The bill poses a real danger to abortion rights, to the rights of all pregnant women, and to women's equality rights in general.

Please sign the following petition to call upon Parliament to oppose this bill

quote:

---

But the bill, to be voted on March 5, has been assailed by critics who say it's a sneaky bid to slip fetal rights into Canadian law.

"It definitely is a back-door attempt to attack abortion rights," said Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

"It's trying to create a form of legal personhood for fetuses. And under the Criminal Code, you don't become a person until you exit the birth canal alive.

"If you give any kind of rights to a fetus - if you recognize it as a person, as this bill does - it automatically conflicts with a woman's established, constitutional rights."

It's an argument that has helped derail similar legislation in the past.

Epp insists the bill is about trying to right a legal wrong. He cited several cases where the killer of a pregnant woman was charged for her death - but not that of her fetus. That's because the law does not recognize the unborn as human beings until they are born alive.

---

quote:

---

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

My Conservative colleague Mr. Epp, has presented a private members bill, Bill C484, an act to provide a separate offence of injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence against the mother.

The Bill was motivated by the heart-rending stories of families in Canada (and the US) who suffered the loss of a mother, sister, daughter, or friend, along with the loss of an anticipated, wanted unborn child. Their grief is immense, and multiplied by the current situation where there is no recognition that the child is a separate life.

In order to assure its votability in Parliament and to assure that it will be passed when voted on, the Bill explicitly excludes elective abortion and acts by the mother of the child. This Bill is focused totally on the case where the woman has chosen not have an abortion, to carry her child to term, to give her child life, and whose choice has been taken away from her against her will, in a criminal act, usually with violence. Choice is meaningless if only one choice is protected in law.

The legislation has widespread support among Canadians. A recent Environics poll showed that 72% of Canadians support such a measure, and the support of women polled was at 75%.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Sincerely,
Betty Hinton, MP
Kamloops – Thompson – Cariboo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Why couldn't they charge the perp merely with the death or injury of the woman?

---

I mean it is such an unbeliebabley stupid law, there is no way of even knowing if that fetus would have made it to term, or would have been viable, it is nonsensical, like holding a "pre-emptive" war.

How about we all just start taking acts of violence against women more seriously, period!

quote:

---

Ms. Hinton proves again that there is more to advancing women's rights than merely electing any woman no matter her politics.

---

quote:

---

Why couldn't they charge the perp merely with the death or injury of the woman?

---

quote:

---

During the 2004 election campaign, Harper specifically said that abortion legislation would not be tabled in his government’s first term. Indeed, in his most recent statement, he said he doesn't want "this parliament" to have an abortion debate, or have it in the "near future."

Harper was challenged again by Global's Kevin Newman on Jan 18 (2006), who asked him: "On the issue of abortion, will you pledge that there will be no legislation covering abortion? There will never be a free vote in Parliament on that issue?" Harper replied: "Never is a long time. What I'm saying is I have no desire to see that issue debated in the near future."

---

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Harper was challenged again by Global's Kevin Newman on Jan 18 (2006), who asked him: "On the issue of abortion, will you pledge that there will be no legislation covering abortion? There will never be a free vote in Parliament on that issue?" Harper replied: "Never is a long time. What I'm saying is I have no desire to see that issue debated in the near future."

---

They all seem to use "religion" as a hook for the knee jerk paternalistic/moral voter.

Most women aren't paying attention to the precarious position that even Canadian women could be in at a blink.
talk to women from Serbia/Bosnia, or Russia, or Iran---women who felt as free and accomplished as many of us do. They never thought that this could happen to them.
If things fall apart to any degree, I don't see women secure in their rights to abortion, birth control or education any more than any other country in the world---women are often the first to be sold down the river when things go awry.

We must work on a much more wholistic gender lens shift so that every aspect of our society is automatically viewed in a complete, balanced way.
Once the male is not the standard and female is no longer "the other", we may have a better chance when changes come---and they always do.

