Author
|
Topic: C-484... part 4 or 5?
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 28 April 2008 12:09 PM
That was inserted to avoid the following definition of human being in Criminal Code:223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed. Since the definition excludes a fetus from being a human being, the drafters of Bill C-484 wanted to make it clear that it would not be nullified by section 223, above.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219
|
posted 02 May 2008 08:23 AM
Hi LagattaApologies, but all I know are the Facebook links. I'm an admin on the largest Oppose C-484 group, we've got 4000 members on it. My impression is that the protests were started by *regular Canadians*. Since they're not affiliated with any Orgs etc that have an independent web presence they worked with what they knew: Facebook. I do have my own website but find it MUCH easier to just create an event on Facebook than make a whole new webpage. I'm pretty sucky at it, actually. Maybe a good solution would be for me to transcribe all the pertinents from facebook and make Babble a hub? Any other ideas? I want this to ba as accessible as possible!
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219
|
posted 02 May 2008 05:59 PM
k... I posted a new topic on Feminism with protest info for Edmonton, Ottawa and Toronto.Joyce is on my Facebook group. I posted info to her *comments* section. Dunno if she's noticed that or or not.... my comment has to get approved before it shows up. I've browsed Birth Pangs but am unfamiliar with the BreadnRoses site... I sent an email to the webmaster. I know alotta folks poo poo Facebook, but sheesh. I was an admin on the anti Bill C-10 group until a few weeks ago - we had 37,000 members! I like to go where the people are - rather than try and entice 'em to come to me.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219
|
posted 07 May 2008 12:32 PM
No worries Joyce - you're probably run ragged by now! Here's the info for tomorrow's counter-protest in Ottawa during the annual *March for Life* ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀
Ottawa - Thursday May 8th Join fellow pro-choicers at the Human Rights Monument. 1:15pm to 2:15pm. STAND OUT of the crowd. STAND UP for choice! http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=16704863975 ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀
Come to the Human Rights Monument and be a positive, peaceful yet VISIBLE presence as the annual "March for Life" schlepps through downtown Ottawa. We're not going to engage the march or even approach the pro-lifers. We just wanna be there to witness and provide a beautiful counterpoint to their point of view. Bring signs, banners & lots of bright, vibrant colour: Pour on the pink and purple! Wear feather boas & flowers in your hair! Dab glitter on your cheeks and don your fairy wings! STAND OUT of the crowd! STAND UP for choice :-D Bring friends, lovers, partners and colleagues, children and neighbours.
Invite every pro-choice person you know.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219
|
posted 21 May 2008 07:24 AM
Isn't this *interesting*...??Ken Epp's website has been down since a pro-C484 Facebook group announced the following: "ON-LINE POLL @ Ken Epp's Site: Cast your vote today by going to Ken's site and voting in favour of C-484 on his poll. The anti-484 groups have been spamming it so cast your vote today! http://www.kenepp.com" At home I get a "forbidden" message - at the office it says "The website declined to show this webpage". Theories anyone?
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 21 May 2008 10:52 AM
Apparently, democracy is a brand that's owned by the Conservatives, like MP Epp, and if you don't purchase the right brand then you ain't getting any access to the MP's website. I wonder if e mails are bounced as well? Phone calls? That's government as their private fiefdom. And you thought Lord Black was insufferable. Restore feudalism! Vote Conservative! [ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 21 May 2008 12:03 PM
You can't even reach his web site from the MP government site, as you get the message "no forwarding link to this site here" or close to that. Though you can reach every other CPC MP through there.But I back doored it in through the CPC web site and voted no to the poll question. Try this link: http://kenepp.com/default.asp
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 21 May 2008 01:40 PM
BILL C-484 ON TRIAL - A PEOPLE'S HEARING ON THE PROPOSED "FETAL HOMICIDE BILL"DATE: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 7-9 p.m. PLACE: Ryerson University Student Centre, 55 Gould Street, Room SCC115 INFO: [email protected], 416-969-8463 Stop the attack on abortion rights. My Mind, My Body, My Choice. Speakers: Jessica Yee, Canadians for Choice Shelley Gavigan, Osgoode Hall Law Professor Rhonda Roffey, Women's Habitat Ayesha Adami, Immigrant Women's Health Centre Sponsored by the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 21 May 2008 09:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: The Epp site is running now, open to all after only being open to those able to login, with those supporting the Bill at 88% approval. Fuckers!
