quote:

---

A Conservative MP has introduced a private member's bill that would make it a separate criminal offence to harm an unborn child in cases where a pregnant mother is assaulted or murdered.

The bill that pro-choice advocates say has implications for the abortion debate in this country "is not an abortion bill," says Alberta Conservative backbencher Leon Benoit, who describes himself as "pro-life."

---

It's starting.....

quote:

---

Michelle: In fact, I'm willing to bet that even if they had a majority, they wouldn't be able to put it through.

---

I get extremely pissed off when these so-con assholes think they are fooling women by situating things, like this Bil, as 'protection' for women. I am sick of this paternalistic society and I am deadly afraid of what will happen to rights all over Canada should Harper ever win a majority.

I think too what really bothers me is that the papers are so cowed they don't dare do much but parrot the neo-Con party line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
It's just a private member's bill. It'll go down in flames.

---

Wish I could feel as optimistic but while I'm not as worried that this bill will be passed, I am concerned that as it goes down in flames, the left will get blasted by the catch-22 scenario the religious right will thrive on.

Bill C-291 proposes to recognize two "persons" in crimes such as the murder last year of Liana White in Edmonton, and Lacey Peterson in California ... In both cases, the women killed were pregnant.

California law allows for murder charges in the deaths of both the mother and her unborn but Canadian law does not.

While I am strongly pro-choice, I'm so not looking forward to battling the religious right on maintaining the status of a fetus as a non-person.

The larger issue for me is the division that this Bill is already stirring within my own sector.

[ 13 June 2006: Message edited by: barb_anello ]

The anger about Laci's murder and the pleas of her family to "do something" were pretty fucking heartwrenching. Who wants to look like they are fighting the family of a pregnant mutilated murder victim and adding to their grief? Darn few.

Here in Edmonton there was a 19 year old killed by a friend who had a crush on her. She was pregnant at the time. Her mom has been really pushing that there should be 2 murder charges. She even disrupted the Harper rallies in Edmonton during the election. People here who disagreed with her have found it hard to find the right words. Lianna White's family mentioned earlier in the thread hasn't weighed in on it. If they had two families begging the Canadian public? Slamdunk.

People don't think about what "Connor's law" will do for general access to abortion. They just see a hurting family and want to "do something" so they act without any thought about what it means. Those who DO know what it means and say it end up looking heartless when they don't support a sad grieving family.

You might think this is a "shot in the arm" to a movement if this issue is pushed - I think it's a possible public relations disaster. As long as those fighting are able to convince people that this is about murder victims and not total abortion rights they have a good chance of winning the battle for public sentiment.

[ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: Andy (Andrew) ]

quote:

---

Eberts says Canada's criminal law already takes aggravating circumstances into account upon sentencing. Charging a separate offence would not necessarily lead to more jail time for a convicted offender since multiple sentences are often served concurrently, or at the same time, she adds.

"There may be a kind of symbolic significance to adding this kind of crime, but I think in practical terms if the perpetrator is charged with first-degree murder or second-degree murder, then you would get a good sentence that should satisfy even the most heartbroken of people, and that should also satisfy the conscience of the country.

"We're not just talking about the bereaved families' wish for accountability. Shooting a woman while she is pregnant — she is particularly vulnerable at that time — I would not be the least bit surprised if there was a substantial sentence, and I can't really see what adding this other crime would do except to be satisfying in a symbolic way."

---

[ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: Naci_Sey ]

In light of that, you'd either have to extend the full set of rights and protections extended to "non-persons", or you'd have to declare fetuses "persons" under law.

Michelle's right - this bill, like almost every private member's bill introduced since 1867, will die.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
The legislation speaks for itself. However, people imprint their own fears about what they think is meant by it rather than what is said.

---

Wow, someone actually comes forward to defend this thing! Great, let's have a debate.

I'm proposing a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code:

Every one who loudly criticizes and points a finger at a pro-life activist shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable upon conviction to life imprisonment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
However, people imprint their own fears about what they think is meant by it rather than what is said.

---

quote:

---

1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

238.1 (1) Every one who injures or causes the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother who is pregnant with the child is guilty of the offence of which the person would have been guilty had the injury or death occurred to the mother, and is liable to the punishment prescribed for that offence.

(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that

(a) the child is not a human being;
(b) the accused did not know that the person was pregnant; or
(c) the accused did not mean to injure or cause the death of the child.

(3) The offence of injuring or causing the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother who is pregnant with the child is not included in any offence committed against the mother.

---

Note that, contrary to the spin of the Bill's promoters, there is no requirement that the "offence" be a violent one.

