I guess women are getting stronger

Back door legislation is being used against them.

Bill C-484 was drafted by pro-life advocate, Ken Epps. It is up for a vote in the House this coming week. Although Conservatives promote it as a Bill protecting a foetus, and by association, the pregnant woman against violent crimes, many see it as a way to re-introduce and give strength to the anti-abortion issue.

The problems in this Bill are two-fold: they seek to give status to the foetus as a separate entity with rights equal to human beings, and it seeks to re-define the foetus as a child. The wording of the Bill is geared to both. Let’s look at the problems with this Bill.  

BILL C-484 - An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence) 1. This Act may be cited as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.

The word “child” would re-define a foetus and a zygote as a human being. Similarly, “unborn victims” would give them a status independent from the woman. If the Bill was truly concerned only with protecting the woman from an involuntary miscarriage while being the victim of a crime, wording of this Bill could easily be changed to reflect an additional crime against the woman, that of causing an unwanted miscarriage. Wording here is clearly to establish the rights of a foestus and zygote as independent from a pregnant woman. That Bill continues to use such wording throughout, leaving no doubt that such a Bill will indeed view the foetus as a separate human being, and a child, at that.

 3. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 238: Causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence 238.1

(1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years if the person

(i) means to cause the child’s death, or (ii) means to cause injury to the child or mother that the person knows is likely to cause the child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not;

Just in case you still have doubts that the intent of this Bill is to declare a foetus/zygote a human being and give it rights as such:

 Exclusion of defence

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being.

And in case you still don’t get it:

 Separate offence

(6) An offence referred to in this section committed against a child is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the child.

 Epp tries to portray this as a Bill meant to protect women from violence as well. This, from his site:

 According to the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System, women abused during pregnancy were four times as likely as other abused women to report having experienced very serious violence, including being beaten up, choked, threatened with a gun/knife or sexually assaulted. It is very disturbing that when a woman is at her most vulnerable, she is at increased risk of attack. This bill will act as a strong deterrent to perpetrating violence against pregnant women.

Note, however, how the Bill makes it very clear that what it is proposing “ is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the child.” It would be very easy to amend the Bill to state that causing an involuntary miscarriage is an additional crime against the woman. In fact, it is already treated as such.

Punishment demanded matched that of killing a child.

 (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life if paragraph (a) does not apply but the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the child;

Interesting to note is how the Bill will protect perpetrators of domestic abuse to some degree by giving them an out:

Reduced offence

 (2) An offence that would otherwise be an offence under paragraph (1)(a) may be reduced to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation within the meaning of section 232.

So if a woman provokes the man and he beats her, causing a miscarriage, his sentenced could be reduced, because, you know, she provoked him. Epp is also very dishonest in presenting statistics to support his claim that most women and Canadians agree with his Bill. Again, the truth and trickery is revealed in the wording. Epp uses statistics to show:

 Public Opinion

 2. An Environics poll released in October 2007 found that 72% of Canadians—75% of women—would support “ legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a foetus during an attack on the mother.”

3. Even among those Canadians who support unrestricted abortion for the full nine months of pregnancy, 55% support “ legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a foetus during an attack on the mother.”

 4. This type of legislation is supported across party lines: 77% of Conservative supporters, 71% of Liberal, 71% of the Bloc Quebecois, 67% of the Green Party, and 66% of the NDP supporters are in favour of “ legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a foetus during an attack on the mother.”

These studies clearly use the term “foetus” not child and while they call for inclusion of a forced miscarriage as a separate crime, they do not say this should not be a separate crime against the woman.

 Epp uses these stats and distorts the wording and meaning to suit his ideological desire to declare a foetus/zygote a separate human being. While he claims to protect a woman’s right to choose by adding -

(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of (a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;

It will be difficult to argue later that a “child” is a child in the case of crimes committed against a woman, but is not a child any other time. If the foetus is given independent rights in this case, it will be hard to argue it has none any other time.

This is a Bill that endangers a woman’s right to choice, her rights over her own body, and could affect her ongoing fight for equality. The birth control pill has been declared by many as the greatest invention of the 20th century. It allowed women to decide if and when they wanted children, freeing them up to work, play, study, and live longer than before. It allowed them to manage the size of their family, and made it more possible for them to survive, along with children, if they had any, when abandoned by their spouse.

The right to abortion has given women rights and freedoms as well that go beyond isolated cases of deciding whether or not it is the right time for them to have a child. The right to choose gave women the assurance that they are capable of making their own choices without having a predominantly male parliament legislating how they must act. It told them they are adults responsible for their own choices. The premise that criminalizing abortion protects the woman is nonsense and reduces women to child-like creatures, weak creatures incapable of making decisions on their own behalf.

Fight this Bill. It is an unnecessary Bill since the extra charge of causing an unwanted abortion already exists in our laws. It is a dangerous Bill because it re-defines a foetus/zygote as a child and gives it independent rights. This will absolutely lay the groundwork for arguing to re-open the abortion issue.

Go here to Birth Pangs to see what you can do. Those terrific freedom fighters are running quite a campaign. Thank you! Remember, the Bill is set for a vote this coming week.