In my opinion, eliminating all religious public influence and not giving religion such an enormous ethical pass, will go far in gender balance. The histories of all world religion is frightening, their behaviours are still appalling and women have always been the victims.

How can we not continue to have fundamental gender inequality in our society, when all major world religions model and teach inequality?

quote:

---

Originally posted by morningstar:
In my opinion, eliminating all religious public influence and not giving religion such an enormous ethical pass, will go far in gender balance. The histories of all world religion is frightening, their behaviours are still appalling and women have always been the victims.
How can we not continue to have fundamental gender inequality in our society, when all major world religions model and teach inequality?
Abortion rights and the continual flogging of this issue by the religious, is just a symptom of something much more treacherous for Canadian women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by morningstar:
...In my opinion, eliminating all religious public influence and not giving religion such an enormous ethical pass, will go far in gender balance.

---

quote:

---

The histories of all world religion is frightening, their behaviours are still appalling and women have always been the victims.

---

quote:

---

How can we not continue to have fundamental gender inequality in our society, when all major world religions model and teach inequality?

---

quote:

---

Abortion rights and the continual flogging of this issue by the religious, is just a symptom of something much more treacherous for Canadian women.

---

Moreover, I will actively work against them and will visualize their demise from the Canadian political stage.

quote:

---

After a tough 20-year battle led by doctors and women’s groups, this ruling finally allowed women to take control of their bodies and their pregnancies and to have access to safe abortion. Since then, they have had the freedom to choose.

That is why any threat by this Conservative government to limit the right to abortion is a direct affront to women’s rights. Bill C-484 by the hon. Conservative member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park opens the door to criminalizing abortion.

We are against taking any steps backward. Abortion is a vested right ensuring the well-being and equality of women.

---

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
They might have a pollster working on it right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I don't think so - he's busy posting in the Bill C-2 thread...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

You know what, just because I posted my thoughts regarding the NDP's silence, does not mean 2 men get to jump into this forum and thread to play politics and banter back and forth off topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

You know what, just because I posted my thoughts regarding the NDP's silence, does not mean 2 men get to jump into this forum and thread to play politics and banter back and forth off topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I apologize, remind, but what's more important IMO is that we're supportive. This is a vital issue for all Canadians.

---

Well, thank you for that, but are you really? Slumberjack at least commented earlier and professed to sign the petition.

As nary a word was said by you about this either way, and in fact, you did not venture to make a comment until I mentioned the NDP.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Slumberjack at least commented earlier and professed to sign the petition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I would ask what you see as being vital to all Canadians?

---

Preserving and expanding the victories over women's right to control their own bodies.

I think, though, that it is essential to know and to influence what the various parties and individual MPs are planning to do on this issue. That's why I posted Nicole Demers views (do you have any comment on what she said?) and asked if anyone had seen any comment from the NDP.

We can't afford another disgraceful fiasco like the Bill C-2 one. Inch by inch this government is blackmailing the opposition parties into taking dangerous stands, or in remaining silent on important issues (like Afghanistan, the environment, soon capital punishment - and women's right to choose is also under attack). We need to unite as many people as possible in defence of past gains and to expand access.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

(...)Question:Un arrêt de la Cour de cassation vient d’ouvrir la possibilité de donner un état civil au foetus mort avant l’accouchement. Que pensez-vous de cette décision de justice qui pourrait faire jurisprudence ?

Maya Surduts: Nous allons examiner à fond cet arrêt. Mais notre préoccupation est très grande. Il est clair que derrière cette décision il y a la volonté de remettre en question le statut de l’embryon et de grignoter le droit des femmes à l’avortement. Ce n’est pas la première fois que nous sommes confrontées à une tentative de ce genre. Nous avions eu, il y a quelque temps, l’amendement Garraud qui créait, au détour d’un projet de loi sur l’« adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité », le délit d’« interruption involontaire de grossesse » notamment en cas d’accident de la route. Caractérisant « la mort d’un foetus » comme un « homicide involontaire », il lui donnait insidieusement le statut juridique de « personne ».(...)

