No Miscarriage of Justice

Bill C-484 has been, um, aborted!

Just this afternoon came news that the Conservatives have shelved MP Ken Epp's misbegotten private member's bill, properly called "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)" but usually cited as "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act."

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that a new bill will be drafted to close any loopholes regarding fetal rights. "Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," he said.

The new bill will instead target the punishment of those who harm pregnant women.

That's what we in the women's-right-to-choose department have been saying all along, that any bill should target violence against women which, by extension, protects the fetus.

Gee. You think an election is coming?

Comments

[Stan]

What are Canada's abortion laws? Do we even have one? Is it legal to abort a fetus days or hours before it would be born?

[fern hill]

We feminazis skeert them, Antonia.

And we'll be watching very carefully what hi-jinks they get up to in this new bill.

But for now -- W00t!!!!! Us winning a little.

And yeah, I smell an election. About time.

[johnnykap]

"Gee. You think an election is coming?"

I don't know. Is it breathing hard?

I'm on today, Zerbs. I'm hitting on all cylinders!!!

[Licketysplit]

Wow! they are sucking up to women for our votes.

Now to get my cousin Robert Ghiz to reverse his province's, PEI, decision on abortion so the ladies don't have to leave the province.

[rdionne]

It has taken a Conservative government to (propose) implement such an important and critical Criminal Code of Canada offence.
Where were the Liberals on this issue for their nearly 20 years in parliament?

I suspect they had their heads buried the sand while Martin ran his offshore shipping company (to avoid canadian taxes) and J.C dabbled in hotel and golf course sales with transactions and receipts hand written on napkins.

Slam the Conservatives all you want (The Star has a penchant for that)but the reality is that this goverment has done more in the past three years for the good of Canada overall than has all of previous governments combined (yes that includes Mulroney era)

As a former devot NDP supporter (sorry Jack, but you have done JACK and stand about as much a chance at having the NDP in power as do the Leafs winning next seasons Stanley Cup), I am now a future Conservative supporter/voter.

I'll take the gst cuts, the apologies to aboriginals (I am one) as well as to other groups,in addition to tough crime legislation and secure borders any day vs. the present alternative choices.

"Go green or go home" does not cut it with most Canadians. Seems to me that all Dion/Layton have to offer.

rdionne

[...pat.]

I'm glad they let that bill die.
Yes, it's probably because they don't want to fight an election over it (and we *would* make them fight an election over it).

I'm just... tired? of the Conservative posturings. We have not done good things to society at large in the last three years. Holes in the safety net of social services are larger and more numerous.

And don't get me started on the removal of funding for charter challenges or women's organizations or the arts.

[stargazer]

Re: "What are Canada's abortion laws? Do we even have one? Is it legal to abort a fetus days or hours before it would be born?

The law in Canada is rather unique in that there IS no law - forbidding anything. The Supreme Court determined that abortion is an issue only the federal government can control, so the provinces are unable to put any kind of legal limitations on it.

Technically, in Canada, anyone can have an abortion at any time for any reason. However, there IS a ton of red tape around the issue. You can have it done in a hospital; but not all hospitals do it. You can have it done by a doctor; but not every doctor will do it. Doctors themselves you see, have the right not to provide certain services.

"Even though there's no gestational limits in Canada, over 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, only 2-3% are done after 16 weeks, and no doctor does abortions past 20 or 21 weeks except for compelling health or genetic reasons."
-http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/canada.shtml

[Robert]

There is no abortion law currently in Canada. Ever since R. v Morgentaler. A fetus is not considered to be alive until such time as the fetus is seperate from the womb. That is the legal definition of life as defined by the Criminal Code. That runs contrary to the medical definition of life which is neurological activity imminating from the brain stem.

Yes there is an election coming for Harper wants to have a majority and he is using the old military adage to strike when your enemy is weakest. He knows that Dion is a weak leader and cannot survive against a strong leader like Ignatief or even Rae. I know that Dion will go down as the 2nd leader of the Liberal Party to never become Prime Minister but this is grand standing on the part of the Conservative Party to garner votes. If this was not the case then the Bill would have been enacted long ago.

[Nathan Goveas]

Stan

Canada - The only Western democracy with no abortion laws at all. Good or bad depending on where you stand on the issue.

As for the Conservatives not opening abortion it's just smart politicking. They'll be ready to trample women's rights if ("heaven" forbid) they get a majority

[sooey]

So... a new bill will "target those who harm pregnant women"? As opposed to... those who harm spinsters?

What a bunch of '50s rejects these New Conservatives be.

And by '50s, I mean 1750s...

[john]

The Canadian Left is very reactionary. Most Canadians supported this law. Most Canadians support some limits on abortion too, and this bill wasnt even about abortion. It was about respecting the life of a wanted baby. It was like the Laci Peterson law in California, hardly a radical right wing state.

Canada is the only country in the western world where abortion is legal during all 9 months for any reason, taxpayer funded, with no regulations at all. It is perfectly normal in western liberal democracies to give some protection to unborn babies, especially when they are wanted. The idea that a baby's life is worthless even when his/her mother wants them and can have zero legal recognition is evil and unscientific. Canada really needs a conservative media alternative.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

apparently Ken Epp himself isn't, though. It's still hanging around ...

Meanwhile, hope the link works ... eye-grabbing trailer for possible blockbuster ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaefcprW9Mg

"don't get me started on the removal of funding for charter challenges or women's organizations..."

Thanks, Pat. I feel invigorated this morning.
That's one of the small signs that convinced me that this government is not completely hopeless, unlike Mulroney's Liberal-in-all-but-name disaster.

The Court Challenges Programme was (hopefully now always "was") a way for the Liberals to maintain and extend their Gramscian (not all Marxists are wrong all the time, though they come pretty close) one-party/one-kultura state through hiding behind the courts (with nearly all the judges appointed by the Liberals and their Mulroney clones). Only favoured groups were considered, inexorably creating a set of privileges where none had previously existed.

this article sums it up quite nicely. A question for "equality-seekers" - could you please explain why James Robinson should have been denied by the Court Challenges Programme, if it were really about "equality"?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/26/john-carpay-and-chris-schafer-don-t-bring-back-the-court-challenges-program.aspx

[...pat.]

Stygian, so glad you feel invigorated.

But I don't see why you're posting a reference to such stale second-hand arguments..
The court challenges programme simply recognized that there was a substantial area of law that needs to be revisited in the light of the constitution brought home. Obviously, reactionaries (oops. you call them conservatives) don't see the need for the revisit, by definition. That leaves it to more progressive sectors of society to question existing laws in the light of the constitution.

I don't think the mandate had been exhausted: there are still plenty of areas that need examination. That is what we've lost. And it's a damned shame.

[Gigi]

(The problem with reading anything in the National Post these days is you can't tell when it is written by an actual journalist or one of their loopy "guest writers". I'm going to assume that was the latter. Probably because I don't really care.)

What I clicked through to point out was that if they ACTUALLY wanted to switch to a bill that increased penalties for abusing pregnant women, they would have said they were backing C-543.

They didn't.

So, this is announcement is just posturing and bullshit.