He must have learned from the Mexican election scam of 1988: 1) The vote tallying computers crash with the opposition in the lead. 2) The computers come back to life and -- surprise surprise -- the government is in the lead by a wide margin,
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 26 May 2008 12:34 PM
Dr Barrette, President of the FMSQ, in a news report today confirmed what we all have been saying: quote: Cependant, il ajoute avoir aussi reçu confirmation de gens du Parti conservateur dans l'ouest canadien que l'objectif du projet de loi C-484 était bien d'établir une reconnaissance des droits du foetus dans le but d'interdire l'avortement.
Translated: quote: However, he [Dr Barrette, President of the FMSQ] adds that he received confirmation from people from the Conservative Party from Western Canada that the objective of Bill C-484 was clearly to recognize rights of the fetus with the goal to ban abortion.
h/t joyce at BnR La FMSQ obtient confirmation que la Loi C-484 vise à interdire l'avortement
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 05 June 2008 06:20 PM
It was reported tonight on Radio-Canada radio news that Stéphane Dion has officially committed to defeating C-484. I haven't located the original source, but here is something from the "Impolitical Blog": quote:
About time: Stephane Dion vowed Thursday that Liberals will block passage of a Tory bill that some fear might re-open the dormant abortion debate. "I want to give my word to all the women of Canada that the Liberal Party of Canada is against to reopen woman's right to decide as a debate," the Liberal leader pledged. ... Dion indicated that he shares the view that the bill would reopen the abortion debate and vowed: "We will not allow that to happen."
Interesting that women's rights are at the mercy of these men's whims.ETA: Indeed, after reading the actual CanadianPress story here, it is clear thaT Dion is still NOT promising to whip a vote and still keeping the door open to arguing that C-484 is NOT REALLY about a "woman's right to decide". But at least he has been put on notice that there will be hell to pay if he does. [ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 10 June 2008 09:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: That was inserted to avoid the following definition of human being in Criminal Code:223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed. Since the definition excludes a fetus from being a human being, the drafters of Bill C-484 wanted to make it clear that it would not be nullified by section 223, above.
So technically under this definition, a woman could legally request an abortion when going into labour? What about C-sections? If a doctor told you you needed a c-section, could you say you wanted an abortion instead.
I realize that not many doctors would do this (access is the topic of many other threads), but I am wondering about the technical legality. I also realize that very few women would want this, as most women themselves refer to their fetus as baby or child long before it has exited the womb - whether naturally, via inducement or via c-section. Does anyone know anymore regarding the legality of the examples above?
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
werestillhere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15160
|
posted 10 July 2008 07:45 PM
Thanks to pressure from their members the Libs have agreed to vote the bill down. I'm not sure how they will do this, but I assume there will be some finaggling and perhaps a whipped vote. This email is being sent in resopnse to objections to C-484:------- Dear Sir/Madame, We would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding the Private Member’s Bill C-484 presented by Conservative member Ken Epp. Members of Parliament have the right to put forward a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons. However, our concern with Mr. Epp’s bill, a concern shared by many lawyers, health professionals and women’s rights organizations, is that it would undermine a woman’s right to choose and could ultimately be a threat to a woman’s ability to access safe abortion services. We are committed to the Liberal Party of Canada, under Stéphane Dion's leadership, standing firm against the idea of reopening the debate surrounding a woman’s right to choose. Passage of this bill will reopen the debate and threaten the rights of women – we will not allow that to happen. Mr. Epp’s bill has been sent to the Justice committee and would only become law after receiving a majority vote in favour on its third reading in the House of Commons. Mr. Dion intends to work to ensure the bill is defeated at that time. Thank you for taking the time to share your views on this important issue. Sincerely, The Office of Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P. Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
From: Montreal | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668
|
posted 10 July 2008 09:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: Morningstar asked: I have heard the date of September 17 mentioned by activists at a recent Montreal meeting, the House reconvening on September 15.I still can't accept that the Liberal Party of Canada does not consider this issue important enough to whip a vote on it and exclude any MP who insists on breaking ranks. I think people are right to expect that it should do so and encourage people to write in and tell Mr. Dion and their local MP so much. And of course, I am hoping that those Grits who will vote in favour of C-484 and other anti-choice private bills will be voted out of office. That outcome, in the end, trumps all reassurances from Mr. Dion's office. [ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
I'm hoping the same Martin. But I do really believe that Dion has to get those retrograde social conservative members to stay away or vote with them. For sure they are outliers but they could make this odious bill pass.