---

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

... les délais ont été allongés de dix à douze semaines ...

---

Quels délais?

Does this mean abortion is lawful only in the first trimester? I don't understand this I guess.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Une IVG peut être pratiquée légalement à votre demande jusqu'à 12 semaines de grossesse (ou 14 semaines depuis le début des dernières règles). Si vous n'êtes pas sûre de la date de vos dernières règles ou si vos cycles sont irréguliers, il pourra être nécessaire de réaliser une échographie pour préciser l'âge de la grossesse.
Deux consultations avec le médecin sont nécessaires avant une IVG. Un délai de réflexion d’une semaine est obligatoire entre ces deux consultations. Plus la première consultation a lieu tôt et plus cela laisse de possibilités concernant la technique utilisée.

---

More about the new risk to women's rights in France
The issue - still being adjudicated - is about a document from the State that would recognize a dead fetus/embryo as an "enfant sans vie". From RESPUBLICA::

quote:

---

En rendant trois avis identiques le 6 février, la première chambre civile de la Cour de cassation vient de donner un coup de pouce aux croisés de la lutte anti-avortement.
Les trois dossiers étaient tous similaires et concernaient trois arrêts de la Cour d’appel de Nîmes du 17 mai 2005. Ils ont tous trois été cassés et annulés. Ces arrêts avaient rejeté la demande de couples qui souhaitaient obtenir un « acte d’enfant sans vie » auprès de l’état civil et dont la femme avait accouché à moins de vingt-deux semaines d’aménorrhée d’un fœtus pesant moins de 500g (seuils de viabilité définis par l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé). L’acte d’enfant sans vie a été institué par la l’article 6 de la Loi du 8 janvier 1993 qui a introduit l’article 79-1 du Code civil. Cet article prévoit que pour un enfant né sans vie ou pour lequel il n’est pas établi de certificat médical indiquant qu’il est né vivant et viable, l’officier d’état civil établit un acte d’enfant sans vie. Cette disposition a pour but d’aider les parents à faire leur travail de deuil en autorisant de donner un prénom, l’inscription sur le livret de famille et l’inhumation ou la crémation.(...)

---

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Re: C-484
Will you denounce the risks it entails for women's rights, as pointed out repeatedly by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada?
The NDP's silence on this issue is very troubling to me, as attempts to push back women's right to choose are becoming more threatening in the US, in France and now in Canada.
I realize that Mr. Epp's bill claims to exclude abortion and pregnant women from the remit of the proposed legislation, but the implementation of such laws had strongly impacted pregnant women in the U.S., so C-484 should be analyzed in that light and should meet with principled collective opposition from your party instead of being used to split NDP ranks.
In solidarity,
Martin Dufresne

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I recently wrote a piece for the paper, taking the anti choice bunch to task for their absurd demonstration at our MP's office, protesting the 20yr anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion. I discussed religion (present and historical) as being the key tool used in misogyny.
One of the most vituperative letters written in response to me was from the President of the NDP Riding Association---A WOMAN --- who took me to task for being [b]unreasonable and unwilling to have a "balanced" debate over choice.[b] ---as bad as the fringe antichoice fanatics!!!(and no, as one reader pointed out,I've never bombed or shot anyone who disagreed with me)
This woman professes to be a feminist and attempted to paint me as an uneducated fanatic, using terribly bad taste to publically name the social elephant of religion as a huge problem for women everywhere. Oh yes, she also said that she was an athiest!
It was bizarre and she did the NDP no favours here for sure.
The NDP women here are furious at me because I proposed that all left of right women work together to get a liberal woman elected in this conservative riding---which would be an enormous challenge---

I'm very non partisan and very left---I just want Harper gone and I don't care who did what or who is more righteous---I just want the tories buried.
They are dangerous.
We can all come to terms on things after they are out.
I was so sorrowful that the NDP women would attack my assertions and warnings to all women to get involved or we may be forced back before we can resist effectively.

this is the rough copy of what I wrote and they freaked out over:

The 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion came in Stratford with word of the predictable death threats against Dr Morgantaler and a disturbing antichoice religious protest at the local MP’s office.

