Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Bill: The E-Petition

In December last year, Canada's government acknowledged the power of the Intertoobz and started allowing e-petitions. They need to be sponsored by an MP and if they get 500 signatures, can be tabled in Parliament.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada yesterday initiated an e-petition against Bill C225 (full text of bill), "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)," with its glurgy nickname, "Cassie and Molly's Law."

Or as we call it: the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (WISC) bill.

English version

French version

PDF backgrounder on ARCC's reasons for opposing C225.

The main reason to oppose it is the usual: it is yet another backdoor attempt to restrict abortion, with the ultimate goal of putting pregnant people under the microscope of the law. Such laws elsewhere have had the effect of criminalizing pregnancy -- in the US, sending dozens of women, largely poor and people of colour, to prison for the crimes of miscarriage, attempted suicide, or substance abuse while pregnant.

It is also a "personhood" law, conferring on a fetus rights that WILL compete with those of the incubator, er, pregnant person.

And if you need further evidence of its intended narsty effects, ALL the fetus freak groups support it.

At ARCC, there is also a resources page listing other actions to take, like signing a paper petition, a sample letter to your MP, and a list of groups opposed to C225.

On March 22, fetus freaks started an e-petition in support of WISC. It currently has 4402 signatures, 31 from "other countries."

The ARCC petition now has 88 signatures, broken down by province/territory. There are none yet from any of the territories or from PEI.

Let's get on this, digital citizens. It's fast and easy. Please sign, then tweet, Facebook, and generally promote it on social media.

Here's the link again in plain text for easy copying:
https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-381



Previous DJ! posts on the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing bill:
Dead as a Door Nail

Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights

Vengeance Drives "Unborn Victims" Law

It's Baaaack: Unborn Victims Bill C484 Redux

Nope, This "Pre-born Victims Bill Won't Pass Either

Vengeance -- and More -- Drives "Unborn Victims" Law

I said I had no more to say about the new “unborn victims” law proposed as a private member’s bill by double-plus good fetus freak Cathay Wagantall.

But there have been developments. The bill (C225) has been deemed votable, which mean we will be subjected to a glurge-filled debate in Parliament on it.

Like Ken Epp’s ill-fated C484, this “unborn victims law" is intended to and will, if passed, impact Canadian women’s right to autonomy by giving rights and status to fetuses.

DAMMIT JANET! opposes C225 as does Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) (pdf).

This bill, like other attempts, was spurred by a horrible crime and is being pushed by, not to put too fine a point on it, vengeance-minded people.

Principally by the ex-partner of the murdered woman who now seems to have come completely unhinged.

In a 2500 word rant, he is now attacking Joyce Arthur of ARCC, claiming that she is “anti-choice.”

A sample:

You are NOT an advocate for a woman’s choice if you are only willing to protect one of her options. In fact, you have been a cancer to the rights of these women, and it has come at a cost to their physical protection at the very time they should have it most. Please for the sake of women – get right or step down.

LifeShite reported on his latest under the title
“‘Pro-choice’ dad rips top abortion activist: the only ‘choice’ she pushes is abortion.”

Jeff Durham is the man’s name and he lists the “unborn victims laws” that ARCC — and all pro-choice people — have opposed. His blogpost includes photos and names of pregnant women killed.

He is in effect blaming pro-choice, and Joyce Arthur in particular, for the deaths of these women.

I don’t know if Joyce is a litigious person, but in her shoes I sure as hell would be inclined to speak to a lawyer about this situation.

Oddly missing in all this is the accused, Matthew Brush. At his last court appearance in March, the judge decreed that he would be tried for first-degree murder and the next court date was set for April 8, but I can’t find any mention of it.

Media coverage of the crime has been extremely tight-lipped. Cassandra Kaake was determined to have died from blood loss caused by extreme trauma. Her body was discovered in the ruins of a deliberately set house-fire.

I have seen nothing about possible motive or the relationship (if any) between Kaake and Brush. Nothing.