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 25 August 2008 02:30 PM
Gah, just read through all the comments, most of the anti-choicers literally have not a fucking clue about human equality rights and that being the reason we do not have abortion laws. It seems they somehow emotionally internalize the fact that had their mother been "pro-choice" they may not exist, as if there is retroactive abortions or something.They really do not get it. And I think Harper is playing politics with this as he does not want to go into an election with this hanging around. wonder how many fetus fetishers this will piss off?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668
|
posted 25 August 2008 03:42 PM
If Harper is in election mode, what's he going to do about this: quote: Bill C-537, “protection of conscience in the health-care profession” (sounds like freedom), is sponsored by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. It would allow doctors and nurses to refuse to perform medical acts — including abortions — that are against their religion. Abortion refusal in public hospitals, here we come. But good news for religious Muslim and Orthodox Jewish health professionals.
In the meantime, congratulations to all the pro-choice activists and their supporters (including the CMA) for not letting go of this one. Excerpt from an excellent review on all these abortion related private member's bills: Back door abortion law
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 25 August 2008 03:57 PM
Bill c537 is just as bull shitty as c484, freedom of conscience they already have, they do not perform them if they do not want to, and hello the CMA just came down on whose side, so who actually has gotten Vellecourt to try to put this through??? Furthermore, they get paid by whom? That's right us tax payers in a secular system, so they can fuck right off with their religious freedom in the public service arena.Moreover, if they slip this so called "freedom of conscience" in, in this area, next it will Justices of the Peace, etc who can get away with refusing to perform SSM's. I hear what you are saying unionist, but in respect to women's rights be taken away, women will take action each and every time, our right to be human are threatened.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 27 August 2008 08:04 AM
Thank you mspector, for bringing this information up a 3rd time. I had completely missed laine's post and link, as well as your initial thread on it. quote: The Conservatives are bringing in anti-abortion legislation by the back door...His backbench Conservative MPs are doing the job for him, with a little help from some LiberalsIt’s a complicated plan, using four members’ private bills which would give a fetus the legal status of an “unborn child” — a major step towards going to the Supreme Court with a Charter challenge to ban abortion. ...The strategy starts with bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, sponsored by Conservative MP Ken Epp,Bill C-338, sponsored by a Liberal MP Paul Steckle, criminalizes abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, unless the mother suffers from mental problems or the fetus has severe anomalies. This legislation bothers doctors. How to tell when 20 weeks (abortion legal) is not 21 weeks (abortion criminal). Bill C-537, “protection of conscience in the health-care profession” (sounds like freedom), is sponsored by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. It would allow doctors and nurses to refuse to perform medical acts — including abortions — that are against their religion. Abortion refusal in public hospitals, here we come. But good news for religious Muslim and Orthodox Jewish health professionals. Bill C-543 “abuse of pregnant women” would make attacking a pregnant women an “aggravating” factor. MPs who support the legislation meet regularly for a prayer breakfast in a chapel built for religious worship inside the Parliament Buildings. Lately, to their surprise, they’ve been joined by Muslim and Jewish MPs, who happen to share their views on abortion.
*bolding mine
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 27 August 2008 08:20 AM
Status information on the other 3 Bills.Bill C338: passed first reading Oct 2007 quote: Pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, this bill was deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after twenty weeks of gestation) Bill 543 - 1st reading May 14, 2008 quote: C-543 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of pregnant woman) Brent St. Denis (Algoma--Manitoulin)
text of bill And the Protection of Conscience Bill for Health care Professionls by Vellacourt. Bill C537: 1st reading April 16th. Link to status of Bill as it will not show text of the Bill These Bills all passed first reading, and have been ordered in for 2nd reading this fall. Now I am going to go look at who seconded them. [ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 27 August 2008 08:53 AM
Bill C537 - Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin), seconded by Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni), Bill C-537, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House. April 16th Hansard Bill C543:
quote: Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing), seconded by Mr. Valley (Kenora), Bill C-543, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of pregnant woman), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
may 14th hansard Bill C338 - Liberal Paul Steckles' Bill limiting abortions to 20 weeks, now this is interesting as it says it was introduced Oct 16th 2007, however, I could not find anything about it being presented on Oct 16th in Hansard. Oct 16 2007 Hansard Oh, I did find this though: quote: Pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, all items of Private Members’ Business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the Order Paper at prorogation, on Friday, September 14, 2007, are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper or, as the case may be, referred to committee
So, if it was presented before, and it must have been, in the 38th Parliament session and got carried over, and deemed read in, one would have to look through everyday the House was sitting from February through June 2007. Perhaps sometime later today, I will browse through them to see when it was actually presented and who seconded it from the Liberal Party. Here is the calendar link to that sessions if someone wants to look: 38th session Hansard Journal links ETA: I went to Steckles' website to see if he had anything about when he presented it there. He didn't, though he had everything else he has ever done in parliament going back to 1998. I guess he did/does not want his consituents knowing what he was up to in that area. Rural francesca, if you are about, have you heard of his promoting this Private Members Bill within the community? [ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|