The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada now has a dedicated page on its website to present its reasons for opposing MP Ken Epp's private member's bill whose short name is the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act." The debate continues to rage in the blogosphere and in the media as to whether this is really a back door attempt to establish a legal precedent concerning fetal rights that can then be used to mount an attack on a woman's right to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
There are lots of people who will swear on a stack of Bibles, as it were, that this bill has nothing to do with abortion. Funny thing though: all of those people are well-known for opposing abortion. All of the highly vocal supporters of this legislation who have previously stated public positions on abortion and choice — at least that I'm aware of — are all in the same group. And it ain't the group that supports a woman's reproductive freedom.
I don't believe in coincidences like that.
Bill C-484 or any bill granting rights to the unborn would have to be very time specific. The fetus would only gain rights after the legal abortion time period has passed. This would protect the rights of women to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy and also grant full protection to a viable fetus.
The fetus would only gain rights after the legal abortion time period has passed.
What's the "legal abortion time period" in Canada? Admittedly that's a trick question. There isn't one.
(At the same time, it's a favorite tactic of the anti-choice forces to imply that there are a lot of late-term abortions. In fact there are very few and they're almost always done to protect the health of the mother.)
This would ... grant full protection to a viable fetus.
The best way to do that is to protect the mother in the first place. This bill does nothing to reduce violence against women, pregnant or otherwise. The creation of an additional criminal charge that only applies in the commission of an original criminal act accomplishes nothing in Canada because criminal sentences here are served concurrently, not consecutively. If the actual penalty isn't increased, then you can't argue that there's any value in it as a deterrent. That, incidentally, is an argument that proponents of C-484 always seem to fail to respond to. In practical terms in the context of its ostensible goal, this bill accomplishes nothing.
As many have also said, it would make a lot more sense to protect the Women who are actually pregnant. Any abuse that would cause harm a fetus, has to go through them first.
It would make far more sense to make violence against ALL women, a crime with far more repercussions. But that's NOT the point of C-484.
Late term medical terminations are a very small, miniscule portion of the Abortion statistics in Canada, as pogge said. They are performed at very few hospitals,by very few Dr's and there really has to be a good reason to get one.
The health of the woman, or something substantally wrong with the fetus. Unless someone has actually had to make that decision, they have no idea what is involved. There are actual discussions that have to be had, and medical expertise and input.
I'm pretty sure that any competent lawyer could take C-484 apart before the courts, and of course, if it ever passes, that is what will happen. As usual, though, that will take a long time.
C-484 is internally contradictory and it also defies a decision of the SCC.
If anyone wants to write some good law about stiffer penalties for those who attack pregnant women, I'm all in favour. Even better: if anyone wants to restore funding to programs like SWC or Court Challenges, programs that actually worked to help vulnerable women (even if they contributed to a personal defeat for Stephen Harper), I'm there.
But a bill that has no other practical purpose but to insert into Canadian criminal law a redefinition of what it means to be a person? Why? Why would I support such a waste of time and such an offence to logic and human decency?
Company this bill does not keep: not one organization working against violence against women has endorsed it.
If it is ALL about protecting women, why are there not loud and lusty huzzahs from anti-violence groups?
Hmmm?
I myself and against late stage abortions. Anyone attempting to kill a child that could survive outside the womb should be charge with premeditated murder.
If a woman chooses to have a child then that woman should be able to have a child. Taking away her choice should be punishable.
Since this child is genetically different than it's mother we are taking about two identities. To harm this child you have to harm the mother even though the intended victim is the baby. It is through the mother that the act has to occur. It is through this act that her choice to have the baby is removed.
Fiumara, you are entitled to hold any irrational, paranoid, and unconstitutional views you like.
It is absurd paranoia, though, to imagine that any late-term abortion in Canada is being done for any reason other than the health of the mother. Doctors don't kill viable babies; they just don't. The few cases that happen leave the mother and doctor with a stark choice -- you want two deaths, or one? Because either way, the baby is gonna die. That is late-term abortion. Talk to a doctor, for pity's sake.
It is indeed "through the mother" that criminal acts of violence that harm fetuses occur. Men who beat pregnant women are not aiming to harm the fetus -- they are attacking the woman, and that is the problem that our laws should address.
You appear to confirm my premise, Fiumara. The point of this bill is put a foundation in place that can be used to restrict abortion.
But you appear to have ignored my point that late stage abortions are almost always done to save the life of the mother. You've also ignored my point that this bill as written accomplishes nothing by way of deterring the crime it claims to be about.
As for this:
Since this child is genetically different than it's mother we are taking about two identities.
Talking about "identities" appears to be just another way to avoid the debate as to whether the fetus is a person under the law. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that it is not.