Docs condemn unborn crime bill

[vonGarvin]

Link here:

MONTREAL -- Canada's largest doctors' group has strongly condemned a private member's bill it fears could limit women's access to abortion and criminalize doctors who assist them.
By a wide margin, the Canadian Medical Association voted yesterday to oppose Bill C-484, "and any legislation that would result in compromising access for women to the medical services required to terminate a pregnancy."
C-484, "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act," was introduced as a private bill by Conservative MP Ken Epp of Edmonton. It has passed second reading in the House of Commons.
The act would make it a crime to take the life of a fetus against the wishes of the mother-to-be. Currently, if a pregnant woman is attacked and the unborn child dies, the attacker can't be charged because the fetus has no legal standing as human.
(more at link)

So, if a person clubs a pet poodle in the street, that person can be charged.  If a person does "something" to a pregnant woman that causes that woman to spontaneously terminate her pregnancy, there's nothing that can be done legally?  WTF?  (I don't care if you're for or against abortion, I think this has nothing to do with aborition, but this just sounds messed up, given that people go to jail for killing things that aren't "human".)

 

[Dissident]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3127600&file=4

The proposed bill in the link above.

 

[CountDC]

Link here:So, if a person clubs a pet poodle in the street, that person can be charged.  If a person does "something" to a pregnant woman that causes that woman to spontaneously terminate her pregnancy, there's nothing that can be done legally?  WTF?  (I don't care if you're for or against abortion, I think this has nothing to do with aborition, but this just sounds messed up, given that people go to jail for killing things that aren't "human".)

if what is stated is true then it appears to be a lot of sabre rattling over nothing.  The doctors are not at risk in any way as it states against the wishes of the mother-to-be. Unless the doctors are doing the abortion without the mothers consent then they are safe.

I support the legislation - someone assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to lose the fetus should be charged. Not knowing is not an excuse as there is no justification for assault. Note that in my books self defence is not assault.

 

[ModlrMike]

There are still several things in the way before this bill becomes law:

a. it has to undergo third reading;
b. it has to survive the committee stage;
c. it has to survive the Senate; and
d. it has to survive this round of Parliament.

If there's an election then the bill will probably die on the order paper.

I think what the doctors are fearful of is the "wedge" possibility of this bill. After all, if we protect the unborn child under one bill, what' to stop us from doing so under another? Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court would probably rule any anti-abortion legislation as unconstitutional, and the Torries are not so clueless as to propose the one issue they know will reduce them to a handful of seats in a future election.

 

[Rodahn]

I have no idea nor profess to understand why the Dr's would be upset with this bill.

Para 7 "Termination of pregnancy and acts in good faith excluded" seems to exclude the medical profession, and would not IMO, prevent the mother from seeking an abortion if she was so inclined.

 

[Neill McKay]

If a person does "something" to a pregnant woman that causes that woman to spontaneously terminate her pregnancy, there's nothing that can be done legally?  WTF?

Let's be clear that the person could still be charged for having attacked the woman.

 

[EDS334]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3127600&file=4

The proposed bill in the link above.

Thanks for the link.  I'm going to give it a read, but just after reading the summary I can see why the Canadian Medical Association is against it.  And, as always, it would seem that the few choice words made by the media are skewing perspectives...

"This enactment amends the Criminal Code by making it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother."  -C-484 Summary

I think there would need to be some distinguishing between "against the wishes of the mother" and "an offence against the mother".  Someone could, in theory, press charges against a mother enacting her choice to abort a pregnancy if they believed that in doing so would cause offence against herself (ie. self-harm/psychological).  From a legal standpoint, it would be an interesting debate.  From the human perspective, boy does it get muddled. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's be clear that the person could still be charged for having attacked the woman.

If she survives it's assault. If the fetus dies it would be murder. Big difference in charges & sentencing.

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, it wouldn't have to be murder.  Simply something along the lines of "Termination of pregnancy without consent" or something like that.  There are laws protecting my dog, that prevent me from kicking it, throwing it down the stairs, whatever.  If my wife were pregnant, she would have no "special status" if someone were to kick her in the stomach, throw her down the stairs, whatever.

Anyway....

 

[Neill McKay]

Well, it wouldn't have to be murder.  Simply something along the lines of "Termination of pregnancy without consent" or something like that.  There are laws protecting my dog, that prevent me from kicking it, throwing it down the stairs, whatever.  If my wife were pregnant, she would have no "special status" if someone were to kick her in the stomach, throw her down the stairs, whatever.

No special status, but it's still very much illegal to do those things to her whether she's pregnant or not.  (Not to go too far into likening anyone's wife to a dog -- but it's no greater crime to kick a pregnant dog than any other dog.)

The ethical problem is that we (Canadian society, in the form of Parliament) have decided that a fetus does not enjoy the rights of a person.  If it did then abortion would be considered as murder, just as anti-abortionist activists typically argue.  If we now decide that a fetus does warrant the protection of the law then the law seems to be contradicting itself at least to a limited extent.  The bill will have to be a masterpiece of legislative drafting to avoid stepping into one extraordinarily deep ethical quagmire.

 

[vonGarvin]

No special status, but it's still very much illegal to do those things to her whether she's pregnant or not.  (Not to go too far into likening anyone's wife to a dog -- but it's no greater crime to kick a pregnant dog than any other dog.)

The ethical problem is that we (Canadian society, in the form of Parliament) have decided that a fetus does not enjoy the rights of a person.  If it did then abortion would be considered as murder, just as anti-abortionist activists typically argue.  If we now decide that a fetus does warrant the protection of the law then the law seems to be contradicting itself at least to a limited extent.  The bill will have to be a masterpiece of legislative drafting to avoid stepping into one extraordinarily deep ethical quagmire.

