Tuval wisely made us aware of Bill C-484 about a week back, a bill that uses “the high profile murder of several pregnant Canadian women last year to bolster the anti-choice movement.” I wanted to repost some of the information that Tuval provided, to spread awareness as we approach the day the bill is projected to be debated.
Again, here’s the information:
“A private member’s bill called The “Unborn Victims of Crime Act” (C-484) has been introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton Sherwood Park). It had its first hour of debate in Parliament on December 13, and is projected to come up for its second hour of debate on February 29, with a vote on March 5 (second reading).
The bill would amend the Criminal Code to allow separate homicide charges to be laid in the death of a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked.
If passed, this bill would be an unconstitutional infringement on women’s rights, and would likely result in harms against pregnant women. It is a key step towards re-criminalizing abortion, but it could also criminalize pregnant women for behaviours perceived to harm their fetuses.”
You can read the text of the bill here. This link includes great talking points against the bill.
And of course, sign the petition. Again, thanks to Tuval for bringing this to our attention.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
six comments
In my understanding of the bill it is only when the woman is murdered that the charges can be laid on behalf of the fetus too.
Furthermore, nowhere in the constitution does it say that abortion is legal (the constitution was written several years before abortion was legalized), and indeed, Canada's abortion law could be considered anti-constitutional in and of itself, as the right to life IS protected in that document.
A discussion is needed about at what point a fetus turns into a human being, and at what point it has basic human rights, such as the right not to be murdered.
Posted by Katelyn
February 24, 2008, 5:42 PM
In the Morgentaler decision, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that a woman's right to life, liberty and security of the person (s.7 of the Charter) allows her to determine her pregnancy status, thus allowing abortions under Canadian law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also determined that legal personhood does not begin at the moment of conception, but that rather that the mother and her fetus are considered one being under the law until birth, with the mother's rights superceding those of the fetus until the moment of birth.
The issue with C-484 is NOT about determining the moment that a fetus becomes a living being. The issue is providing adequate protections for women experiencing domestic violence such that they will no longer be harmed. Only by protecting a woman can we protect her fetus, and Bill C-484 does nothing to protect a mother.
Posted by Carly
March 3, 2008, 2:36 PM
C484 actually has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever. In fact, the bill specified that it concerned only harm done to the baby by a third party, and not by the mother. So it couldn't be used like the ones in the US to "criminalize pregnant women for behaviours perceived to harm their fetuses".
The bill did pass second reading, by the way. It's not meaningful legislation, but it doesn't harm anyone either. Kind of like the Quebec nation within a nation thing, just acknowledging an issue rather than acting on it...which is the first step towards fixing the problem.
Posted by Natalie
March 11, 2008, 8:59 PM
Wouldn't a doctor be considered a third party?
Posted by Stacey May
March 11, 2008, 9:18 PM
True, hadn't thought of that...
Admittedly, my information came from an editorial by Lorna Dueck...maybe not the best source of information.
Posted by Natalie
March 12, 2008, 9:12 PM
Have any of you thought to actually RTFM? Or, read the freakin' bill, in this case?
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...
It specifically rules out action against doctors or mothers, and in no way relates to abortion rights.
If a woman carrying her dog is attacked and the assailant beats them both to death, it can be viewed (and prosecuted) as two separate offenses. Should fetuses really carry less weight? No, it's not recognition of legal personhood of the fetus, or the stepping stone to fetal rights that compete with the rights of the mother.
Posted by Duncan
March 19, 2008, 12:08 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.