There is clearly much more to this story. Is that “more” what’s driving Durham’s rage?

I guess we’ll find out.

Previous posts on C255 here and here.


UPDATE: Dig this.

After noting that Durham describes himself as "pro-choice," the piece goes on:

Wagantall says that Durham’s public support of the bill is part of the strategy to counter so-called pro-choice objections that unborn victims laws are pro-life laws in sheep’s clothing.

So, is Durham being manipulated by fetus freaks? Sure looks like it.

And they have the gall to call us out for noting that is *IS* an anti-abortion law in sheep's clothing.

It's Baaaack: Unborn Victims Bill, C484

UPDATE: December 7, 2015
This old blog-post must have been linked to somewhere because it's getting some action in the comments recently. I published a couple as you can see and there are more.

But I've said what I said and have nothing to add. Discuss this elsewhere. I will publish no more comments.

******************************


Here we go again. Another brutal murder of a pregnant woman and people are again braying for vengeance.

Firefighters discovered [Cassandra] Kaake’s body Dec. 11 after she was murdered and mutilated. Kaake, 31, was seven months pregnant. She planned to call the baby Molly.

Police said Kaake died from blood loss caused by severe trauma. The killer also allegedly torched Kaake’s Benjamin Avenue home with her body inside.

Matthew Brush, 26, from LaSalle, is charged with break and enter, arson causing property damage, possession of incendiary material for arson, arson with disregard for human life, first-degree murder and indecent interference with a dead body.

If found guilty, I think it's pretty safe to say that this fella will have the book thrown at him, including a very harsh sentence based on Canada's sensible notion of aggravating circumstances.

From a 2007 Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Position Paper on "Fetal Homicide" Law (pdf):

In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges (such as first degree murder or aggravated assault), judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.

Perhaps we want a new law that codifies such practices. Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime. Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses or interfering with abortion rights, and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they are pregnant.

No doubt this has been explained to the grieving family and friends, but is apparently not enough. A woman named Kim Badour started a petition to bring back Ken Epp's ill-fated private member's bill, C484.

The bill would have made it a criminal offence to cause harm to an unborn child during a crime against the mother. It passed second reading in the House of Commons but was later dropped. Badour wants to bring it back.

As the ARCC quote indicates, there are tons of problems with "fetal homicide" laws, however well-intentioned they are. (We do not believe that Epp and other fetus freaks were well-intentioned. We believe they were and are crass anti-choicers preying on the grief and outrage of bereaved families in order to bring in anti-abortion legislation by the infamous back door.)

So what does Official Fetus Freakdom have to say?

Perhaps surprisingly, it is quite clear-eyed and balanced (!!!!) in its response. First the obligatory whine.

[Mary-Ellen]Douglas [spokesperson for Campaign Life Coalition] hopes a pro-life MP will take up Bill C-484 but doesn’t give it much chance of passage. “Harper stopped it the first time,” she said, and there is no reason to believe he won’t do the same again.

But next, a pretty straight account of the other side.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) opposed Bill C-484 then and still does, seeing it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While it appeals to all concerned about violence against women, according to ARCC, it really targets women’s “reproductive rights.” ARCC’s Joyce Arthur told LifeSiteNews that 38 U.S. states (and the U.S. federal government) have passed unborn victims laws or other “fetal personhood” measures that have “resulted in hundreds of pregnant women with wanted pregnancies being arrested or prosecuted, or subjected to forced interventions, for behavior perceived as potentially harmful to the fetus.”

Arthur cites a study titled Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973–2005: Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health, and further studies by the same researchers, Lynn Paltrow and Jeanne Flavin. They count 780 instances since 1973 (380 of them since 2005) of women jailed or institutionalized by the courts either to get them off drugs during their “wanted” pregnancy or on suspicion they deliberately caused themselves to miscarry, but sometimes when women merely resisted doctors’ wishes that they deliver by caesarean section. 

None of the laws used were intended to jail pregnant women, the researchers report, and about 10 percent of the arrests fell under unborn victims of crime laws.

