Women of ABpoli Hot Flashes - Roe the boat
This Week in AB
"(Notley) is trying to create controversy in Alberta where there is none." ~ Jason Kenney, May 3, 2022
As a woman who is somewhat familiar with both history and current affairs, I do not believe either "God-given rights" or "inherent human rights" exist. That is not to say they shouldn't exist, simply acknowledging they currently do not.
If "God-given" or "inherent human" rights did exist, every person would have always had the right to their own life, liberty, and security/pursuit of happiness - and it is simply not the case.
As such, I am highly aware of the fact that - as women, and BIPOC, and LGBTQ2S+ - our rights and privileges are entirely dependent upon the political will of those in power. Our rights and privileges have been legally granted to us and can just as easily be revoked by overt or covert action.
So, after the draft decision was leaked on the evening of May 2, 2022 that suggests the Supreme Court of the United States of America may be considering overturning Roe v. Wade, the ripple effects went well beyond their borders and those directly affected by this potential decision.
May 3, Rachel Notley, Leader of the Official Opposition, asked the Premier a direct question:
"Can the premier commit that the UCP will never act to reduce access to abortion in this province? Yes or No."
The only part of the premier's response that acknowledged the relevance to Albertans is the title of this segment.
Alberta's UCP has been running from this topic since its inception (literally, and more than once). Oddly enough, those actions created a sense of unease among some women in the province.
Only a few days after the last walk out, the UCP's inaugural AGM was held in Red Deer. At most of the AGMs I'd previously attended, there were often ways to show your support for something important going on; the final PC convention in 2017 had buttons and banners to support your choice for leader, for example.
In Red Deer those days, there were buttons and placards for board positions but there was also something else; small, circular stickers of varying colours that could be attached to conference ID badges. Eventually, I discovered these stickers were available from only one booth at the AGM: the Wilberforce Project.
What began in 1986 as a non-profit organization named "Alberta Pro-Life", was rebranded in 2012 as "The Wilberforce Project", and is now "Alberta's pro-life, political organization", which boasted the third-highest fundraising numbers in the province's first quarter political donations filing in 2022.
The Wilberforce Project, among other anti-women's healthcare advocates, also claimed victories after helping pro-birth* candidates win UCP nomination races prior to the 2019 election but they remained mum about which candidates those were.
(*I make this distinction because "pro-life" advocates don't cut funding for children with developmental or physical challenges, or access to health benefits, K-12 education, and post-secondary. Anyone who refuses to fund supports for children after they're born isn't pro-life, they're just pro-birth.)
In federal elections, we're seeing the same groups claim the same victories - some named, some not - and it's the lack of transparency that is most telling.
Anti-choice groups know their chances of electing a majority of anti-choice representatives into positions of power decrease if they're open about who those representatives are and why they're running.
That's why this "controversy" will continue to exist in Canada, and Alberta - whether our political leadership wants to admit it or not.
“This is why the personal views of those seeking political leadership and elected office matter.
It's why the views of their party's nominated candidates matter, too.
Those views build the agenda, including what's inside/excluded from the realm of possibility.”
Abortion is healthcare
“The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is abortion.
The treatment for a septic uterus is abortion.
The treatment for a miscarriage that your body won’t release is abortion.
If you can’t get those abortions, you die.
A comment on Bill 14, the Provincial Court (Sexual awareness training) Amendment Act, 2022
Bill 14 passed on March 30, 2022. The Bill was ostensibly meant to be complimentary to Bill C-3, passed May 2021, originally introduced as a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons by CPC MP Rona Ambrose as Bill C-337, The Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act.
While I recommend reading her comments in their entirety, a shorthand version is as follows:
"Bill 14 contains no purpose clause or preamble, so one must infer its objectives.
Bill 14 does not explain what should be included in “education in sexual assault law and social context issues” as Bill C-3 does.
Bill 14 does not make it clear who is responsible for developing or delivering this educational programming.
Nor does Bill 14 include Bill C-3’s important stipulation that those developing these programs should consult on the content and delivery of the education with survivors and the groups and organizations supporting them, including Indigenous community leaders (and presumably groups who can speak to other forms of systemic racism and systemic discrimination in the sexual assault context).
Lastly, Bill 14 does not include an obligation for whoever develops and delivers the sexual assault education programming to report on the contents of the education seminars or on how many judges attended, nor for any Minister to table such reports in the Legislature.
There is one aspect of Bill 14 that is stronger than Bill C-3 from an accountability standpoint; Bill 14 in its current form does require judicial applicants to actually complete the education before they are eligible for appointment, unless they are already on the eligibility list."
Jennifer Koshan, BSc, LLB, LLM, is a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary.
Jason Kenney's adventures in business didn't work out so well for Albertans
“Holy hell! Why isn’t everyone talking about this??? https://t.co/RVvs6ZOaNO”
Why does the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission own a numbered business in Delaware? Why is that company working through two other Delaware-based and two Alberta-based numbered companies?