Note also that if you are attempting to commit an offence (say, armed robbery) against a woman who may not even know she is pregnant, and you cause her to have a miscarriage, you will be charged with felony murder.

Here's part of what Wikipedia has to say about miscarriages:

quote:

---

Miscarriages occur more often than most people think. About 25% of women will experience one in their lives. Up to 78% of all conceptions may fail, in most cases before the woman even knows she is pregnant....

About 30% of fertilized eggs are actually lost before the woman knows she is pregnant....

---

quote:

---

"I would think pro-abortion women would find this bill something they would absolutely want to bring forward because it relates to the mother and the fact that a mother has accepted this child in that sense."

---

A more honest reaction can be found from the Catholic Civil Rights League:

quote:

---

OTTAWA, May 18, 2006 - The Catholic Civil Rights League today welcomed the introduction of a private members' bill that would make it a separate offence to kill or injure an unborn child while committing a violent crime against its mother.

Introduced and given first reading yesterday by MP Leon Benoit, Bill C-291 would recognize two persons in crimes such as the murder last year of Liana White in Edmonton, or Stacey Peterson in California . In both cases, unborn children were killed when their mothers were killed. However, California law allows for murder charges in the deaths of both mother and child in such cases, but Canadian law does not.

"We welcome any initiative that recognizes the separate personhood of the unborn child," commented League President Phil Horgan. "This bill could be part of the process of restoring this recognition under the law."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Why could they not just add an additional charge? I understand how sensitive this issue is but the law already handles cases like these and we all know this bill had sweet fa to do with what this backbencher said. This is the first step towards an full on abortion debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by slimpikins:
What this would do is start the ball rolling, and it would just be a matter of time before doctors, nurses, consellors, and women themselves would be charged for harming a fetus under the same law.

---

quote:

---

California law allows for murder charges in the deaths of both mother and child in such cases, but Canadian law does not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
I'm curious of how much of a difference (in terms of sentencing) that the additional murder charge creates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
As I indicated in my previous post, the legislation would allow for charging someone with a single count of murder for the death of a fetus, even if no serious harm was caused to the mother. That's the really worrisome aspect of this thing, because it gives a fetus the same legal status in the criminal law as a person.

---

First, give a fetus legal status as a person, under the guise of protecting pregnant women, I mean, who wouldn't want to protect a pregnant woman?

Second, open the envelope a little by charging people who assault a pregnant woman and she loses the fetus.

Third, charge women who use drugs, or drink enough to cause fetal alcohol syndrome, under this law to open the envelope a little further.

Fourth, charge women who have abortions with harming the fetus, under the same law.

Apparently the official government position is that the law would be unconstitutional.

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

To summarize....Neocon strategy;
First, give a fetus legal status as a person, under the guise of protecting pregnant women, I mean, who wouldn't want to protect a pregnant woman?

Second, open the envelope a little by charging people who assault a pregnant woman and she loses the fetus.

Third, charge women who use drugs, or drink enough to cause fetal alcohol syndrome, under this law to open the envelope a little further.

Fourth, charge women who have abortions with harming the fetus, under the same law.

Fifth, criminalize abortions, just like they wanted to in the first place.

---

Edited because I can't bloody spell.

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

I know people with fetal alcohol syndrome... I find it revolting that such a preventable disease could ruin people's lives; just so that the parent can have a little bit of pleasure.

An accurate analogy would be the environmental movement. People seek to reduce our ecological impact, to a large extent, because they want this place to be nice for future generations, future generations which are not even born and can be said equivalent to sperm. Being philosophically consistent, I would support heavier fines on pollution, making some forms a criminal offense; endangered species legislation, etc.

Do you know anyone with fetal alcohol syndrome?

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Do you know anyone with fetal alcohol syndrome?

---

Right now though we don't do anything about this issue which is entirely preventable and that's really sad. It probably ruins more lives than terrorism does for example. I think a large part of that is the polarization from the prolife-prochoice debate. It is both ludicrous and shameful that a moral revulsion against FAS would lead to sneery comments about outlawing masturbation. Sacred cows have their place in a society in which many things are either in precarious situations or potentially so; however, it is certainly counterproductive when a sacred cow's big huge farm begins to encroach and consume other land which has its own worthy products.

Do we criminalize people who knowingly hold recessive genes that cause deformations and chose to have children? Your argument will and could be argued in this sense.

Besides, the whole concept of criminalizing pregnancy is abhorrent.

This is a really good read

I would like to add that what you propose would affect women of colour, single parents (in particular young ones, and poor women - disproportionately, as these populations tend to be singled out far more than wealthier white women.