The piece ends with another obligatory whining flourish.

Mary Ellen Douglas countered, however: “Joyce Arthur and her crowd will do anything to avoid talking about the 4 million unborn children that have been legally aborted in Canada. They can’t face that reality.”

Here's a link to the executive summary of the study Arthur cites. It is a chilling documentation of the criminalization of pregnancy in the US, resulting in arrests, trials, and imprisonment of mostly poor, vulnerable women.

Two recent examples show the gross injustice these laws enable, both cases targetting women of colour: Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shuai.

But however tragic these cases are -- whether they involve murder, spousal abuse, sustance abuse, or mental health issues -- there will always be the opportunists.

Like Mike Schouten of We Need a Law (Like a Hole in the Head).

It is particularly rich that Schouten with his astroturf organization -- set up by Dominionist Association for Reformed Political Action to jump on "gendercide", or the alleged MASSIVE phenom in "certain" communities of aborting female fetuses -- would attach itself to a proposed law that would target poor, vulnerable women like Patel and Shuai.

Ah well, "gendercide," "fetal homicide," criminalized pregnancies, grieving families, targetted "communities" -- what does it matter to people on a Mission from Gawd?

Here's our Minister of National Defense at ARPA's "God & Government 2014" bunfest.

(Yes, I realize that photo is irrelevant, but I like it.)

UPDATE, Feb. 25/15: Windsor Star is running a poll on whether a fetal homicide law is needed. And as commenter Anon says, people are letting their emotions get in the way of the actual threat to women's rights such a law would present.

Keep Talking

We at Birth Pangs are laffing our asses off at Ken Epp, the Reforma-Tories, the so-conned, etc etc on the demise of Bill C-484, aka The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

But this, as they say, is gonna leave a mark.

The freakin' Editorial Board of the National Pest, main MSM stirrer of the C-484 pot, has also made a screeching 180. Under the title 'Conservatives choose clarity over compromise on Epps' Bill', it opines:

(Quick, swallow anything you have in your mouth.)

As Mr. Epp explains here, the bill is careful to define lawful abortions by willing women as non-criminal acts, and in explicitly taking away the possibility of the defence that a fetus is not a human being, it even acknowledges, in a sense, that it is not necessarily founded upon any unstated notion of fetal rights. The Conservative government could probably have defended and passed this bill on that basis, without making the public uncomfortable or in any way reviving the abortion debate. But it rightly prefers not to take chances conveying nuance to the Canadian public through the generally cockeyed instrument of the media.

Nuance . . . generally cockeyed instrument of the media . . .

Be sure to kiss him, Ken

Holy moly. Rob Nicholson just screwed Ken Epp.

OTTAWA — Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says his Conservative government will not reopen the abortion debate, but it will penalize offenders who endanger the lives of unborn babies.

Nicholson says he will introduce new legislation that will include a victim's pregnancy as an aggravating factor when judges consider sentencing violent offenders.

But the justice minister says the new law will be written in such a way that it cannot influence the abortion debate and legal interpretations of the rights of the unborn.

BWAHAHAHA!

Say buh-byeeee to The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

We can't wait to hear what the fetus fetishists have to say about this.

UPPITY-DATE: The Globe:

Tories abandon 'unborn victims' bill

The Harper government cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus just as election speculation hits fever pitch.
. . .

"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives of the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights. Let me be clear. Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," Mr. Nicholson said.

"For this reason ... I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."

MORE: CBC's take:

The new law will be written in such a way that it cannot influence the abortion debate and legal interpretations of the rights of fetuses, Nicholson told reporters at a news conference in Ottawa on Monday.

First published at Birth Pangs.

Give that guy a really loud microphone

Oh, look. Mr. Kicking Abortion's Ass is at it again. Referring to the sad story deBeauxOs mentioned yesterday, the lying liar uses this headline:

Another Unborn Victim and Mother Die; Pro-Aborts Shrug Shoulders Vow to Press On Approving of Double Homicide

He quotes some of the LifeShite article including this:

Current Canadian law has no legislation regarding the unborn. Hence, White will escape unpunished for the murder of his child.

