be booted from cabinet. In a press release (pdf), Abortion Rights Coalition Executive Director Joyce Arthur said:

“Not only did Ambrose openly defy her Prime Minister’s instruction to his Cabinet to vote against the motion, she threw women under the bus,” said Joyce Arthur, Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). “Her job is to advance the rights and interests of women, so her Yes vote on the motion was a shocking failure and a slap in the face to the women of Canada. She’s proven herself to be unfit for the job and must resign immediately.”

A Facebook page “Rona Ambrose Must Go” has been set up and I’m expecting online petitions to be started soon, so will keep you posted. In addition, four Liberal MPs supported M-312 in the final vote.

The Bloc, NDP, and Green caucuses were united against it though a couple of MPs missed the vote due to other important business. I hope folks take time to thank the MPs who voted against M-312, especially those who also spoke up in the press and social media and who lobbied their colleagues on the importance of protecting women’s constitutional rights.

Overall it was a hard-fought victory and it’s not likely to be the last time we see something like this come forward. Keep those Radical Handmaids hats on hand, folks, because it’s still at least a year until the next federal election and Stephen Harper clearly isn’t trying that hard to keep the abortion debate closed.

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, Politics 2 Comments

The Last Weeks of Woodworth: What You Can Do

by Jarrah Hodge

While most of us were enjoying sunny weather, maybe hitting up the beach or lounging on patios if we were lucky, MP Stephen Woodworth was lobbying hard for his Motion 312, which would require a special Parliamentary committee to review the definition of “human being” in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada to determine if it should be extended to include fetuses.

Although Woodworth has gone to great lengths to try to persuade moderates and progressives that his motion is about having a scientific debate, not primarily about restricting abortion rights, it’s clear he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth (that’s the nicest way I can think of to put it).

Dammit Janet received and published a copy of a letter Woodworth is distributing to his colleagues begging them to support M-312, in which he states:

I am enclosing a copy of Subsection 223(1), the law which is the sole focus of Motion 312. You will see that Subsection 223(1) is a 400 year old law which decrees the dehumanization and exclusion of an entire class of people we know to be human beings, namely, children before the moment of complete birth.

This is a direct assault upon the principle of universal human rights, which insists that every human being has an inherent worth and dignity which the state must recognize rather than merely a value assigned by others based on the utility or inconvenience of that human being.

And:

Laws like Subsection 223(1), which decree the dehumanization and exclusion of an entire class of people, deny the principle of universal human rights. That principle, which asserts that every human being possesses equal and inherent worth and dignity is the bedrock upon which all of other our laws rest.

Dude, we’re not stupid. Fern Hill at Dammit Janet is spot-on when she states: “The clear intent of this charade from its inception has been to close the abortion debate — without, miraculously, opening it — by setting the scene for a law limiting abortion to the period ending at mid-second trimester.”

Woodworth will be holding a press conference tomorrow, the final hour of debate on M-312 will come on Friday the 21, and then the final vote will be September 26.

The plus side is that it’s almost over and we can all take a little breather before the next Conservative backbencher comes up with some similar private member’s motion or bill.

The other positive is that there’s still time to take action, which as Abortion Rights Coalition Executive Director Joyce Arthur points out at Rabble, is necessary even if we think the motion’s passing is a long shot: Read more

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, Politics 2 Comments

Don’t Be Fooled by Fake Clinics

This column by Joyce Arthur was originally posted at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada website. Cross-posted with permission from the author. Joyce Arthur is Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada: www.arcc-cdac.ca

If you purchased a bottle of wine at your local government liquor store in Kamloops BC during the holiday season last year, you may have noticed a tin on the counter labelled “Help a Woman in Crisis.” Perhaps you even dropped a few coins in it. What you may not have noticed is the name of the recipient on that tin—the Pregnancy Care Centre of Kamloops. Unfortunately, this agency is one that many people would be loathe to support if they knew what it really represented.

On its website and brochure, the Pregnancy Care Centre of Kamloops claims to help women with unplanned pregnancies by giving them practical support and “non-judgmental care” as well as “education on all pregnancy options, and “referrals for health, housing and community support,” among other laudable-sounding services.

But this carefully cultivated public persona deliberately hides the true nature and purpose of the centre. Unsuspecting donors would never guess that the centre is actually an anti-abortion Christian ministry whose main goal is to dissuade women from having abortions—and then convert them if possible.

About 150 of these fake clinics—so-called “crisis pregnancy centres”—exist across Canada. Many are affiliates of the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS), an umbrella group that “encourages and equips” these centres. One of the primary tools that CAPSS provides to its affiliates for their work is an “Evangelism Manual.”

As an affiliate of CAPSS, the Kamloops Pregnancy Care Centre must maintain “faithful adherence” to several statements and codes, none of which are available to the public (we obtained a copy of them several years ago): Read more

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism Leave a comment

Why Abortion Care Needs to be Fully Funded

This column by Joyce Arthur was originally posted at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada website. Cross-posted with permission from the author. A more expansive article with stats can be found here.

