ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Bill C-484

Let’s recap, just so we are all on the same page

by 2 Comments

Ken Epp designs and proposes Bill C-484. It’s uncontroversial among Canadians, who overwhelmingly approve of it in public opinion polls, until it passes second reading. At this point, pro-abortion extremists get worried. They begin a (at least somewhat successful) public campaign to discredit the bill and to create fears that really Bill C-484 intends to change our abortions laws, and give unborn people personhood status. In order to overturn Bill C-484, they put forward their own legislation, through Liberal MP Brent St. Denis.

The government’s proposed solution is actually already before the House of Commons. It was put forward last May by Liberal MP Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) in a private member’s bill that adds the targeting of a pregnant woman to a list of sentencing factors.

 Joyce Arthur supports that legislation, publicly: 

Now, Joyce Arthur, the head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and one of the top pro-abortion activists attacking the bill to protect pregnant women, is urging support for an alternative. In an editorial released on Monday, she said she prefers the new bill C-543 by Liberal MP Brent St Denis.

Rob Nicholson copies that legislation, much to the chagrin of many supporters of Bill C-484.

And then Joyce Arthur says this:

Joyce Arthur, of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, believed that C484 would have led to making abortion illegal. However, she said that she too could see no reason for what Mr. Nicholson is proposing.

Keeping up with the inconsistencies is totally exhausting.

The guppiness factor and Bill C-484

by 3 Comments

Naomi Lakritz of the Calgary Herald has written an excellent piece about clarity, abortion and Bill C-484.

My favourite line:

It is obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp of English that this bill is not about abortion. Notice the key words “criminally assault,” “wants and loves,” and “against her will.” That does not describe the pregnant woman rifling through the phone book in search of an address for the nearest abortion provider.

And my second-favourite line:

Next, politicians and abortion rights groups have to stop pretending that a fetus is not fully human because it can’t survive on its own. If it weren’t fully human, there wouldn’t be all this debate. We do not hold debates about the degree of guppiness of unborn guppies, do we? And if a fetus cannot survive on its own, neither can an infant or a toddler. Are they any less human?

Reading this also caused me to stop and realize that I am way too cautious on the topic of abortion. Yes, you heard me, too cautious. Because I’ve never seen any Canadian political leader do or say anything reasonable on abortion or defending unborn babies, I stopped thinking they ever could. Thanks to columns like this, I am reminded to demand nothing less. (But hey, a girl has to keep her sanity. Low expectations means that even politicians, from time to time, exceed ’em.)

Not very secure at all

by 1 Comment

If their ideology can’t withstand people thinking about what that ideology actually involves, how secure are they in their position?

Ken Epp, writing about Bill C-484 here. The ideologically strident are aware that the current pro-choice status quo rests on not thinking about “the abortion situation” too much (and constantly putting things like “unborn victims” in quotation marks, as if it were a laughable possibility rather than reality.) 

This is why all the screaming begins for bills that don’t even pertain directly to abortion. How secure is their position? Not very.

Bill C-484, RIP

by 2 Comments

Bill C-484 was never my favourite piece of legislation. It wasn’t pro-life, and man oh man, judging by the outcry on the pro-abortion side, it certainly wasn’t their cup of tea either. I suppose I enjoyed the fact that even in wanted pregnancies, the pro-abortion side was guarding against what they perceived to be a slippery slope–that somehow, if in wanted pregnancies killing a baby could amount to a crime, that might spill over into people’s subconscious for the abortion debate. In any event, Bill C-484 is no more. I think Harper did the right thing, telling Minister Nicholson to have that press conference, especially given that Dion was asking for his position on abortion. It’s off the table now–a good tactical move for any politician going into an election. Which I now, thanks to this move, fully believe we are.

Now how he did it, that irks me. Ken Epp’s office was not informed. I understand Epp is not running for office again. I understand therefore, that Harper thinks he doesn’t need to care. Here’s why he should have. Irrespective of how I felt about Bill C-484, there were those who supported Epp passionately, and saw it as a pro-life bill, or at least a small statement that social conservatives could support. Not telling Epp now means at best begrudging support from that crowd. What Harper did was fine. How he did it wasn’t. A tactical shift doesn’t have to be dirty. 

That’s where Harper should be more careful. There are many people out there who couldn’t give a hoot for “politics,” but do look to substance and conduct. And why shouldn’t they? They don’t live in this special silo called Ottawa. Don’t they count for something?

_________________________

Brigitte adds: Ken Epp says he won’t withdraw his bill. Good for him. I have zero doubt it will die on its own some day soon, but hey. There’s only so much any individual MP can do, and Mr. Epp is doing all he can.

