ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for Ken Epp

A legal entity within a legal entity

March 24, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Does this make any sense? Are the rights of women eroded through government cutbacks? Do regular non-political Canadian women know what Status of Women Canada actually does? And on the “schizophrenia” of Bill C-484… well, have a read. It’s a very, um, interesting take on it.

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert, BQ):
…In the days following International Women’s Day, I must say that it worries me deeply to sit in this Parliament under a Conservative government. I was elected almost four years ago and I have never had to make so many speeches to promote the status of women. This is unusual. I feel like the rug is being pulled out from under us.

It seems to me that this Conservative government is attacking the promotion of the status of women. Some attacks are obvious. The most obvious, of course, are the cuts made to Status of Women Canada, so that the organization would stop promoting the status of women. There have been many other attacks. The most recent is Bill C-484, introduced by a Conservative member, a legislative measure that greatly concerns me. The bill has to do with unborn victims of crime. Under the pretense of protecting fetuses and protecting women, it would give a legal status to the fetus. This could mean sending women to prison for having an abortion. It would turn back the clock on women’s rights by decades.

I am surprised that, as I speak here today in 2008, I am forced to defend women’s equality, to defend women’s bodies and to tell men they must stop trying to legislate on women’s bodies. They cannot simultaneously be a legal entity and have another legal entity inside them. That is schizophrenia. I say this jokingly, but I am really very worried.

________________________

Brigitte adds: Yeah, and women cannot simultaneously be a human being and have another human being inside them. That is schizophrenia… (If that‘s what the opposition manages to come up with, I say we’re winning.)

________________________ 

Tanya points out the obvious: Bill C-484 states: “For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented.”

Carole Lavallée says: “This could mean sending women to prison for having an abortion.”

She may be on to something with this “schizophrenia” concept… there’s definitely some paranoia going on. Elevating the rights of fetuses to a little lower than those of a house-cat has the pro-abortion side “really very worried”? In her place, I’d be more worried about how out of touch with Canadian women I am, since 74% of them are in favour of the bill.

________________________  

Véronique adds: You can go to prison for hurting a house cat. I’m just saying this to preempt comments about Tanya’s comment.  http://cfhs.ca/news/humane_societies_applaud_criminal_code_changes/Anyway… I have a dear friend who suffers from schizophrenia. We go back many years — before she was diagnosed — and she is one of the most courageous person I know. All this to say that for vocabulary’s sake, there is nothing “legal” about whatever lives in my friend’s head. I’m not even sure it’s an entity.And at the risk of sounding like a lawyer, I am a legal entity who lives in a legal entity. That would be my house. Seriously. I’ll spare your intelligence and stop here rather than explain how many legal entities we technically live in. As I’m writing this, I am humming “the head bone’s connected to the, neck bone. The neck bone’s connected to the backbone …”

 

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Bill C-484, Canadian law, Ken Epp, National Abortion Federation

Angus Reid must harbour a secret so-con agenda

March 19, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Otherwise how could they come up with these poll results on Bill C-484?

Furthermore, more women support the legislation than men.  

Women (74%) are slightly more in favour of the proposed legislation than men (66%). Female respondents (19%) are also less likely than male respondents (29%) to perceive the Unborn Victims of Crime Act as an attempt to recriminalize abortion in Canada

Interesting.

__________________

Tanya adds: Boy-oh-boy, that 19 per cent sure is making alot of noise. In public forums, you can barely get two words out about Bill C-484 without someone calling it a “foothold in the door” for anti-abortionists, or a “very dangerous precedent.”

Apparently, the only way pro-abortionists feel safe is if fetuses are accorded less rights than cattle.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Bill C-484, Canadian law, Ken Epp, National Abortion Federation

Bill C-484 passes second reading

March 5, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime bill, passes 147 to 133 in the House this evening.

(This is the bill that would make the murder of a pregnant woman count as two murders. If you want to read more about it, we’ve commented on it here, here, here and here. It now goes on to committee for discussion and debate. After that, it will return to the House for a final vote, and only then will finally go on to the Senate. That’s how I understand parliamentary procedure, anyway…)

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Bill C-484, Ken Epp, unborn victims, Unborn victims of crime

The National Abortion Federation and Bill C-484

February 26, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

160_vicki_saporta_080128.jpg

Vicki Saporta and the National Abortion Federation will not support Bill C-484. That’s the unborn victims of violence bill before Parliament right now. How could they? They point out in the release that the bill’s sponsor, Ken Epp is a known public enemy, er sorry, “a known opponent of legal abortion.” For the National Abortion Federation, it’s all sweetness and decency, hands across the water and teaching the world to sing: Until a pro-lifer enters the room.

Their reasoning? The bill will apparently conflict with “well-established Canadian laws.”

NAF fully supports a woman’s right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Because this bill does nothing to protect women and because its possible consequences include casting doubt over well-established Canadian law, NAF opposes C-484.

That’s funny, because Parliament deemed the bill votable. And then there’s the fact that Canada has no abortion law. So where might the conflict be?

On the plus side, NAF will not be mandating death–they felt it necessary to state their support for a woman’s right to keep her baby in the same press release.

________________________

Brigitte adds: I always like to ask people why they say the things they say. Here I would like to know why the NAF insists that they “fully supports a woman’s right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term.” I’m glad they do, and I don’t mean to question their motives (well, you know, not unduly), but I wonder why they felt the need to add this sentence.  It’s like this other bit I noticed a while back, from Carolyn Egan, a spokeswoman for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, who suggested that:

… a more appropriate way of dealing with such a serious crime is for the courts to impose a stiffer sentence for the perpetrator when the victim is pregnant.

Why do people who insist the fetus has no rights because it is not a person also insist that a crime against a woman who is carrying one of those non-person things in her body should be punished more severely than a crime against a woman who’s not carrying a non-person fetus thing in her body?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Bill C-484, Canadian law, Ken Epp, National Abortion Federation

The question nobody’s asking

January 5, 2008 by Brigitte Pellerin Leave a Comment

If I weren’t afraid of stale metaphors, I’d say this is where the rubber meets the road.

Some MPs are rallying support for a proposed law that would make it a crime to kill or injure an unborn child after a Winnipeg woman, who was eight months pregnant, was shot to death.

Conservative MP Ken Epp, who recently tabled private member’s bill C-484 called the “Unborn Victims of Crime Act,” said the legislation would create a new offence in the Criminal Code. The bill addresses a “huge gap” in law when a violent act is perpetrated against a woman who has chosen to carry the fetus to term, he said.

“This is a case when the woman has decided to have that child, and that choice has to be protected in law,” Epp said. “I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m pro-life. But this bill goes very narrowly at one issue — where the woman has made the choice to have the child, and that choice is taken away unilaterally, without her consent and usually with violence.”

Seems like a no-brainer. Most people, I think, would agree attacking a pregnant woman is worse than attacking a man or a non-pregnant woman. It’s just one of these things everybody knows. Including, it would appear, the pro-abortion person the newspaper story had to quote.

Carolyn Egan, a spokeswoman for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said the usual things about slippery slopes and women’s rights (as if the rights of women who actually want to keep their babies didn’t count), but then, in the words of the newspaper story, she “suggested a more appropriate way of dealing with such a serious crime is for the courts to impose a stiffer sentence for the perpetrator when the victim is pregnant.”

And nobody thought to ask her why. Why impose a stiffer sentence for the perpetrator when the victim is pregnant? Why should the justice system care about a clump of cells that, we insist, is NOT a person?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Carolyn Egan, Ken Epp, Unborn Victims of Crime Act

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

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