Women in Canada owe a tremendous debt to Dr Morgentaler, Supreme Justice Brian Dickson , Justice Bertha Wilson, social activist Judy Rebick and all of the feminists who sacrificed so much to free women from the tyranny of forced reproduction.

But we best be vigilant---it's not enough that some of us have done just fine for ourselves. All women owe a debt to those feminists. They made our success possible. We are now the ones collectively responsible for the future freedom of the next generations of women.

No woman can step into her place of power unless she has complete reproductive choice and freedom from male violence. Sadly, religious misogyny continues to deny women reproductive choice while encouraging male violence against them. This history of religious misogyny is clearly reflected in the vulnerability and suffering of women worldwide. We need to pay close attention to it. This history is our context, not just some abstract “Past”.

It's important to note that the anti-choice bunch are also usually anti birth control. These people have chosen religions that wage war against women and it's been a holocaust. Their much vaunted religious morals are belied by the millions of women and girls whose lives have been destroyed by religion. Religion was designed by men, for men and women need to examine it carefully through a female lens. When it comes to women,religious dogma always trumps reason and compassion.

Recent studies explain the resurgence of anthropomorphized religious practice and perversly blind right wing politics. The two are inextricably linked. When people feel isolated , if they succumb to the cult of fear (that both right wing religion and right wing politics promote), they may attempt to find a father figure as ”strong leader” in politics and/or a god-as-father figure in spiritual practice.
This makes them easy to manipulate and targeting women, especially women who have sex, is great team building.

When people choose a collective ideology over thinking, even very nice people behave unreasonably and are, by no means, harmless. Remember the Nazis.

Those of us who understand how dangerous religion and right wing politics are for women, also understand the tenuousness of our new freedoms. A great deal of religious money is used marketing the fervour against reproductive choice. Forced reproduction has always been the only way to keep women powerless. . Our choice to give birth when or if we decide to, is our key to equality.

Canadian women must stay better informed and get politically active if we don’t want to find ourselves in dark ages, yet again.

That's what I wrote.Doesn't it seem like something that most NDP women should be able to support??

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: morningstar ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by morningstar:
That's what I wrote.Doesn't it seem like something that most NDP women should be able to support??

---

quote:

---

In all honesty, I never thought there would be the day, I would be writing to NDP MP's requesting, actually insisting, they vote against this ill advised, and needless Bill C-484, that is being voted on, on March 5th, as I thought it would be a given that the NDP would stand and say No, and I am saddened that I can no longer trust what the party I have supported for 35 years will do! Such was not the case even a couple of years ago.

One hardly recognizes the NDP any longer with their; Tough on Crime Omnibus Bill support back last November, and huge separation from historic NDP positions on crime, where only Mr Siksay, took the principled stand, and the support for Canada's backing out of the World racism conference, plus a few other not so impactive upon society actions.

Alleged, emotional positions of those who have lost a family member, do not have the right to endanger my Rights as a women, and that is what this Bill will do if put through. Our current criminal justice system more than covers actions that endanger a woman's life, they just need to be applied and perhaps more would take them seriously. Women must not be further punished, in society, by having their Rights challenged because of MALE acts of violence against them.

And in light of the NDP's apparent quiet on this upcoming Bill, the new Faith and Social Justice commission takes on a much more sinister aspect, and this is disquieting as I thought I had come to a solid positive perspective on it. It has long been thought that religion should trump woman's Rights and I would not like to see this fact furthered within the NDP. People's religious beliefs have no place in public secular law, and have no place when considering Human Rights, freedom of religion does not mean that religion, in any form, gets to trump other's Rights.

