Who is Stephen Woodworth? As I previously mentioned, he is a conservative MP from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. He studied law at Wilfred Laurier University and in addition to working as a lawyer, he was a Catholic Schoolboard trustee in Kitchener from 1994-2003. It is no surprise that Woodworth calls himself "pro-life", and has participated in "pro-life" protests as well as calling for more discussion around the "rights of the unborn". Woodworth is a friend of Michel Lizotte, a male activist from Quebec who specializes in curing humans with an "undesired attraction towards the same sex" and has made public appearances with him, including anti-gay conferences (Lizotte's website-->http://tavietonchoix.org/). Due to an unexpected injury that required me to go to University Hospital for stitches, I was unable to listen to Woodworth's lecture myself. However, I know a few individuals who attended and they were kind enough to fill me in on what he talked about. He didn't say anything that was too out of the ordinary for an anti-choice male, but he did shock many with his ignorance on other things. He failed to acknowledge the existance of first nations of people in Canada and the genocide committed against them in founding this country, and stated that it was built on French and English values (when saying this, does he not imply that Canada was founded on "white" values?). He also apparently made reference to an "oriental" proverb...in case you're not aware, the term "oriental" is incredibly racist and outdated, as it is a reflection of the imperialist/colonial attitude against people in Eastern parts of the world such as Asia. To some, it is seen as the Asian equivalient of the n-word (I'm uncomfortable with typing it out completely). So, not only is Stephen Woodworth anti-choice, but he hangs out with homophobes and goes to homophobe conferences, doesn't acknowledge his white male privilege and uses racist terminology. As for him possibly not meaning to be racist or not being aware of why his language is harmful...as a politician, it is his job to know these things. He is the only one to blame for his ignorance.

 

          So, Stephen Woodworth wanted to bring up the 'personhood' discussion again. He wanted to open up the abortion debate which would have possibly re-criminalized it. There are many problems with the idea of not having access to safe, legal abortions and I'll elaborate on a few. First and foremost, women should not need permission to decide for themselves whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. It is her body...it is not yours, it is not her partner's, it is not "god's". It does not belong to the state, the community, any religion or ideology...and guess what? It does not belong to a bundle of cells that lack consciousness and biological necessities for survival. A fetus is not a person, and should not be given personhood status. There is a claim that Woodworth's lecture was simply about the idea of "personhood" and had nothing to do with abortion...I don't know how anyone using their brain can say that, to be honest, obviously there is a connection between abortion rights and the discussion around what it means to be human, especially coming from someone who identifies as "pro-life". Yes, fetuses are biologically human in the sense that they are made of human cells, tissue and DNA...but they are not living, breathing, conscious persons. To grant a fetus personhood is essentially taking away personhood from the woman carrying it, the woman who happens to be a fully developed living, breathing, conscious person. How can anyone justify taking away someone's decision making rights, especially when it comes to their own body? And would we ever see something like this happen to men? Probably not.

        Secondly, the individualistic capitalist society we live in that is currently pushing an austerity agenda of cuts to social services and the threat of privatization of our public sector, which includes health care among other things, means that the cost of living is going to go way up. Unless you are, in occupy terms, part of the "1%" or at least close to it, you're likely to struggle at some point. Many people right now are living in poverty, either below the average income for adults or struggling to meet their basic needs altogether. If you can barely take care of yourself, how are you going to survive at all when all of a sudden you have another mouth to feed, cloath and provide shelter for? There are many children who are malnurished because their families are struggling and they don't know where their next meal is coming from. This more often than not results in brain underdevelopment and difficulty in school, making it even harder to function in the school system and as a result, dropping out of school altogether. This is often connected to mental illness, drug use in order to cope with the emotional instability associated with poverty and may increase crime rates. I'm NOT saying that women who don't have a high income shouldn't have children, I'm just saying that if a woman realizes that having a child is not good for her at the time, forcing her to go through with a pregnancy is not only going to be detrimental to her, as she must now change her lifestyle to accommodate the fetus growing inside of her (and when you're living in poverty, you don't have the flexibility to just change instantly), but it will also be detrimental to the child who might possibly suffer from day one. I hate the term "pro-life" because from my personal experience, most of the people I've met who consider themselves "pro-life" actually support cuts to social services as well as privatization. Woodworth himself is a conservative, and it is that political party that proposed the austerity agenda in the first place. Tell us, Mr.Woodworth, since you care so much about the unborn, are you going to personally make sure that these new children are given food, shelter, clothing, education, and everything necessary to have a good life? You talk about rights for the unborn, but what about after they're born? And if the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights considering you and your buddy Michel Lizotte attend anti-gay conferences together?

           Abortion is not pleasant. No one wants an abortion, but due to the inherent corruption and inequality of our system, the option needs to be there. Making them illegal will not stop them from happening, it will only mean that they are done unsafely and many women have, and will continue to die as a result. How do we prevent going back to the days of coat hanger abortions? Well, keeping the state off of women's bodies is a start. But I think it is a much bigger issue than that...we live in a society where women are shamed for being sexual and sex is considered an inappropriate subject overall. We are sexual beings whether we like it or not, and from the age that children are able to understand sex they need to be educated. They need to know what exactly is happening to their bodies when they begin puberty, and they need to understand that it is nothing to be ashamed of. If we can teach people to be comfortable with their sexuality as well as teach them the options available for protection, for their own safety and to maximize the pleasure they get out of sex, people will not be afraid to open up this very necessary dialogue with their parents, doctors, relatives, friends and communites. This, in addition to smashing our current system and creating a new one that truly does support ALL life, will put a stop to abortion.

       In the meantime, politicians need to stay away from the abortion topic altogether. This battle was won in the 80s. Now we need to focus on joining together to support one another in the austerity crisis, because just like every other struggle, women are going to be hit much harder than their male counterparts. This is a time when guilt and shame need to end more than ever. We need to give women's empowerment a whole new meaning. Our choices, our bodies, and our lives are at risk.