ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for C-484

That Bill C-484 was a close one!

January 2, 2009 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

Did we ever dodge a bullet there. I’m so grateful to all those who fought to keep that amendment to the criminal code outta the books. Just look what could have happened in Canada:

Charges against Frederick Beach, accused of beating his pregnant girlfriend to death, include one under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act… He is accused of beating to death Verlinda Kinsel, 29, in September and killing the fetus she had said was his. Authorities say the victim’s 9-year-old son witnessed the assault.

If convicted, Beach faces life in prison.

If you ask me, the crying shame in this story is not the fact that the guy’s gonna get charged under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, California, Laci Peterson, Unborn victims of crime

Abortion survivor will not support Obama

June 14, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski 1 Comment

Well, no wonder. Technically, if Obama gets his way, Gianna Jessen is not a ‘person.’

She survived her own abortion 31 years ago:

Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna’s biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist’s arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation.

Obama would like to revoke the status of personhood for those babies who survive abortion and emerge fully from the womb. In other words, even though a baby is fully born and alive, they would not be entitled to life and liberty.

At what point would someone like Gianna Jessen be granted personhood, then? If she makes it 24 hours, or a week, is it then automatically granted? Does she have to prove that she can survive a full year? Or maybe never?

With all the recent talk of laws like Bill C-484 setting some new, ‘dangerous’ precedent regarding the status of unborn children, what are we to make of Obama’s views of personhood? What other strange, sick acts will eventually become permissible if Obama gets his way? Will we be granted the right to kill, “perhaps by suffocation,” a child diagnosed at birth with some sort of physical or mental defect? If that happens, will those with certain disabilities be stripped of their personhood altogether? Yes, let’s talk about dangerous precedents!

Perhaps, someday soon, individuals not conforming to a strict physical norm will either be killed or sterilized and banished to the Fringes. (Ever read The Chrysalids?)

IMAGE: The Median Sib

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, Obama, personhood, USA

They’re against everything

June 3, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

Le Collège des médecins announces in this article that it is against every law that has anything to do with fetuses or pregnancy currently on the table in Parliament. This according to Yves Robert, secretary of Le Collège des médecins:

Besides Bill C-484, the organization also denounces three other federal bills: C-338; C-537; C-543, which all run along a similar vein.

Bill C-338 would criminalize abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, other than in cases where the woman is suffering from (mental) health problems or if the fetus has been diagnosed with severe defects.

Bill C-537 has to do with the right of conscience of health care professionals. It allows then to refuse to participate in medical procedures which run contrary to their religious beliefs or their belief of the sanctity of human life.

Bill C-543 attempts to make the pregnancy of a victim of a violent attack an aggravated circumstance of the crime.

All of these are private bills. Bills C-484 and C-537 were put forth by Conservative members from out west. Bills C-338 and C-543 are the work of Ontario Liberals…

Mr. Robert would ask all members of Parliament to vote against these bills.

Apparently, he has some concerns about doctors being held liable if harm comes upon an unborn child. He must wonder how anyone practices medicine at all in those other civilized countries with all those pesky laws!

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-338, C-484, C-537, C-543, Le Collège des médecins, Yves Robert

Ken Epp writes

May 15, 2008 by Brigitte Pellerin Leave a Comment

In the Ottawa Citizen this morning. Bottom line: “To oppose this bill is to stand in defence of only those pregnant women who choose abortion.”

Well, maybe not quite. To maintain that the current legal system is enough to deal with these situations is not entirely illogical. Certainly it’s possible to have a reasonable debate on C-484, or some aspects thereof, without getting into an unproductive shouting match. Or it should be; no legislation is perfect, after all. But loud and brittle (not to mention untruthful) opposition to anything that might, perhaps, in the future some day, contribute to the possibility of someone potentially questioning the validity and moral soundness of today’s anything-goes pro-abortion legal system sure isn’t helping.

______________________________

Andrea adds: The same article also quotes an opponent of Bill C-484 who says this:

If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.

A total and complete moratorium on intelligent thought is the last defence of the ardent abortion supporter. God forbid that people think about this issue and change their minds. That “bleeding into your consciousness” is otherwise called thinking, reflecting, casting a second look at a topic and doing so, in normal circles, is considered wise and good. Good grief–give your head a shake–if Bill C-484 is that threatening, perhaps this pro-abortion status quo is on shakier ground than I previously thought.

____________________________

Rebecca adds: You know, if ever you find yourself hoping to conceal facts and preempt arguments to prevent people from changing their minds, you really ought to accept that you’re imposing your decisions on other people, and have explicitly abandoned “Truth” in any sense that is meaningful.

________________________________

Tanya adds: “We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?”

– Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, Ken Epp

They’re playing politics again

May 14, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

Liberal MP, Brent St. Denis must not have read Ken Epps’ recent document. (If he’d visit our blog more regularly, he’d be on top of these things.) He “tabled a Bill today that would increase penalties for those who knowingly abuse pregnant women.”

