WeNeedaLaw.com says the issue is not abortion
OTTAWA (CCN)
Those opposed to Bill C-225 (Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act) risk endangering women says WeNeedaLaw.com director Mike Schouten.
Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall’s private member’s bill, also known as Cassie and Molly’s Law, came up for its second and final hour of debate in the House of Commons Oct. 17. It would make it an additional criminal offense to harm or kill an unborn child while committing a crime against the mother.
“It is shocking that many Liberals and NDP are opposed to a bill that is designed to protect choice,” said Schouten in an Oct.18 news release. “Cassie, who the bill is named for, chose life for her daughter Molly, but Cassie was murdered before her baby could be born. Under our laws the killer will not be brought to justice for taking the life of her daughter without her consent.”
Bill C-225 addresses gender-based violence, specifically by protecting pregnant women who have chosen to carry their child to term, WeNeedaLaw.com said.
“If the Trudeau government truly believed that a woman’s choice is paramount, then they would have no problem justifying a woman’s choice to have a legal abortion while also supporting a law against the violent crime of killing a fetus when the pregnant woman has not chosen abortion,” said Schouten. “If they cannot do this, the only option they support is abortion, which is really no longer a choice at all.”
“If choice is removed from the equation, there is nothing to distinguish a legal abortion from a violent attack on a pregnant woman that results in the death of her wanted child,” he said, warning opposition to the bill “out of fear it will endanger abortion as the effect of endangering women.”
During the debate, the only speech opposed to the bill came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government, Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux, who said he had “some serious concerns.”
“Often I stand in this place and talk about the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said. “I have argued in the past and I personally believe in the charter. The Liberal Party is a party of rights and freedoms. Listening to the member, I cannot help but reflect on that issue.”
While condemning violence against women, Lamoureux argued case law already treats pregnancy as “an aggravating factor” in sentencing. He said other means can be found to protect women.
Though Lamoureux never mentioned abortion, his reference to the Charter echoes Prime Minister Trudeau’s stance when he has defended his policy of not allowing candidates or MPs in his caucus to oppose so-called abortion rights.
Wagantall and several other Conservative MPs who spoke in defense of the bill stressed Cassie and Molly’s Law would have no effect on women’s ability to access a legal abortion.
“Opponents of Cassie and Molly’s law claim that the bill could be a back door to limit a woman’s access to abortion services,” said Wagantall. “This is untrue and entirely misleading to Canadians. Simply put, Cassie and Molly’s law would only add new offences for existing crimes against a pregnant woman that resulted in injury or termination of her pregnancy.”
“Because this bill would only affect existing crimes, and abortion is not criminal, Cassie and Molly’s law would have no impact on abortion services,” she said. “The bill would not change the legal definition of a human being or create fetal personhood as some critics have tried to claim.”
Wagantall said the bill’s sole objective is to address violence against pregnant women.
She cited a Nanos Research Poll that shows 70 per cent of Canadians support Bill C-225, which comes up for a vote Oct. 19.
