am deeply disappointed that a number of physician groups are opposing my private member's bill C-484. I want to believe that any opposition is sincere and based possibly on publicly stated misconceptions that the bill will, in some way, reduce a woman's right to make choices about her own body, and also about possible legal consequences "down the road."
I respectfully ask doctors to consider this matter as individual physicians, and not as part of a collective interest with any particular agenda. In that spirit, let me try to address the above concerns.
Yeah, right Mr. Epp. Do you think we forgot what you said back here? If you did, you really are dumber than I thought.
Losing an unborn child in a violent act is beyond heartbreaking. It is a devastating tragedy which is only exacerbated by the fact that our legal system, not to mention society in general, has for too long turned its back on these most vulnerable of women and their families. By not charging an assailant in this tragic circumstance, we only add to the hurt and sorrow that survivors experience. C-484 is a compassionate response to their cry for justice.
Spot the strawman argument here. Would somebody show me the sudden rash of cases where criminal assault has involved pregnant women? Oh wait - it's Mr. Epp's imagined threat - the one he's busy knocking down.
Also, and significantly, the bill does not change the definition of "human being" or recognize fetal "personhood" in any way. What it does, is to give legal recourse to lay charges against a third party only in the very specific, very narrow circumstance when a pregnant woman is the victim of a crime, the attacker knows she is pregnant, and, in the process, the attacker intentionally or recklessly harms or causes the death of her unborn baby.
Ummm...bullfeathers, Mr. Epp. You have, by the very wording of your legislation given legal status to a fetus that is separate and apart from the mother:
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,
If this bill were seriously intended to do what Mr. Epp says it is, all it needs to do is impose an additional penalty for the fact that the assault victim was pregnant - as Bill C-543 does.
I suggest, Mr. Epp, that you quit trying to do the women of Canada any more favours - it's pretty obvious that you have no clue.
1 comment:
I thought that HarperCorp was opposed for special rights for any group....
Guess preggy women get special rights....
or is it anything to appease the reigh wingers to get them to keep voting for these nutcases??
Post a Comment