Anti-choice activists in Canada argue that abortion should be defunded and that women should pay out-of-pocket for abortion care. But that is a right-wing ideological position that ignores evidence and human rights. Defunding abortion would be unconstitutional, discriminatory, and harmful to women. The following points explain why. (Each point is expanded upon here with detailed arguments, evidence and citations.)

1. Women’s lives and health are at stake. Funding abortion is necessary to guarantee women’s right to life and security of the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The main reason the Supreme Court threw out the old abortion law in 1988 was because it arbitrarily increased the risk to women’s health and lives through unnecessary delays and obstructed access. Not funding abortion would have the same effect and the same constitutional problems as the old abortion law, and would put politics and ideology ahead of women’s lives and health.

2. Women’s liberty and conscience rights under the Charter require abortion to be funded. The government must not interfere with the deeply personal decision to bear a child or not, which is integral to women’s autonomy and privacy. Otherwise, the government would be co-opting women’s right to choose by funding childbirth but not abortion, and paternalizing women with an official stance of moral disapproval of abortion.

3. Since only women need abortions, funding abortion is necessary to ensure women’s legal right to be free from discrimination. Restrictive policies and laws that apply to only one gender violate human rights codes that provide protection on the basis of sex. Further, women’s equality rights under the Charter cannot be realized without access to safe, legal, fully funded abortion—otherwise, women would be subordinated to their childbearing role in a way that men are not.

4. Abortion funding is crucial to ensure fairness and equity, without discrimination on the basis of income. We must not compel low-income women and other disadvantaged women to continue an unwanted pregnancy due to lack of funding, or to delay care while they try to raise money. Any delay in abortion care raises the medical risks, especially when it extends into the second trimester. Delays are also a punitive burden that unnecessarily prolong stress and discomfort for women. Best medical practice should ensure that abortion takes place as early as possible in pregnancy, and this requires full funding.

5. Funding abortion is very cost-effective while unwanted pregnancies are costly. The medical costs of childbirth are at least three times higher than the medical costs of abortion, and the social costs of forced motherhood and unwanted children are prohibitive. Further, the overall cost of abortion care to the taxpayer is a pittance relative to healthcare costs as a whole.

6. Funding abortion serves to integrate abortion care into the healthcare system in general, and ensure the comprehensiveness of reproductive healthcare programs, which is essential. If abortions were not funded, it would ghettoize abortion care, as well as the women who need it and the healthcare professionals who deliver it. This would likely increase stigma, lead to other restrictions, further marginalize abortion care over time, and increase anti-choice harassment and violence. All of this occurred in the United States after abortion was defunded for poor women by the 1973 Hyde Amendment.

7. Funding abortion is the right thing to do, despite some peoples’ belief that abortion takes a human life. There is no social consensus on the moral status of the fetus, and our laws do not bestow legal personhood until birth. Regardless, most Canadians believe that the woman’s rights are paramount in all or most circumstances, because she is the one taking on the health risks of pregnancy, bearing a child is a major decision with significant lifelong consequences, and a woman should be able to direct her own life and pursue her own aspirations apart from motherhood.

8. Legal abortion is very safe for women, and generally beneficial. The alleged medical and psychological “dangers” of abortion to women as described by anti-choice activists are either totally false or grossly overstated. Such arguments cannot support the defunding of abortion anyway, since pregnancy and childbirth are actually far more medically risky, and many other funded medical treatments carry substantial risk. Access to legal, safe, fully funded abortion is also beneficial for women and families because it allows them to continue with their lives and plan wanted children later when they are ready to care for them.

9. Opinion polls showing that a majority of voters do not want to pay for abortion are misleading and not pertinent. Voter opinion on this issue has been shaped by anti-choice misinformation, as well as lingering prejudice about women who have abortions. Regardless, voters have no authority to dictate what medical treatments to fund, as this is the role of provinces and medical groups. Women’s basic rights and freedoms must not be subject to a majority vote.

10. Abortion must be funded because it is not an elective procedure, any more than childbirth is. Pregnancy outcomes are inescapable, meaning that a pregnant woman cannot simply cancel the outcome—once she is pregnant, she must decide to either give birth or have an abortion. To protect her health and rights, both outcomes need to be recognized as medically necessary and fully funded, on an equal basis.

11. Anti-choice activists often say that “pregnancy is not a disease” and therefore abortion should not be funded. But the same arguments can be made for childbirth, since there are no medical reasons for a woman to get pregnant and have a baby. More importantly, health is much more than the absence of disease – it’s about achieving a state of overall health and wellness. Women with unwanted pregnancies are not in a healthy place, so their abortion care should be funded.

-Joyce Arthur

photo credit: alexandralee

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, Politics 1 Comment