Even by Jean Chrétien standards, the attack on Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett was one legendary temper tantrum.

According to another Liberal present at the caucus meeting where the Prime Minister lambasted Bennett over her criticisms about the shrinking number of women in cabinet, “he was a hundred times angrier than I have ever seen him before. Usually when he is angry, he is cold; this was absolutely extraordinary. He went on and on and on; it seemed like an eternity. Every woman in the room felt personally devastated and every man was taken aback.”

Bennett had struck a particularly sensitive nerve of the increasingly defensive Prime Minister. Despite the PM’s litany of female Senate and court appointments, the MP spoke an obvious truth that few in the inner circles of government are willing to acknowledge: not only are women vastly under-represented in politics, but their numbers aren’t growing.

After increasing dramatically from 9.9 per cent in 1984 and 13.2 per cent in 1988, the proportion of women in the House has stalled at twenty per cent, in 1997 and 2000. Compare that to European parliaments, which now have between twenty-five per cent and forty-five per cent women.

These figures are alarming as is the under-representation of aboriginal people and visible minorities in the House. Public office doesn’t require specialized training (if you recall, not too long ago in Ontario a high-school dropout was education minister) or even, in principle, powerful connections and huge sums of money. It should be one of the most accessible fields in any democracy. So why does it continue to remain so white male dominated?

Part of the problem is that the small gains that have been made can lull people on both sides into believing the problem has been solved. Pointing to a token number of women he’s put in power, the Prime Minister argues that the Liberal party is a great friend to females and some will believe him.

But a Beverly McLachlin nor an Adrienne Clarkson, as significant as they may be, does not equality make. Nor does tokenism equal progress. If a marginalized group can’t keep building on its gains and moving forward, if it is stalled in its efforts, as Bennett so powerfully pointed out, it might as well be moving backwards.

Speaking of moving backwards, twenty-nine years after the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, women’s reproductive choice in the United States is again under attack with the recent announcement of a change to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that would make a developing fetus eligible for government-funded health insurance for low-income children.

Though it was spun by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson as a boon to low-income pregnant women, it was an utterly unnecessary amendment. CHIP already allows states to get waivers to use federal subsidies to care for pregnant women. Instead, simply put, it was a stealth attack on reproductive choice.

And talk about cheap political manoeuvring. President George W. Bush has openly declared his pro-life sentiments and has been heavily supported by America’s powerful religious right. The amendment to CHIP declares the fetus a child and defines childhood as beginning at conception. It’s a strategy that has been applauded by the anti-abortion movement, who hope to further their cause by obtaining legal status for fetuses as people deserving of rights.

After thirty years of legal access to safe abortions, pro-choice activists in the U.S. are reeling with the news. Not only does the amendment exploit pregnant women for Bush’s political gains, but it implies that women aren’t as deserving of health care as fetuses.

And if pro-life activists are successful in their attempts to secure legal protections for fetuses, it could make for some ugly conflicts. What if, for instance, a pregnant woman required a life-saving medical treatment that necessitated terminating her pregnancy? Who decides which legally protected life is more valuable?

The CHIP budget, which is seventy per cent publicly funded, actually has a surplus of funds from the past few years. Which begs the question: Why isn’t health-care money for poor kids getting spent?

Of the forty million Americans without health insurance, eleven million are children. Instead of providing for these already born children, the Bush administration has reallocated the money to unborn ones. What’s next? Taking away federal housing subsidies from poor families and giving them to stem cells?