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.
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:
Hidden agendas everywhere! (Just because I am paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get me.)