Bill C-484, “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act”

[Grig]

http://www.cyouthc.ca/node/89
Bill C-484, “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act,”

From Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada...
Bill to Protect Fetuses Would Hurt Pregnant Women

OTTAWA — A private member’s bill that would give a fetus legal rights would not only endanger abortion rights, but would hurt pregnant women trying to have a baby, according to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a national pro-choice group.

Bill C-484, “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” would allow charges to be laid in the death of a fetus if the pregnant woman is a victim of a crime. It was introduced in Parliament on Wednesdayby Conservative MP Ken Epp, who is anti-abortion.:hurray:

“The intent of this law is to give rights to fetuses so that abortion can be re-criminalized,” said Joyce Arthur, Coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). She noted that anti-abortion groups are the ones promoting this law. “They’re desperate to find a way to reverse abortion rights, and it’s very unfortunate that they’re exploiting the tragic murders of pregnant women to do so.”

But Arthur says an “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” would endanger the rights of all pregnant women, including those trying to have a baby. Thirty-seven American states have so-called “Fetal Homicide” laws, which she says have ended up being used mostly against pregnant women themselves,
not third parties who assault pregnant women. “Dozens of pregnant women in the U.S. have been arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for behaviour perceived to harm their fetuses,” said Arthur.

“Arrests of pregnant women have even occurred in cases where the law targets only third parties and exempts pregnant women from prosecution.” This occurs because such laws create a confusing legal contradiction between “fetal rights” and the rights of pregnant women.

“This kind of law has no rational basis,” said Catherine Megill, another ARCC spokesperson. “It is designed to satisfy emotional needs, and the wish for punishment and vengeance. While we deeply sympathize with the victims’ families, there’s just no evidence that an Unborn Victims of Violence Act will have any beneficial or deterrent effect. In fact, it would do nothing to prevent domestic abuse or protect pregnant women.”
What is really needed, says Megill, are more comprehensive measures to prevent domestic violence. “Resources and supports to protect pregnant women from domestic violence would actually do much more to help them and their fetuses,” said Megill. “This would also help women who have recently given birth and women who have abortions against their partner’s wishes. These women are at increased risk of domestic violence too, and an Unborn Victims of Violence Act would completely fail them.”

(For more information on the harms of a “fetal homicide” law, please see our Position Paper at:

www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/57-Fetal ... de-Law.pdf)

Carolyn Egan Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics, Toronto 416-806-7985
Joyce Arthur Pro-Choice Action Network, Vancouver 604-351-0867
Judy Burwell former director of the Morgentaler Clinic, Fredericton 506-470-9049
Catherine Megill ARCC-CDAC, Montréal (Elle parle français) 514-486-9669
Dr. Suzanne Newman Abortion provider, Women's Hospital, Health Sciences Centre;
Women's Health Clinic Abortion Services, Winnipeg
204-477-1887

[Grig]

The pro-aborts are up in arms over this private members bill. The media has a near total blackout on even saying it exists. CFRA's Steve Madely talked about it Friday morning around 6:40am and said he called hosts of talk shows at other radio stations about it, but the management won't allow it to be a topic of discussion.

Call your MP.

[politics101]

There has been plenty of talk on the call-ins here. The usual hardliners on both sides of the debate were going at it. Nothing seems to have changed.

[WestViking]

C-484 has an hour of debate left before a vote on referral to committee - and then will spend time at committee stage before referral to the Commons and further debate. It is first on the list of private member's business at present.

[Grig]

It's pretty clear to me that the pro-aborts know they can't win a fair debate on the topic, all they can do is fearmonger and protest. Science has done a lot to invalidate what they say of the unborn.

[littleharbour]

It's pretty clear to me that the pro-aborts know they can't win a fair debate on the topic, all they can do is fearmonger and protest. Science has done a lot to invalidate what they say of the unborn.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. The CBC, a reliable supporter of extemist pro-abortion ideology, had a segment this morning on vaccinations for pregnant women [whooping cough and dyptheria], which apparently can reduce the potential for children to contract those diseases shortly after birth [you cannot give those vaccines to very young infants, so they are vulerable for a period of months following birth]. The doctor and CBC radio host both slipped into calling the "fetus" an unborn child and baby. I've noticed this numerous times on shows concerning fetal health and advances in fetal medicine. It's natural in conversation to refer to an expectant mother's "baby", before it is born. It takes leftist discipline to constantly refer to it by the sterile term "fetus". The abortion industry survives on the duplicity of the medical profession and media.

[RedDog]

The same CBC who reported for ten days that the Superbowl was in Scottsdale, AZ rather than the correct Glendale, AZ

[SUZANNE]

There's been a lot of coverage of C-484 in the papers-- in the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen.

The pro-aborts are running scared on this one.