I wasn't comparing mine (or anyone's) wife to a dog.  I was comparing the protection dogs enjoy, but fetuses (feti?) don't.  Suppose a pregnant woman were bumped (purposefully) by someone, and it caused her to terminate her pregnancy, but it were argued in court that a non-pregnant woman would have suffered nothing.  There's the difference.

As for protecting the fetus, it doesn't have to be given human status, hence my earlier point re: dogs.  Call it "woman's choice" or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that as a society, I think we can agree that pregnant women are something "special", to be protected from harm.  Currently there is no law as such.  IMHO, that's wrong, and has as much to do with abortion rights as space travel does (eg: nothing).

 

[Sheerin]

It's a slippery slope and that's why the CMA is against it.  They most likely realise that once this law is in place, even though it doesn't go as far as saying the unborn fetus is a child directly, that at some point in the future some law maker will amend it so it is considered a human.  Then it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for someone to write legislation that states that abortion is illegal because under Canadian law the fetus is considered a human. 

as for the law it's self, i don't believe it's necessary, rather the maximum sentance for assault should be increased beyond the current 14 years, or rather it should be opened ended and up for the judge to decide.  And that for instances where a fetus is miscarried as a direct result of the assualt, then it should be a factor taken into consideration during sentancing.   

And while reading the proposed legislation, i'm not sure i'm comfortable with the whole "ought to know [the mother is pregnant]" section.  Seems a little too vague for me. 

 

[vonGarvin]

as for the law it's self, i don't believe it's necessary, rather the maximum sentance for assault should be increased beyond the current 14 years, or rather it should be opened ended and up for the judge to decide.  And that for instances where a fetus is miscarried as a direct result of the assualt, then it should be a factor taken into consideration during sentancing.   

But, if you wish to take miscarriage into account then such a law is absolutely necessary.  If convicted of assaulting a woman who happened to be pregnant, and who happened to miscarry as a result, any defence lawyer worth his or her salt will argue that the miscarriage is irrelevant, as there is no law to that effect. 
Having said that, I do not agree that it should be a factor taken into consideration during sentencing, but rather a crime unto itself.  Perhaps "Causing miscarriage" could be the offence.  I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
As for the "slippery slope" argument, that is exactly what opponents to the whole homosexual marriage thingy said: next will be polygamists.  We haven't seen that yet.  And I doubt we will.

 

[Neill McKay]

Proving that a miscarriage was the result of an assault might be a tough nut to crack.

 

[Sheerin]

Actually if this one member really wants to codify it into law that it is wrong to assault a pregnant woman, then we should expand it and include all individuals who vulenerable.  Perhaps expanding the definition of aggravated assualt to include any attack against someone who is in a vulerable state, that is someone of diminished mental capacity, physical capacity, pregnant, the young, old, et cetera.

 

[Harley Sailor]

After reading the proposed bill a couple of time I can see big problems with it.

BILL C-484 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence).

Short Tile -- 1. This Act may be cited as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.

This in itself calls the fetus an un-born child. Giving it a human title and opening the door to calling the death of the fetus murder.

When I go on to read the rest of the proposal all I see are the terms child and un-born child.  Nowhere did I see Fetus mentioned.  This is nothing more then the first step in legally saying abortions are murder.

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

Let us say, that in the least, the fetus is a part of the woman.  By removing the fetus you are removing a part of the woman.  Nothing less them cutting off a good hand or ear, which could be called a crime even with her permission.  Therefore by removing the fetus you are committing an offence against the pregnant mother, thereby making abortion a crime.

 

[Blackadder1916]

This discussion may now be moot, as the government seems to be clearing this issue from the table in preparation for a possible election.  As in most dealings of those that we (misguided souls) elect, political preception trumps all.  The wording (in my opinion) of Bill C-484 did leave it open to a wider (mis)interpretation and created a possible future foothold for opponents of existing abortion laws.  The Tories definitely do not want to be too closely identified as the anti-abortion bunch as in past elections.  Now, if the government had only made this proposal back when this private member's bill was first introduced, it would have been seen as a sign of true consideration of the issue.

Tories abandon 'unborn victims' bill

BRODIE FENLON Globe and Mail Update August 25, 2008 at 8:58 PM EDT

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

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Monday that the government will draft a new bill to replace Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, so that it closes the debate about fetal rights and focuses instead on penalizing criminals who harm pregnant women.

The act, which was introduced last year by Tory MP Ken Epp of Edmonton and passed second reading in the spring, would make it a separate offence for killing an unborn child when a pregnant woman is slain.

Pro-abortion advocates have denounced it for giving the fetus some human rights. Last week, the Canadian Medical Association voted to oppose the bill, and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion spoke out against it, challenging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to clarify his own views on abortion.

"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."

A free vote in March on Mr. Epp's bill passed in the Commons 147 to 132. Mr. Harper voted in favour, as did more than 25 Liberals. Mr. Dion was absent. Four Conservatives, including cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon, Gordon O'Connor and Josée Verner, voted against the bill.

Mr. Nicholson said the new bill will expand the list of aggravating factors to be considered by a sentencing judge to include the fact of a women's pregnancy. Other aggravating factors currently on the books include spousal abuse, violence against people under 18, and if the crime is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or other similar factor.

But with an election looming amid Mr. Harper's complaints that Parliament is dysfunctional, it's unclear if the new bill will ever seen the light of day.

Asked by reporters if the bill is "political window dressing" on the eve of an election, Mr. Nicholson said that Mr. Dion has held the government under threat of an election for the last two years.

"Notwithstanding that, we have continued to move forward on our legislative agenda because tackling violent crime and fighting crime in this country is not just something that gets done when an election may be called or during an election," he said.