The press release states:

Mr. St. Denis believes that the risks associated with C-484 are too dangerous as the potential repercussions are still unknown.  There is a concern that the Bill may establish legal rights for the foetus, which could begin to reverse a woman’s right to choose and punish behaviours and conditions for women that are not criminalized for other people, such as drug or alcohol abuse and mental illness.

As mentioned in Ken Epps’ release:

Only South Carolina has upheld convictions of women under child abuse and endangerment laws, citing South Carolina’s unique judicially enacted “fetal homicide” law of 1984 as a precedent.

There were a few isolated incidents in other states where cases were brought by prosecutors under “fetal homicide” laws… but these cases were later dismissed or distinguished on their facts and are in no way representative of applications of the legislation in the 37 states with these laws.

But the above are mere details. When you get down to it, our politicians are playing chess. Obviously the goal of this newly tabled bill is to draw support away from Bill C-484. If that happens, the subsequent (and nearly inevitable) passing of this new bill will be incidental.

Myself, I’d prefer our laws be formulated based on genuine concern for victims, not on political stratagem.

______________________________

Rebecca shakes her head: Good grief, what a tangle of poor logic and silly syllogisms.

I have very mixed feelings about criminalizing substance abuse for pregnant women. On the one hand, exposure to alcohol and drugs in utero can inflict a terrible burden on the fetus, and a wholly avoidable one. On the other hand, I’m not generally keen on giving the government or its agents more opportunities to interpose themselves in our lives, and am of the opinion that there are few problems so bad that state intervention can’t make them worse.

But this is just nonsense:

There is a concern that the Bill may establish legal rights for the foetus, which could begin to reverse a woman’s right to choose and punish behaviours and conditions for women that are not criminalized for other people, such as drug or alcohol abuse and mental illness. (emphasis mine)

First of all, how could this criminalize mental illness in pregnant women, for heaven’s sake? Second, the point would be to punish drug or alcohol abuse that harms another person, in this case the baby. We already punish non-pregnant people who use drugs and alcohol in a manner that harms other people. In fact, we punish non-pregnant people who use drugs or alcohol in a manner that has the potential to harm other people, without waiting to see if actual harm occurs; this is the whole concept behind charging people with drunk driving.

I’m all for an honest discussion of how far society can go to protect an unborn baby’s health at the expense of the mother’s liberties. I’m certainly open to objections that, even if we all agree that an adult’s right to abuse their own body is suspended when doing so harms their unborn child, there is no way to criminalize such behaviour without massive unintended consequences. But when the debate stays at this level, I’m forced to wonder if the other side is congenitally incapable of an honest, good-faith debate on the subject.

______________________________

Véronique wonders: How can you recognize that abusing pregnant women is somehow worst than abusing a non-pregnant one without recognizing what makes a pregnant woman different from a non-pregnant one? Are people that shortsighted?

That being said, I stood up and clapped when I read in the press release:

“The goal of my Bill is clear: to protect a foetus lawmakers must protect the carrier of the foetus which is the pregnant woman.”

Indeed. You can’t protect a foetus without protecting the woman. You can’t hurt a woman without hurting the foetus. When a foetus is aborted, you have to hurt the woman to hurt the foetus. This is why we are prolife because we are prowoman.

_____________________________

Tanya adds: Exactly what I was thinking, Véronique. Is the law now to elevate a pregnant woman above a non-pregnant woman?

If we ignore what is so particular about being pregnant (being with child) then we are simply elevating the importance of one individual above another. What sort of dangerous precedent is that?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, Epp, Pregnant women, St. Denis

Debunking Joyce Arthur

May 6, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

No time to blog extensively today. Go read: http://www.kenepp.com/admin/assets/USCASESE1.pdf. Thanks to Big Blue Wave for drawing attention to this. 

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, Joyce Arthur, Ken Epp

Muddy waters

May 4, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

Self-proclaimed feminists express worry for the rights of a pregnant woman to use illegal drugs.

One of the most dangerous consequences of Bill C-484 is…that it muddies the water regarding the potential for prosecuting pregnant women who use drugs. Pregnant women who use drugs already face tremendous stigma and marginalization; many such women fail to access medical services in fear of having their children removed from their care.

Where to begin…

Is enabling a woman to continue her drug use, especially while in a pregnant state, really doing her a favour? Are we a backwards society for enforcing the protection of children? Is this all about the fact that a man can’t get pregnant, so he can harbor a drug addiction more easily than a woman? Is this a question of equality of the sexes? And finally, are you serious?

in many U.S. States pregnant women who use drugs are criminally charged with child abuse before the child is born and are incarcerated on the basis of protecting the foetus.

Canada’s drug laws are such that we place the bulk of penalties on dealers. To compare this to U.S. laws is to ignore everything we already know about Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Judges have considerable discretion in sentencing offenders under the CDSA. Sentences may take into account aggravating factors such as selling drugs to children, using or involving children under 18 years in the commission of the offence or selling drugs in or near schools or school grounds, or other public places where youth frequent.

If anything, C-484 may mean tougher sentencing for offenders who sell drugs to pregnant women. Who wouldn’t want to see that? Other than drug dealers, that is.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, drugs, pregnant

National day of action?