Even if this doesn't pass, we should try again. I think it's just a matter of time that this will pass. I have a good hunch about this law.

[SUZANNE]

But Arthur says an “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” would endanger the rights of all pregnant women, including those trying to have a baby. Thirty-seven American states have so-called “Fetal Homicide” laws, which she says have ended up being used mostly against pregnant women themselves,

As I understand it, no they have not. One is that it's been *child endangerment* laws that have been used against women. Second, not one woman has been PROSECUTED.

If we failed to pass laws for fear of false arrest, we'd never get anything done.

It is designed to satisfy emotional needs, and the wish for punishment and vengeance. While we deeply sympathize with the victims’ families,

They can't even admit that losing an unborn child is, in and of itself, as loss.

As far as they're concerned, losing a fetus is like amputating a limb. They don't get it.

[dwday]

As far as they're concerned, losing a fetus is like amputating a limb. They don't get it.

They really can't say anything else - it's quite simply logically absurd to pass a law to charge a third party with murder for killing an unborn child while giving the mother & her physician carte blanche to do so. An unborn child is either a person deserving of the same protections as everybody else, or it's not. Their position is that it's not, and given that, it's perfectly reasonable for them to oppose this law, and they're 100% right that, if passed, their pro-life opponents will try to leverage it into restricting abortion 'rights', and rightly so.

[SUZANNE]

It's not perfectly reasonable for them to oppose it.

Because it's a question of women's rights.

Women have a right to their unborn children.

If someone violently deprives them of that child, the culprit should pay.

That should be the basis for the law.

[littleharbour]

As far as they're concerned, losing a fetus is like amputating a limb. They don't get it.

They really can't say anything else - it's quite simply logically absurd to pass a law to charge a third party with murder for killing an unborn child while giving the mother & her physician carte blanche to do so. An unborn child is either a person deserving of the same protections as everybody else, or it's not. Their position is that it's not, and given that, it's perfectly reasonable for them to oppose this law, and they're 100% right that, if passed, their pro-life opponents will try to leverage it into restricting abortion 'rights', and rightly so.

No medical professional would ever agree to amputate a person's healthy limb, regardless of whether the patient was declared sane and expressed a clear "choice" to have herself mutilated.

dwday, I'm just curious. Can you explain why an unborn human child should have less legal protection than a labratory rat? Just curious.

[Paycheck]

As far as they're concerned, losing a fetus is like amputating a limb. They don't get it.

They really can't say anything else - it's quite simply logically absurd to pass a law to charge a third party with murder for killing an unborn child while giving the mother & her physician carte blanche to do so. An unborn child is either a person deserving of the same protections as everybody else, or it's not. Their position is that it's not, and given that, it's perfectly reasonable for them to oppose this law, and they're 100% right that, if passed, their pro-life opponents will try to leverage it into restricting abortion 'rights', and rightly so.

No. That's not right at all.

Their whole gig is "choice". Well, if it's choice, then they must work just as hard at preserving a woman's choice to carry a child to term as they do in aborting it.

But it really isn't about preserving "choice" but rather preserving abortion.

That's what this whole issue proves.

And that's what makes their whole position completely bogus.

Pro-what? Pro-abortion and nothing else.

At least pro-life means exactly that. We don't couch our position in idiotic (and false) euphemisms.

[The Devil's Advocate]

As far as they're concerned, losing a fetus is like amputating a limb. They don't get it.

They really can't say anything else - it's quite simply logically absurd to pass a law to charge a third party with murder for killing an unborn child while giving the mother & her physician carte blanche to do so. An unborn child is either a person deserving of the same protections as everybody else, or it's not. Their position is that it's not, and given that, it's perfectly reasonable for them to oppose this law, and they're 100% right that, if passed, their pro-life opponents will try to leverage it into restricting abortion 'rights', and rightly so.

No. That's not right at all.

Their whole gig is "choice". Well, if it's choice, then they must work just as hard at preserving a woman's choice to carry a child to term as they do in aborting it.

But it really isn't about preserving "choice" but rather preserving abortion.

That's what this whole issue proves.

And that's what makes their whole position completely bogus.

Pro-what? Pro-abortion and nothing else.

At least pro-life means exactly that. We don't couch our position in idiotic (and false) euphemisms.

Although pro-life does mean pro baby life. To be fair, I don't see to many prolifers calling for a world ban on the dealth penalty.

[SUZANNE]

The right to life does not preclude killing someone who is a threat to another's life.

I will occasionally publicize American death penalty cases on my blog because I believe American society does not need to kill its criminals.

But I do not maintain that this should be the case for the whole world. There are poorer parts of the world where a prison system is unaffordable/impractical.

I also work against euthanasia against the elderly, the disabled and newborns.

It's not just pro-baby-- it's pro-RIGHT to life.