If the NDP support this bill, and do not whip the vote against it, angrily and sadly, it will be the deal breaker for me, nothing but enmity will come from me towards the NDP. Moreover, it would mean the party no longer stands, at all, for anything principled and correct, in fact so much so, that I would actively work against and just not stop supporting and voting NDP.

Thank you for your consideration of this Human Rights endangering issue and I look forward to seeing the NDP MP's standing in the Truth of Human Rights awareness on March the 5th, and voting NO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by morningstar:
good letter , Remind ---I wish that you were in my riding to help me figure out how to get us all working together.
I almost can't bear it that women are fighting over this.

---

As to the woman fighting over this, it is divide and conquer, and women have so much internalized submission to men's opinions and actions, that some do not stand a chance at rejecting their misogyny.

Would love to help you, but could not live in ON.

Remind them, emotions and myths do not trump human rights, and no person can be compelled to give their body in service to another, even if that "persons" life is in danger.

Have a story time in your meetings of what it was like for women before we became people, and gained our personal Rights.

quote:

---

Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Harper picks a dinosaur for the federal bench
Women in this country should be outraged at this judicial appointment by the Harper government. It sends a major signal that this is the kind of reactionary anti-choice philosophy Harper supports. Ammunition for a coming election:

Opposition justice critics say the swearing in next week of a former Tory MP and anti-abortion crusader is proof the federal Conservatives want to stack the courts with right-wing friends.

Lawrence O'Neil, an MP from 1984 to 1988, is to be sworn in Tuesday to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. On April 28, 1987, the legal aid lawyer told the House of Commons: "Unborn children across this country are being suctioned from the womb by women who want to put an end to their pregnancy. Those children are being dismembered."

---

quote:

---

Let me say, however, that there are a lot of things women desperately need that have been ignored by the government. Not one of them that has ever come to my attention is a call for this kind of bill. Women certainly need a lot more protection against domestic violence and violence that is visited on them in far too many communities.

I would say that at the heart of my concern about the bill is that it does indeed arouse considerable concern, real apprehension, about whether it is in fact a thinly veiled step in the direction of recriminalizing abortion in our country. I am sure there are going to be protestations, with people saying, no, no, that was made clear, the language was made clear and all the rest of it, but let me say that it further made me uncomfortable to hear several references, both from the Conservative sponsor of the bill and from the Liberal who spoke in support of it, to a number of American states, mostly southern U.S. states, and in particular, South Carolina, as one of the states that has had considerable experience with this bill.

Let me say the evidence is very clear that the bill not only could become a thin edge of the wedge in the direction of recriminalizing abortion, but actually identified as one of the benefits of the bill is that to adopt such a bill could in fact accomplish that very objective that sponsors of the bill in South Carolina have cited as the reason for their introduction of the bill.

There are many more things I could say, but I think that in the final analysis the point is that women need to be protected far more effectively and aggressively against violence, and that is the best way to protect vulnerable fetuses. If that were the objective, then we would be very much wanting to support such a bill.

---

And I notice that the next speaker after her is a self-described pro-life BQ Catholic priest who opposes the bill and condemns its author for being part of an extremist anti-choice group, and says:

quote:

---

In my opinion, this bill will open the door to recriminalizing women who have an abortion, and that is not a good thing. I am against abortion, but I do not believe that is how we will deal with the problem of abortion. I have always stated that we need education, support and assistance for women dealing with unwanted pregnancy. In my opinion, the problem of abortion will be solved with these types of measures and not by recriminalizing abortion. I absolutely do not want that.

---

quote:

---

I will start by saying that, as a woman, I would have never believed that I would still be here fighting for the rights of women. It has been a fierce battle, waged by so many women before me.

The Conservatives, with this bill, are implicitly trying to achieve an objective, that is, restrict the right to abortion...