Missing: conscience and intelligence at leadership level

by Leave a Comment

A new take on the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons draft policy: perhaps whoever wrote that need not be too concerned about ensuring doctors don’t reference their religion or conscience–at the leadership level, those are already missing. Today the papers report that the Canadian Medical Association voted to condemn Bill C-484.

the Canadian Medical Association voted yesterday to oppose Bill C-484, “and any legislation that would result in compromising access for women to the medical services required to terminate a pregnancy.”

Now I’m joking, of course, most doctors are concerned only about patient welfare, and they have a conscience and they thankfully use it and all that jazz. But now might just be the time for doctors to be concerned about their leadership. I would hazard to say it is all the same people who are writing pro-abortion editorials for the Canadian Medical Association Journal, who are creating anti-conscience policies, and who are voting against Bill C-484. Doctors–if you don’t agree with this and want to continue practicing, in spite of the doctor shortage and your overflowing waiting rooms, I’d take some time to write some letters and understand the politics of this. I personally have been waiting for one appointment for seven months–a day or two more won’t kill me. (I’m pretty sure.)

Legislate this

by Leave a Comment

Got legislation? Bring it on. Canadians agree. Seriously, this poll shows support for Bill C-484, alongside airline, cellphone and competition bureau regulation. I’m not saying the support for all four isn’t real. Just too many questions, too much regulation for me, all in one poll.

Personally, I have a dream of air transit deregulation. (That’s an irrelevant aside.)

______________________________

Brigitte disagrees strongly: Not at all irrelevant. If we deregulated the industry Air Canada would be forced to offer decent services at prices that don’t force you to re-mortgage your house. But then again, I’m of two minds on the issue: I once tried to start a movement in the U.S. to bring a constitutional right to a direct flight. Oh well. I was young and foolish and spent too much time in too many airports running around clutching my carry-on trying to catch incredibly ill-timed connections.

Carolyn Bennett and the hidden agenda of pro-abortion folks

by Leave a Comment

The Status of Women Standing Committee attempts to discuss Bill C-484 here. I say attempts because the proceedings are largely taken up with a discussion of how this bill is not their jurisdiction.
Yet, the transcript gives me opportunity to say something about Bill C-484 I have been thinking for a while. All along, those opposed to Bill C-484 have claimed Ken Epp has a hidden agenda–that the unborn child would receive rights through this law. The bill is too limited, and as Brigitte said here, may or may not do much at all. I will grant that many who are pro-life are hopeful that the unborn child would be recognized in even one, small, limited area. 
But we never discuss the hidden agenda of the pro-abortion forces opposed to Bill C-484. And Carolyn Bennett makes those clear. They do not care about violence against women, but are fighting the bill strictly because even in a small and limited manner, a child may be recognized as such. Here is her quote now at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, June 5, 2008:
I think the issue for me has been that the substance of the bill doesn’t matter one bit, meaning if this was seatbelt legislation…this is a ploy used by the anti-choice, pro-life movement across the world to try to get the rights of the unborn child, encadré, put into any piece of legislation they can think up. 
What this committee needs to look at is how, state by state by state, the pro-life movement has been using bills such as this to actually put their anti-choice, pro-life agenda into legislation. That’s what’s dangerous about this bill. I couldn’t give a whatever about the actual violence…. It’s the rights of the unborn child getting into any piece of legislation. There is a tracking that this committee could do of how this has been done in other jurisdictions. That is the danger of this bill.
Hidden agendas everywhere! (Just because I am paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get me.)  

Some people scare easy

by Leave a Comment

I am a bit conflicted on Bill C-484. I don’t object to it, but in a strict legal sense I don’t believe it to be necessary. I’m also far from convinced it would work as a deterrent or do anything to protect pregnant women from violence. But as a political expression of a society’s belief that unborn children are human and fragile and as such, deserve protection, it’s a fine dandy piece. So I guess that puts me in the “pro” camp, if somewhat reluctantly.

It’s not an easy topic, and deciding whether to be in favour or agaisnt Bill C-484 can be difficult. But scary? Not one bit, unless of course you are so entrenched in your pro-abortion views that you consider any indication that society may find the indiscriminate disposal of tiny human beings morally objectionable a threat to your position. I find it hard to believe that’s where most pro-choicers are.

The elite versus the rest of us

by Leave a Comment

On Bill C-484, the unborn victims of crime act, a new poll commissioned by Ken Epp and done by Angus Reid shows 53 per cent of Quebec women support the bill.

Who would have guessed?

Still, if journalists and doctors and lawyers keep up the pressure, I’m sure they can change those stats around–turn that frown upside down! Normal, non-activist people are so resilient, answering simple questions reasonably. But what they need is a good dose of Where this Bill Might Go, how it would be Very Scary and Doors That Are Closed Could be Opened…

La Presse–you have your work cut out for you.   

Meta