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

I'm not sure about that one. Consuming alcohol is an unecessary choice done for pleasure. Carrying a recessive gene is not a choice; the additional factors are a) every single one of in all likelyhood has some detrimental recessive genes b) there is a sacred cow much holier than the one you're holding on to, that the government should not treat people differently based on their genetic profile.

Q2) "I would like to add that what you propose would affect women of colour, single parents (in particular young ones, and poor women - disproportionately, as these populations tend to be singled out far more than wealthier white women. "

I'm sorry, can you rephrase that? Isn't it true of every law that richer individuals have better means to hide their actions and hire good lawyers? I don't see how that's specific to consumption and pregnancy.

As for point two, you think it's just basic fall-out and sort of okay for poor women and single mothers to bear the burden? Apparently you do.

Anyways, I have engaged enough this is mighty interesting debate and I am tired. Have a great night.

Anyways, I was referring to a logical legal argument.

Edited to add re: the recessive gene - they knowingly made the choice to get pregnant anyway.

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

500 Apples, want to try an experiment? Ask a smoker to quit smoking and then tell them it should be easy. Ask an alcoholic to just stop drinking. I realize you don't have experience with any substance (sort of) but try to understand addiction before you make really bad assumptions.

---

quote:

---

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recently conducted a large study including 400,000 American women, all of whom had consumed alcohol during pregnancy. Not a single case of fetal alcohol syndrome occurred and no adverse effects on children were found when consumption was under 8.5 drinks per week.

A recent review of research studies found that fetal alcohol syndrome only occurs among alcoholics. The evidence is clear that there is no apparent risk to a child when the pregnant woman consumes no more than one drink per day.

---

Moving on...

[quote="Rebecca West"]There are a bunch of legal issues here. Firstly, an unborn child would have to be declared a person, under law. Currently, a fetus isn't considered a person until it's born - at which point it is entitled to the full set of human rights and protections against prohibited grounds (Human Rights Act, 1978).
In light of that, you'd either have to extend the full set of rights and protections extended to "non-persons", or you'd have to declare fetuses "persons" under law. [/quote]

Precisely. How will our court system differentiate between homicide and abortion? And pro-lifers will suddenly have what COULD be construed as legal precedent for their arguments. Like I said, troublesome.

quote:

---

Michelle, IMHO not that simple. The pro-choice activists in the USA admitted it was extremely hard to debate the Laci Peterson bill. Who here wants to go on the news to counter-argue with the mother of a dead woman?

---

Well, of course it is. Laci Peterson was intending to have that child, as was Lianna White. In this sense, there were in fact two victims in these crimes. Why should the law not recognize that?

One of the problems is that the fetus is most vunerable when it is very new and therefore the women don't even know they are pregnant. And if you are a young woman and you go drinking with your friends are you always going to say I'll just have one drink because of FASD. That doesn't even begin to deal with the women who themselves have FASD and therefore don't make the connection between their actions and the consequences (even when they are legally considered mentally capable.)

Criminalizing women is certainly not the answer and like the war on drugs spreading misinformation to promote complete abstinence will only turn off young people who intuitively know that it takes more than one drink to cause harm.

Although when it comes to behaviour that drives me crazy seeing young children in a smoke filled car sets me off and occasionally gets me calling for prison terms for abusing their live children.

Sorry that last part was thread drift from the thread drift.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Ross:
Well, I hope that last part was a joke, because it is almost exactly what you were just arguing against.

---

At present, a person who kills a fetus while stabbing a pregnant woman will not be charged with murder, because a fetus isn't a person in law. But if convicted of stabbing the woman, there is no doubt that the penalty would be far worse if a fetus were also terminated.

quote:

---

Every one who injures or causes the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother who is pregnant with the child is guilty of the offence of which the person would have been guilty had the injury or death occurred to the mother, and is liable to the punishment prescribed for that offence.

---

So that isn't the trouble. The trouble, as deftly stated by a number of people who I believe are right to be concerned is whether or not this will change the definition of a "child", affording them rights that could potentially be used by pro-life activists to make use of precedent law to force changes to abortion laws.

But there's actually more at stake than that. I would assume that many people here are aware of the changes made to abortion laws in South Dakota. In case anyone isn't, I will post a link here:

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html

According to an interview I read in Playboy magazine just this morning, the law basically changes the legal definition of conception from the time at which the fertilized egg enters the womb to the time at which the egg is fertilized.

The law in South Dakota could be used to make contraception illegal, as it prevents the egg from being fertilized, and thus could constitute an abortion under state law. In this sense, this law isn't doesn't only concern abortion: it also concerns the sex lives of South Dakotans.