---

Derek Lee, a Liberal MP, spoke in support of C-484.

Given that Ms. McDonough took this strong stand a good two months ago (Dec. 13), is it appropriate to say that the NDP has not opposed C-484?

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

The text of the bill provides that the pregnant woman herself can be charged with causing the death of the fetus inside her.

---

ETA: important petition

Online petition - OPPOSE Bill C-484 - REJETEZ Bill C-484

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: laine lowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Given that Ms. McDonough took this strong stand a good two months ago (Dec. 13), is it appropriate to say that the NDP has not opposed C-484?

---

Liberal Party of Canada contact info

quote:

---

Dear Mario,

I appreciate your decent voting record on most issues that are important to me. I am hoping to receive a positive response from you on this one as well. I'm writing about Bill C484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. While this Act in itself does not criminalize abortion, I am concerned that, by granting personhood to fetuses, it will lead the way to such a move in the future. Just the wording itself - "unborn victim" - this is pro-life/anti-choice rhetoric. This is how they refer to aborted fetuses and blastocysts as well.

Women have fought long and hard for their right to choose abortion for any reason. This legislation is a huge step backwards.

I have no problem with recognizing the particular harm with interfering, through violence, with a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term. I am a mother, and felt myself bonding with my belly and what would eventually be my son right from the moment I knew I was pregnant, three weeks along. I would have been devastated had I miscarried due to natural causes or, worse, through violence.

But the fact is, that violence happens to the WOMAN, not to the fetus. The fetus is part of the woman's body. If someone wants to introduce legislation with heavier penalties for assaults that cause the termination of pregnancy, I am fine with that. If there was real concern about the woman, as opposed to trying to criminalize abortion through the back door, the Bill would simply address the fact that women who miscarry due to violence have been the victims of two wrongs: the fact that she was assaulted, and the fact that she was involuntarily deprived of her choice to carry a pregnancy to term, thus greatly increasing HER emotional distress and recovery from the assault. The Bill would recognize the real victim - the woman - not the fetus.

It is clear that the pro-life Conservatives, in crafting this bill, are giving "the unborn victim" legal personhood status in order to pave the way to recriminalizing abortion.

Please do not allow that to happen. Please vote no to this Bill, and please try to convince your colleagues to do the same.

Sincerely, etc.

---

For those of you not on Facebook, here's the description of the event:

quote:

---

Event Info Name: MP Ken Epp -- Unborn Victims of Crime Bill C-484
Tagline: A presentation and discussion of this important private member's bill
Host: Youth for Life
Type: Education - Lecture
Time and Place Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008
Time: 7:30pm - 9:00pm
Location: Robert Bateman Secondary School Round Room
Street: 35045 Exbury Avenue
City/Town: Abbotsford, BC
View MapGoogleMapQuestMicrosoftYahoo
Contact Info Phone: 604.852.4623
Email: [email protected]

---

It's very clear, from the fact that it's an ANTI-CHOICE GROUP SPONSORING THE TALK that this bill is not about "giving a woman the freedom of choice to bring her child to term in safety". It's also clear from their description of the event, in which they state this:

quote:

---

When a pregnant woman is murdered or assaulted, the Canadian Criminal Code does not provide for any charges to be laid in respect of the unborn child who is injured or dies as a result.

---

And their only posted item? A link to Abbotsford Right to Life.

Just how serious of an action against women this is, is the fact that this Act in itself does criminalize abortions, there is no other way to view these words of Bloc MP Meili Faille, as recorded on Hansard:

quote:

---

The text of the bill provides that the pregnant woman herself can be charged with causing the death of the fetus inside her.

---

Moreover, you can realize ALL abortions across Canada will be halted, if this Bill passes, until the SCC determines if it breaks Charter Rights, because if the woman can be charged with causing harm to the fetus, so can a Dr.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
And their only posted item? A link to Abbotsford Right to Life.

Bullshit it's not about abortion. It bloody well is.