That's a lie. He has been charged, is in custody, and if found guilty, will serve time. That is not escaping punishment.

But note also -- not even LifeShite claims 'pro-aborts' did any shrugging of shoulders over this story. Nor did it claim 'pro-aborts' approve of double homicide.

We at Birth Pangs usually prefer to giggle at our enemies opponents, but this is a bit much.

Looky here at his conclusion:

I’m sure the cold, heartless butches will be gnashing their teeth about this one and the bad PR this is going to have for their inalienable right to prevent women from giving birth. They’ll be screeching something about the baby not being worthy of protection and how the family is just overreacting to a clump of cells.

I know it makes us puke to hear them speak, but we must encourage them to keep talking. Everytime they utter a word in opposition to C-484, the more fanatically pro-abort they sound.

So hand them the mic and turn it up real loud.

Actually, this is pretty funny, considering it comes from the guy who coined the cute nickname we have co-opted, The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill. Ya think it's sweethearts like this that Ken Epp is attempting to distance himself and his bill from?

[T]his Bill, if it becomes law, will enhance the rights of women, and certainly not jeopardize their freedom of choice on the question of abortion. I have had to remind pro-life supporters of this very point. This Bill is not what some of them are thinking, hoping or wishing it would be.

Yeah, well, that's a lie too. This bill is exactly what the no-choicers think, hope, and wish -- a sneaky backdoor attempt to create fetal rights.

We at Birth Pangs will certainly keep talking about this. And we'll happily share our microphone with Mr. Kicking Abortion's Ass. Much as Ken Epp wishes he'd STFU.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

Blogosphere Gob-Smacked!

Well, golly gosh and gee. The progressive blogosphere is all agog. It seems a sneaky little private member's bill, C-484, aka Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, came RIGHT OUT OF THE BLUE and bit them all on their cute little tushes.

Now, we at Birth Pangs realize we're not really a political blog, seeing as we cover female stuff like justice, equality, and human rights. And we really are very pink, which we understand is the International Female Colour/Color.

But if the boyos had been paying the least bit of attention to us or the dozens of other bloggers who started harping (oooh, can I say that?) on this topic on February 9, they may not have been quite as gob-smacked as they are today.

In fact, the boyos could have had an even earlier heads-up by visiting JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie or here at BP back on November 23, 2007.

After the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill -- though it wasn't called that yet; I think it was called 'The Dirty Rotten Sneaky Backdoor Attempt to Recriminalize Abortion Bill' or something like that -- got a bit of debate in December, we blogged again here. (I think JJ did too but I'm too lazy to go look.)

C-484: Incrementalism Starts Here

Ken Epp on The Current on Monday misspoke or was confused. He said the vote on the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill (C-484) is this Friday. IT IS TODAY. Or at least scheduled for more debate and vote today.

Lest any of you have lingering doubts whether the Krazy Konservative Kriminalizers are wetting their pants in joy, hop over to Unrepentant Old Hippie and bastard logic for some enlightening screen-shots.

We at Birth Pangs couldn't put it any plainer than the 'Support C-484' group at Facebook:

If passed this bill . . . would be a key step in recriminalizing abortion.

What this is about, fans of freedom, is incrementalism.

We'll leave you with an editorial on the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill from last year at the Catlick organ, The Interim:

In the United States, incrementalist legislation – informed consent, waiting periods, defunding, clinic hygiene laws, etc. – have successfully reduced the number of abortions. . . . Every restriction decreases the number of babies killed in the womb.

In Canada, there is NO law on abortion. If we let them win on this, it will be just the beginning of a series of incremental steps towards recriminalizing abortion.

Please, if you haven't yet taken action, go to our Activist Page to get started.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

Epp, Caught

All credit to laura at We move to Canada for catching Ken Epp, he of the Sneak Attack on Women's Rights on Court TV this week.

