ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Ken Epp

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.

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.

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.   

“Fetus incubators”

by Leave a Comment

It’s a special kind of disdain for pregnancy and for women in general, I say, when you call pregnant women incubators for the fetus.

 

That’s what Patricia LaRue, of Canadians for Choice was cited as saying in a La Presse article on May 22, which I received translated into English.  

 

Patricia LaRue, of Canadians for Choice, sounding an alarm that brings to mind the old slogans, says that pregnant women must not become incubators for fetuses once again

 

The whole article is a piece of work. It begins with a pregnant woman who passes the date for a legal abortion and subsequently shoots herself in the abdomen. She is charged under a law that we are led to believe is something like Bill C-484 would be. It turns out to be a case where “ultimately the charge was amended” ie. she didn’t suffer any consequences. It also turns out to be California, over three decades ago.

 

Any editor with an ounce of journalistic integrity would ask their reporter to FIND A NEW LEDE. Is this the best kind of fear mongering those who are against Bill C-484 can do?

 

In short, we are supposed to oppose Bill C-484 because one crazy lady shot herself in the abdomen in California thirty years ago.

 

Now that, that is high quality reasoning. Excuse me while I go shoot myself in the abdomen for the sheer frustration of it all.

Ken Epp writes

by 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

Bill C-484 as abortion debate

by Leave a Comment

Chantal Hébert in The Toronto Star today on Bill C-484. Predictably, she has equated abortion access with equality for women. But also has equated Bill C-484 with a recriminalization of abortion.

Seeing as the Bill is not about recriminalizing abortion, we ought to ask why it is that every pro-abortion critic believes that is the case. The answer is fear: Would recognizing the fetus in cases where where the mother wanted it result in recognition of the fetus in other places as well? It is still not immediately clear to me why that would have to result in “recriminalization,” but I’m perhaps not well-positioned to comment on that, seeing as I aim to have women recognizing the hypocrisy of abortion and the ills for their own person prior to doing so “for The Government tells me so.”

Bill C-484 so far as I can tell might well result in a recognition of the hypocrisy of our current system: This is a baby when wanted, not a baby when not wanted. “Wantedness” is such a funny concept, and yet our current ideas of what constitutes humanity rest on that notion. Not comforting.

From the horse’s mouth

by Leave a Comment

Ken Epp has addressed some concerns the pro-abortion side, namely Joyce Arthur, has for his bill, Bill C-484, here.

I think that if Ms. Arthur would debate what my bill actually says instead of basing her arguments on a misrepresentation, she would be advocating for C-484. How can she argue against protecting in law the unborn child which the pregnant woman has chosen to keep, and to provide criminal sanctions against any third party who would unilaterally take that choice and that anticipated new life away from her, without her consent, against her will and with violence?

Anyone?… Anyone?

Joyce Arthur resigns on Bill C-484?

by Leave a Comment

More on Bill C-484, the unborn victims of violence bill, here.  

[Joyce] Arthur described the bill as “lingering sexism”, and said anti-abortion arguments all stem from a patriarchal view of women. “They think a fetus should have some rights, there’s too many abortions, it’s used as birth control,” Arthur said. “They feel the law should be making these decisions. But only a pregnant women [sic] can be making these decisions. Is this a blob to her, or a person?

Joyce Arthur appears to have signed her own resignation slip with that statement, because to the women who were attacked and lost their babies, the baby was a baby, a person, not a blob. Case closed–in Arthur’s world too, then, Bill C-484 should stand.

Meta