---

C-484

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

[name removed] wrote
at 7:47pm

Does this bill not seek to criminalize acts of violence that kill a fetus? In that case, the bill categorizes the killing as "unlawful"."

You might think that, if you were an illiterate cunt. Read section 7(a) you fucking moron. The bill EXPLICITLY excludes "conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented."

"Criminalizing an act of violence against a fetus (as opposed to against the pregnant woman herself) OPENS THE DOOR for further fetal rights legislation, which WILL lead to anti choice political groups attempting to criminalize abortion."

They are already attempting to criminalize abortion--you think every MP is pro-choice? One good argument they have right now is that our definition of what constitutes a person is arbitrary. If you can come up with an argument that allows for a woman's right to choose while taking into account the rights of unborn people, then you can CLOSE THAT DOOR dumbfuck.

---

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Here is is one comment received back, and am using this one as it is the shortest response:

quote:

---

Thank you very much for your e-mail in which you have insisted that I do not support Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence).

The issue of creating a "fetal homicide" law so that murder charges can be laid for the death of the fetus is complex. Creating such a law would
be an unconstitutional infringement on women's rights and would likely result in harm against pregnant women.

Homicide is a leading killer of pregnant women, and it is well-known that violence against women increases during pregnancy. The Government must address this by implementing better measures to protect women in general and pregnant women in particular, from domestic violence.

A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it
happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth. Before we start talking about laws to protect fetuses, the government has an obligation to make sure that women's rights are protected first, by addressing the systemic problem of domestic violence.

In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman,
even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges (such as first
degree murder or aggravated assault); judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.

It may be that the government should enact a new law that codifies such practices. Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer
punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime.

Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they
are pregnant.

Again, thank you very much for writing on this important matter.

---

quote:

---

On behalf of Susan Kadis, I would like to acknowledge receipt and thank you for your e-mail correspondence.

Please be assured that your letter will be brought to Susan's attention.

Sincerely,
xxx
Executive Assistant

---

quote:

---

If you wish to contact Stephane Dion to urge him to vote against this bill, you may do so very easily here. Note: the folks over there have it setup to send an automatic text message to Mr Dion which lists why they feel he and the Liberal Party needs to oppose this Bill, and then asks him at the end to whip the vote on this subject and force his MP’s to vote against. I don’t know how realistic it will be to expect that to happen, so use your judgement as to whether you wish to leave that line in there or not. You can manually add or subtract things from their message form, so I would also point out in this to Mr Dion that this Bill is probably unconstitutional and already in direct contradiction of the current Criminal Code, as stated above.

---

Response from someone working in the government and using a government computer, no less:

quote:

---

Once again, the pro-aborts are showing their true colors. They are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won’t let the wanted babies be safe either.

---

quote:

---

Dear Martin,

Thank you for writing. We oppose this legislation because we view C-484 as simply a back-door approach to undermine women's rights. This issue comes up regularly and each time we have gone on record as opposing such a move.

Again, thanks for writing. All the best.

Sincerely,

Office of Jack Layton
NDP Leader

---

Moreover, the fact that she uses a word like retribution says it all, our laws are not created for retribution, nor should they ever be and she herself has rendered herself irrelevant by using such a thing!

quote:

---

The next day, the Canadian Press reported on what Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada had to say about this bill and about the intentions of the MP who introduced it. It appalls me that she is still trying to turn my cause into some sort of abortion issue. Positive or negative, I do not want to see Bill C-484 connected to abortion whatsoever.

...also find it an insult that Ms. Arthur suggests my opinion regarding this matter should be irrelevant, as I have a vested interest - my daughter and my grandson were shot to death!

This is what she says on the coalition's website: "While we deeply sympathize with them and understand their wish, it must be recognized that victims of violence are not those who should be making decisions about justice in a democratic society. Appropriate laws and penalties must be determined by impartial parties who do not allow emotion or personal bias to colour their decisions."