May 4, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

Protests were organized across the country yesterday in opposition to Bill C-484. For a solid week, abortion advocates were spreading the word, rallying people together, calling it a national day of action.

Nearly 100 people gathered in [Edmonton] Saturday to protest a proposed law they say poses a direct threat to women’s reproductive rights in Canada…

Similar protests were held in Ottawa and Fredericton, N.B.

Radio-Can reports more than 50 people gathered in Ottawa. (Hey, that’s the same amount of redheads that showed up to pretend-protest the Wendy’s logo!)

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPmd_wc7s8]

As of yet, I’ve been unable to find any news coverage on the Fredericton protest, but the Facebook Event had 70 confirmed RSVP’s.

So, what, shall we say 300 people at most participated? I didn’t realize one one-hundred-thousandth of the population constituted a ‘national’ anything.

_______________________________

Brigitte adds: I spent yesterday exploring the streets of downtown Winnipeg (and the closed shops – this is one dead town on weekends) and can report, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that approximately zero people protested C-484 – or anything else for that matter. Perhaps because it was soooo dashed cold…

_____________________________

Andrea adds: “Hey hey! Ho Ho! Wendy’s logo has got to go!” That YouTube clip is powerful, Tanya, and reminds me that discrimination is everywhere, all around me, all the time. If I would only look harder.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, protest

She dislikes stupid people

April 29, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

In the privacy of my own thoughts, I’ve found similar sentiments. (Heavens to Betsy, I’ve never actually said any of this out loud!) Read one woman’s perfect rant regarding Vicki Saporta’s article.

________________________

Brigitte adds: Blimey, she don’t mince words, eh? Some points are a bit hysterical and perhaps less thoroughly informed than she believes, but hey. I’m usually on the side of logic and common sense, however clumsily expressed. One thing I like is her reason for not being totally anti-abortion: Because back in the day, when she had pregnancy scares, she considered it as a way out of a potential tight spot.

Back in the day, had I found myself pregnant, I might have considered it, too. Or maybe not. I just don’t know. I never had to face that terrible “choice” because I was lucky, not because I was good. I’m awfully glad to have been lucky, because now I realize how much I would regret having had an abortion. That realization is what makes me try to change this ridiculous pro-abortion culture in which we live.

__________________________

Andrea enjoyed that rant: I am of the uptight variety who thinks that if you can’t express yourself without using expletives, you probably shouldn’t express yourself. But I thoroughly enjoyed that rant, and laughed out loud in many places. Especially this:

WTF? What is based on “a significant amount of legal research”? Her assumption that Bill C-484 will lead to abuse of women’s rights? What is she, psychic?

Vicki Saporta Psychic Services: Deciding just when and how much you need to think. Just one of the many services she offers, thinking is her top priority. So you can put your feet up, and agree.   

___________________________

Tanya, excited: Oh! Are we pointing out favorite passages? Mine is definitely:

Hello?? Is there ANYONE in the world that doesn’t support a woman’s right to carry a pregnancy to term?This is a non-point. This is the stupidest thing she says. Before I go on, I just want to state, with complete clarity, that I fully support Saporta’s right to have two arms and two legs. Look how wonderful and liberal I am

 

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, Vicki Saporta

Quebec being misled

April 20, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

La Presse, a popular Montreal news source, has called Bill C-484 the “federal abortion law.” (For those who may not know, it’s actually a bill to protect pregnant women and their fetus from violent crimes against the mother.) Translated:

According to many, including physicians, women’s groups and affiliated unions, [the bill] opens the door to some recognition of fetal rights, therefore to the abortion debate.

Supposing that there is much meat to the statement above (which there isn’t) why shouldn’t the abortion debate be opened – I should say ‘remain open?’ In 1988, when the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law, it was left to Parliament to introduce a new law on the issue. It’s now 20 years passed, and thank goodness I wasn’t holding my breath.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: C-484, Quebec

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssby feather

Notable Columns

  • A pro-woman budget wouldn't tell me how to live my life
  • Bad medicine
  • Birth control pills have side effects
  • Canada Summer Jobs debacle–Can Trudeau call abortion a right?
  • Celebrate these Jubilee jailbirds
  • China has laws against sex selection. But not Canada. Why?
  • Family love is not a contract
  • Freedom to discuss the “choice”
  • Gender quotas don't help business or women
  • Ghomeshi case a wake-up call
  • Hidden cost of choice
  • Life at the heart of the matter
  • Life issues and the media
  • Need for rational abortion debate
  • New face of the abortion debate
  • People vs. kidneys
  • PET-P press release
  • Pro-life work is making me sick
  • Prolife doesn't mean anti-woman
  • Settle down or "lean in"
  • Sex education is all about values
  • Thank you, Camille Paglia
  • The new face of feminism
  • Today’s law worth discussing
  • When debate is shut down in Canada’s highest places
  • Whither feminism?

Categories

  • All Posts
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Charitable
  • Ethics
  • Featured Media
  • Featured Posts
  • Feminism
  • Free Expression
  • International
  • Motherhood
  • Other
  • Political
  • Pregnancy Care Centres
  • Reproductive Technologies

All Posts

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2023 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in