 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
For Immediate Release (Ottawa) – Responding to comments made by some pro-life supporters that Bill C-484 could lead to the recriminalization of abortion or the recognition of the unborn child as a “person” in Canadian law, Edmonton area MP Ken Epp reiterated what he has been saying to opponents of the Bill. “Bill C-484 is not, I repeat is not, about granting personhood status to the fetus. It is about creating a new criminal offence 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, her baby is intentionally or recklessly harmed or killed by her attacker. Furthermore,” said Mr. Epp, “the Bill explicitly excludes consensual abortion and any act or omission by the mother of the child.” The comments by some “pro-lifers” which Mr. Epp was referring to, have appeared in media reports and internet blogs and are being cited by opponents of C-484 as “proof” that C-484 is a “backdoor attempt to recriminalize abortion.” “While it is understandable that pro-lifers would be happy about a law that would show a modicum of respect for the unborn child, it is simply not the case that this is the ‘first step’ to recriminalizing abortion,” he said. “We already have some possibilities of legal liability for harming the fetus in criminal law and tort law, and that has not affected abortion in any way.” Mr. Epp explained further that the Law Reform Commission of Canada, in its 1989 pro-choice report Crimes Against the Foetus, recommended that the killing of a pregnant woman’s unborn child against her will be a criminal offence. Quoting from the Commission’s Report, Mr. Epp said, “’…to decide whether to give the foetus criminal law protection we don’t need to decide if it is a person….There is nothing which limits criminal law protection to persons.’” Mr. Epp also cited Canadian Supreme Court rulings which have consistently said that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the protection of the unborn child, including the 1988 Supreme Court Morgentaler decision in which Chief Justice Dickson said: “Like Beetz and Wilson JJ., I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective. It follows that balancing these interests, with the lives and health of women a major factor, is clearly an important governmental objective.” “Note that the Supreme Court talks about a balancing of interests between the mother and the child,” said Mr. Epp. “But in the case of Unborn Victims of Crime, there is no balancing act even necessary because there is no ‘conflict of interests.’ In the very specific instance we are attempting to deal with, the killing of the woman’s unborn child is being forced upon her. Her ‘interests’ and her child’s ‘interests’ are the same. In abortion, their ‘interests’ are in conflict. That difference distinguishes the issues raised by abortion from the issues raised with Bill C-484. It explains why we can criminalize third-party attacks on the pregnant woman that result in her baby’s death, without criminalizing abortion or even raising the question of abortion as an issue.” Mr. Epp concluded, “No matter how much some pro-choice supporters fear that C-484 will lead to the recriminalization of abortion, and no matter how much some pro-life supporters hope that C-484 will lead to the recriminalization of abortion, the truth is, C-484 and abortion are two separate issues with respect to the law that applies to each. The abortion debate will go on with or without C-484. But when it comes to a third-party criminally attacking a pregnant woman, knowing she is pregnant, and destroying or harming the baby she in fact very much wants, let us, on this one issue alone at least, set aside any ideological differences and do what we instinctively believe is right and just. If we can rectify this wrong in law, we will have taken one more step toward a more just Canadian society.” -30- Bill C-484 can be viewed here. |
| Back to C-484 Press Release page |
Site by: |