Canadian Parliament to face the "personhood" debate

Sharable ad from the "Not Yet Born" blog,
linked from Stephen Woodworth's official site.

If there's one issue Canada's majority Conservative government would rather not talk about, it's abortion. Not covered by any specific legislation since 1988, the deeply divisive medical procedure is something many Canadians, regardless of their personal beliefs, just don't feel comfortable talking about in public.

That may soon change, however, as Kitchener's Conservative MP, backbencher Stephen Woodworth, has convinced his party to let him have an hour of Parliament's time to discuss Motion 312, his request that "a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth."

The Honourable Member has positioned himself as the Canadian champion of this cause, similar to the American anti-abortion Personhood movement.

In his own words:

“Canada’s 400 year old definition of human being says children are not human beings until the moment of complete birth”, he said.  “I’ve concluded that modern medical science will inform us that children are in reality human beings at some point before the moment of complete birth.  Canadians need to know there’s no human rights for children before complete birth.
...
A respectful dialogue to update a 400 year old definition of human being with the aid of twenty-first century information will benefit everyone. Whatever view one has about other issues, does it make medical sense in the twenty-first century to say that a child is not a human being until the moment of complete birth?  Members of Parliament have a duty not to accept any law that says some human beings are not human.”

The complication, of course, comes when we try to determine what makes a developing human a "person".

In the United States, the debate is a religious one:

"Personhood is a movement working to respect the God-given right to life by recognizing all human beings as persons who are 'created in the image of God' from the beginning of their biological development, without exceptions."

 This has resulted in attempts to overthrow the legality of abortion in some states, such as Mississippi (where the failed "personhood amendment"would have given full legal rights to a fertilized egg) and Ohio (where the "heartbeat bill" pending debate would ban abortions at the first recordable sign of cardiovascular activity around 9+ weeks).

Mr. Woodworth is proposing a "scientific" approach to determining what makes  human a "person" under the law. But such definitions will by their very nature be philosophical, since the definition must be clarified to be tested: does a heartbeat make us fully human? Reaction to outside stimulus? Observable brain activity? The ability to survive outside the womb? Or simply having been fertilized, and therefore having become genetically distinct from the mother?

This is a classic "slippery slope", an it slides in two opposite directions. On one end is the total ban on abortion from the moment of conception. On the other is the ability to terminally abort a healthy full-term baby. (Nobody really wants the latter, but it's what Mr. Woodworth is implying as the problem.)

In the end, it will come to the same argument about whose rights triumph: a self-aware pregnant woman's control over her own body versus the state's power to compel her to carry the developing human inside her to term. And it will be ugly.

Pink Stink: Susan G. Komen for the Cure gets political

Update: Jezebel reports (Feb 3) that Komen has reinstated funding to Planned Parenthood.

 Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the most powerful brand in the world involved in fundraising for breast cancer prevention and research, has had its share of problems.

There was "Buckets for The Cure" — remember that?

Putting their brand, indiscriminately, on any retail item (regardless of whether it was healthy or not) gave rise to the pinkwashing backlash. Not only was the appropriateness of the various cobrandings questioned by many, but also the efficacy of the fundraising and their aggressive trademark practices.

The last straw, for me, was when they launched their own line of perfume which Breast Cancer Action claimed contains cancer-causing compounds.

Increasingly, this organization seems to operate like any big brand, with a ruthless desire to grow its influence, generate revenue, and eliminate competition. Is that really what cause marketing is supposed to be about?

Their response:

"Research doesn’t come cheap. We need to raise money, and we’re not apologetic about it,” [spokesperson Leslie] Aun said. Komen, founded in 1982, has contributed $685 million to breast cancer research and $1.3 billion to community programs that help with mammograms, transportation and other needs, Aun said. Komen would love not to have to do marketing, but that simply is not realistic, she said. 

“We don’t think there’s enough pink. We’re able to make those investments in research because of programs like that.”

But much of Komen's credibility as a serious champion of women's health collapsed this week when it was learned that they decided to stop funding breast screening for low-income women through Planned Parenthood.

The politics are ugly. The anti-abortion lobby in the United States has been trying to shut down planned parenthood for the past couple of years, convincing governments to defund its health operations because they include the provision of abortions (in addition to birth control and many other community health services).

According to the Washington Post, two women can be credited with Komen going political and joining the ranks of the American pro-life movement. Komen's Vice President for Policy for the past year, Karen Handel, is a politician who made a run at the Governorship of Georgia on an anti-abortion ticket. And then there's Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest, who is responsible for Planned Parenthood being investigated by the Energy and Commerce Committee — giving Komen the excuse to defund.

Oh, and what's this?

"Immediately after hearing the news of the Komen Foundation’s decision to withdraw its funding from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer survivor Dr. Charmaine Yoest registered 'Team Life' and pledged to rejoin the Global Race for the Cure in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2012. 

'The Komen Foundation’s decision to disassociate itself from the scandal-ridden abortion provider should be applauded and encouraged by pro-life women across the country,' said Dr. Yoest."

This decision by Komen to firmly entrench itself in the politics of reproductive choice will be a fateful one. It will certainly lead to more support by those who side with the decision. But what about the millions of "mainstream" supporters — including many women's health groups — who were happily buying pink and doing fundraising as an apolitical feel-good move? Do they really want to have to choose sides?

The backlash has already begun.

There is an interesting result of all the media frenzy, though. Gothamist reports that through online networking alone, Planned Parenthood was able to raise $650,000 (the number keeps going up) in private donations in just 24 hours. Last year, Komen's funding was $680,000.

With government funding for not-for-profits on the decline anyway, Planned Parenthood may want to look to social media fundraising as the way of the future.

UPDATE: Mashable reports that Komen has also pissed off the hacker community:

Ouch.

Christmas toys weigh in on the abortion debate

via AdFreak

Thanks, Niagara Region Right to Life. Because what a complex scientific and ethical debate about the nature of humanity and reproductive rights really needs... is more crying nutcrackers.