According to a recent article by the Narwhal, it was "to allow Alberta to help finance the costs of building the U.S. portion of the pipeline"... but... wasn't that the point of the "public risk private umbrella" sham of "investing" $7.5 billion with TC Energy for the Keystone project in the first place?
The Alberta government has launched a challenge of Biden's revocation of Keystone's permit, seeking damages in the amount of $1.3 billion.
“'I was not prepared to put all of our eggs in the basket of the (Canadian)-owned pipeline,' Mr. Kenney told conservative blogger and podcaster Cory Morgan. Buying into Keystone instead, he said, 'was an essential hedge against that political risk'," the Globe and Mail reported in 2020.
That "political risk" is at least still being constructed.
Elections Alberta investigating UCP membership sales complaint (again)
On March 27, 2022, Vitor Marciano, political spokesperson for Brian Jean, and David Parker, President of Take Back Alberta, held a press briefing where they mentioned they had filed a complaint with Elections Alberta over bulk membership purchases.
You may recall that the UCP passed Bill 81, the Election Statutes Amendment Act, in December of 2021. The Bill had a number of controversies related to removing donation limits for nomination races, as well as allowing bulk membership purchases.
Alberta's former Minister of Justice, Kaycee Madu, at the time suggested it was already legal to purchase memberships for others. Elections Alberta disagreed.
Despite the former Justice Minister's rainbow and unicorn interpretation of what he would like the law to be, Elections Alberta has opened an investigation into the complaint; because it seems that even if Bill 81 made purchasing memberships for others legal, it wasn't actually law before the leadership review membership sales deadline on March 19.
Bill 81 did not receive Royal Assent until March 30, 2022.
Sad trombone.
UCP's rural economic development policies look more like mandated residency
@CarrieTait with a great read on Athabasca Uni’s future #ableg #abed https://t.co/HnXdZQQlXa”
Athabasca University received its inaugural Order in Council in June 1970. In 1975, it received approval in principle to pilot the alternative distance delivery program, and a formal mandate in 1978. AU's move to Athabasca was planned in 1980 and officially opened in 1984.
Unlike some of the diploma-by-mail farces out of the U.S., Athabasca University is a recognized, accredited institution for higher learning that is eligible for student financial assistance - just like the other accredited post-secondary institution in the province (and as of 2006, received accreditation in the U.S.).
The future of AU in Athabasca has been uncertain for a while. Back in 2015, when the PCs were decimated by the NDP, concerns about jobs in the small town were already high.
Those concerns have only increased since the pandemic has shown "the laptop class" is not restricted by geography.
Which brings to mind other policies Kenney's UCP has brought in; the "Alberta Advantage Immigration Program" which includes the rural renewal stream, and rural entrepreneur stream. Both programs offer fast-tracked residency permits for those who settle in rural Alberta.
More people create more need for goods and services and build local economies. Before infrastructure, services, or jobs exist, of course. What could possibly go wrong?
As head of one of the largest employers in the province, the Alberta Government, Kenney might want to look into remote work opportunities for jobs within his purview which would also help people to be able to live, and work, in rural communities.
Speaking of which, someone might want to get on top of incentivizing Alberta-based companies to keep as many of those remote jobs as possible in Alberta because "the laptop class" is going to change everything.
Canada and beyond
First CPC leadership debate an "embarrassment"
Leadership contender Scott Aitcheson's criticism of the first debate as an embarrassment (which, let's face it, was cringey AF watching Pierre Poilievre act like a four-year old and listening to him and Leslyn Lewis fight over who was more pro-Ottawa occupation) still came off a tad harsh.
He wasn't the only one to make it though. Conservative columnist Brian Lilley also managed to find the outrageous anti-mandate, pro-occupation rhetoric "puzzling" (and to top it off, "Leader in the interim" Candice Bergen declared in a video address the next morning that neither polling nor mainstream media would nudge them away from their "conservative principles").
Why do I say it was harsh? Because this is who the "kids in the Reform Party" and the Trumplestiltskins want it to be.
This is your reality.
After the debate, I sat down with Chris Brown from Cross-Border Podcast (it was last-minute, so forgive my reduction to giggles on more than one occasion) and I said, as I have many times, that the blue sign has given too many CPC members (especially those who've done little else in their careers) a false sense of security in their flight to the right.
If you watched the debate and wondered how it is that Pierre Poilievre managed to sound like Bernier Jr.; it's the blue sign - Poilievre can get elected even if Bernier cannot. Why is Leslyn Lewis the warrior against women's healthcare? Because she can get elected with a blue sign when few would have given her a second glance as the Christian Heritage Party candidate.
When Stephen Harper "united conservatives", he didn't do it to bring the Progressive Conservatives, Conservative Reform Alliance Party, and CHP together - he did it so ideologically aligned CRAP and CHP candidates could get elected under the guise of still being a mainstream conservative party (oh, hey Alberta).
Is it an embarrassment? Sometimes, sure - but that's what they want it to be - and to them, that means they're still moving in the right direction.
Final thoughts
“We are not the same women you controlled 50 years ago.
cover photo courtesy of @rosalita356