Just who are these "impartial parties" she is referring to?

On the one hand she speaks about democracy and on the other she implies that I not be part of the democratic process.

In my own daughter's case, there will be no retribution toward the man who murdered her to kill my grandson.

---

speak out

quote:

---

Mary Talbot does "not want to see Bill C-484 connected to abortion whatsoever". Yet, how does it sit with her that such a bill, by granting personhood to fetuses, would pave the way for any pregnant woman or health professional to be eventually charged with murder - most probably by politicians such as Mr. Epp who has been quite explicit about his anti-choice convictions? It is dangerously easy to cull a liminar caveat from a law once a legislature has decreed that personhood begins at conception and a misogynist party is given a majority in the House.
As for the ominous risk of offering murderers of women an easy way out (Diana's point above), this happened only a few weeks ago in Cleveland, OH, in the trial of Bobby Cutts, whose charge of aggravated murder against his partner Jessie Davis was reduced to murder after he was convicted for the fetus' killing. ("Cutts' intentions were critical to jury", Plain Dealer Reporter, Feb. 16). This kind of trading off women's rights against those of fetuses is unworthy of the Canada I want to live in.

---

The first incremental step in taking women's rights away, if it passes.

quote:

---

Thank you for your email concerning Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence). If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to send your opposition directly to the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson (email: [email protected]) and a copy to the Prime Minister (email: [email protected]). They need to hear this message directly from as many Canadians as possible.
Five recent murder cases in Canada have involved a pregnant woman being murdered by a male partner or boyfriend. The victims and families of these horrific tragedies deserve our deepest sympathy, and they deserve justice. As a result, people have urged that the perpetrator be charged with two homicides - of both the woman and her fetus. However, the issue of creating a "fetal homicide" law so that murder charges can be laid for the death of the fetus is complex. Creating such a law would be an unconstitutional infringement on women's rights and would likely result in harms against pregnant women.
Homicide is a leading killer of pregnant women, and it is well-known that violence against women increases during pregnancy. What the Government needs to address is better measures to protect women in general and pregnant women in particular, from domestic violence. A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth. Before we start talking about laws to protect fetuses, the government has an obligation to make sure that women's rights are protected first, by addressing the systemic problem of domestic violence.
In Canada, women have guaranteed rights and equality under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Persons do not gain legal status and rights in our society until they have completely exited from the birth canal, alive (as per the Criminal Code). Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered "physically one" person under the law (Dobson vs. Dobson). If we give any legal rights to a fetus, we must automatically remove some rights from women, because it's impossible for two beings occupying the same body to enjoy full rights. If we try to "balance" rights, it means the rights of one or both parties must be compromised, resulting in a loss of rights. Legally speaking, it would be very difficult to justify compromising women's established rights in favour of the theoretical rights of fetuses.
In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges (such as first degree murder or aggravated assault); judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.
It may be that the government should enact a new law that codifies such practices. Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime. Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they are pregnant.(...)

---

I'm watching on CPAC now. They're all voting no! All right!

Silva voted no too. Excellent!

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
yes stoffer voted for the Bill

---

So I guess Jack didn't whip the caucus on this unimportant bill? No cause for disciplining Stoffer the way he did with Siksay, eh?

Come to think of it - I never saw a single word about C-484 on the NDP website.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
So maybe the Liberals ARE the enemy too, a lot more than we have been acknowledging...

---

How did the BQ vote?

But still. GRRRRR. Was this not a whipped vote for the NDP? How could anyone vote in favour of a Bill with anti-choice terminology RIGHT IN THE TITLE? "Unborn victims"! That's what the anti-choicers call aborted fetuses!

Some back bench male Liberal MP's voted for it.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Go back to the same sex vote (05? 06?) and you will discover that some of the Conservatives were virtually speaking in tongues in their feverish opposition to allow others to love in their own way. It was, all in all, a remarkably disgusting display.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]