After an exploration of what his private member's bill, C-484, would and wouldn't do as well as alternative legislation that would not threaten abortion rights, host Lorne Honickman asked Epp why his bill is necessary. laura says there was a long pause followed by this:

"Because we want to recognize the humanity of that unborn child. Whether that child was killed three months before birth or three months after birth, it was still a child, there was still a loss of life. The other side might wish to deny the humanity of that unborn child, but we want the law to recognize it."

(laura adds that this is not a direct quote but a very close paraphrase.)

A couple of bloggers have already made sport of this oopsie here and here.

We at Birth Pangs would like to offer our site as the Epp-Caught Centre* to record for all time further and past oopsies by Epp and his fetus-fetishizing supporters.

Go forth, Champions of Truth. Search them out in the benighted bits of the blogosphere and bring them back here to face the giggles wrath of loyal BP readers.

And to get this show rolling, here's one we missed from The Shotgun Blog at Western Standard on January 28.

What are our parliamentarians thinking?
. . . . The best way I know to understand what’s on the minds of our parliamentarians is to take a look at the private members bills before the house. . . . And here’s one for the Conservative base: Ken Epp’s crafty little bill to strengthen the legal rights of the unborn and force a debate on abortion.

Nope. Not about abortion atall atall.

And another one from today:

Kicking Abortion’s Ass Alert

From my good friend SUZANNE (is there any other?)

Subject: Important Pro-Life Alert

Ottawa’s News Talk radio CFRA (www.cfra.com) will be covering the Unborn Victims of Crime bill twice more before the second hour of debate on Monday. You won’t want to miss these! Please call-in and make your views known! (Don’t forget, you can “listen live” from the CFRA website; I believe the number to call is 1-800-580-TALK)

Again. No way is this bill about abortion. Only paranoid feminazis think it is. :roll:

See how easy it is?


__________

* Not, of course, to be confused with the Epcot Center,
' from the acronym EPCOT (Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow), a utopian city of the future planned by Walt Disney .'

h/t for the notion to loyal BP reader pseudz

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

One body. One person. One count. -- The Roundup

Wow. That was impressive. Yesterday, twenty-two bloggers participated in the 'One body. One person. One count' blog-burst in opposition to Ken Epp's private member's bill, C-484, a back-door attempt to create fetal rights as the necessary first step in recriminalizing abortion.

Some, including Scott Tribe and In the House and Senate, posted a few days earlier.

We at Birth Pangs were pleased to see the turn-out by the usual Vicious Abortion Crusaders. ;) But we were very pleased to read this from Blast Furnace Canada. Blast Furnace is Catholic, Liberal, and, soi-disant, 'pro-life'. But BF is obviously rational with the concomitant bullshit-spotting ability.

For the record and in no particular order, here's the list of participants. (We've no doubt missed some. Please let us know and we'll add.)

BLOG-BURST: One body. One person. One count.

Bad company ruins good morals.
--1 Corinthians 15:33

We at Birth Pangs believe that all one needs to know about private member's bill C-484 is the company it keeps.

Canada's Numero Uno Blogging Fetus Fetishist said recently:

The opponents of unborn victims of crime like to point out that many people who support Bill C-484 are fetal rights supporters.

This is true.

From wiki’s entry on fetal rights:

Legislative measures sometimes seek to establish the right to life of the fetus from the moment of fertilization. Such laws regard the fetus as a person whose legal status is on par with that of any other member of the species homo sapiens. . . Much opposition to legal abortion in the West is based on a concern for fetal rights. Similarly many pro-choice groups oppose fetal rights, even when they do not impinge directly on the abortion issue, because they perceive this as a slippery slope strategy to restricting abortions.

LifeNews sets out the talking points here and
here.

We won't bother to list all the flying monkey bloggers who patter along behind these giant organs of zygote zealotry.

But we did find this bit of gloating from LifeShite last November illuminating: