Dispelling some of the myths re: C-484
If you have been following the progress of Bill C-484 (Unborn Victim of Crimes Bill ), you will likely be very interested in MP Ken Epp’s feature in today’s Ottawa Citizen - Pro-choice Fears .
Epp clarifies the Supreme Court rulings on the matter of protecting the fetus as follows:
…Misrepresentations of Supreme Court rulings have also been used to discredit Bill C-484. When the Supreme Court has said that the fetus is not a "person," it has simply been acknowledging the law as it stands today. The Supreme Court has never said that the fetus ought not to be given some protection in criminal law. In fact, it has said that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the protection of the unborn child and that it is not up to the courts to figure out how to do that, it is up to the legislators.
Bill C-484 is an attempt to provide such protection in one very narrow circumstance - when the unborn child is injured or killed when the mother is the victim of a crime…
So this bill is simply recognizing the wishes of the mother to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth to the child that she is so looking forward to holding in her arms. Bill C-484 protects the right of that woman, so that anyone trying to terminate her pregnancy against her wishes would be appropriately punished.
As it stands now, there is no special recognition of the woman’s right to have her baby. In the past, we have only safeguarded the rights of women who wish to terminate their pregnancies and that right would not be affected by this legislation.
So it is simply an effort to treat all women with the same concern and protection - not just those who have chosen to end their pregnancies.
If it’s true that you can’t pick and choose rights, then the progressives should have no trouble passing this bill.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
The opposition parties should get behind it, but they won’t, they would lose the special interest groups that they pander to.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I totally agree, The law is carefully crafted to protect a womans right to chose. I find the opposition to this bill to be nothing more then political posturing on the part of a lot of MPs. I do feel that all parties should declare it to be a free vote on the part of their members as I feel any vote on major value and or moral issue should be, i.e capital punishment, etc.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:34 am
It should definitely be a free vote. Traditionally, the Bloc and NDP have tried to force their caucus members to vote according to the moral values of the party instead of their own individual values or the wishes of their constituents. I hope they allow their MPs to vote on their own this time.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:47 am
I am likely more liberal than most readers of this site, I’ll wager, and I haven’t read the bill. But, I agree with it in principle, as far as I understand it presently. Tough to oppose, really.
Disagree with them or not though, one could see why pro-choicers would be afraid of the slippery slope toward criminalizing abortion. I don’t think “trust us” will fly, understandably.
Obviously the law is fluid and social conservatives certainly won’t give up the battle to make it illegal. The first place to start would be legislation defining “person” or “life”. Once it is defined and accepted in one context, it can’t be ignored in others.
Also,
“Special interests” is such a meaningless label, Hunter.
What are the appropriate criteria for permitting free votes, Kingston? When do the conservatives permit it?
May 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Obviously the law is fluid and social conservatives certainly won’t give up the battle to make it illegal.
Actually, there are a number of Liberals who are very pro-life.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Hi. I don’t follow your correction of my sentence. I don’t think it is controversial to generalize that pro-lifers are socially conservative. Is your point that some people who vote Liberal are social conservatives? I don’t disagree and didn’t say anything contradictory.
Actually, while it is stating the obvious, it is a very interesting concept, if put into words. Say it three times. Social conservatives vote Liberal. Social conservatives vote Liberal. Social conservatives vote Liberal. Put that on a bumpersticker. Or a Headline. Or does it give you the heebiejeebies?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Actually, I was merely trying to make the point that there are several pro-life Liberal MPs in Parliament. How do we refer to them? Are they So-Con Liberals?
I wasn’t disputing what you said. Merely pointing out a problem with semantics. In any case, I certainly find your opinion on the bill in question quite reasonable, and I agree that the inherent ‘trust us’ issue is a hurdle that Ken Epp is trying to overcome.