Misinfo spread by C-484 opponents

Commentary Marie-Christine Houle

A debate is shaping up surrounding the Unborn Victims of Crime Act (Bill C-484). Or is it? Recent declarations made by parties opposing the bill have proven to be enlightening, although not so much about the bill as about its opponents. They demonstrate how many individuals who oppose the legislation do so based on false arguments and irrational fears. They have had the audacity to suggest bill C484 is a cover for a hidden agenda. But what is theirs?

I invite these people to take the time to analyze the bill based on its legal merits and necessity. Since 2003 at least, 13 women have lost children they desired. The crimes that killed or injured these women and their unborn children were committed across the country; some of the women survived, others did not. They were women of all ages and from different ethnic backgrounds. Some of these crimes were cases of domestic abuse, but others were not. It remains that these women had one important thing in common: they had made the decision to bear their children and wanted to become mothers.

It is time for Canadians to keep in mind that the decisions we make today will have profound effects on the social landscape of the Canada of tomorrow. Famous Unitarian minister James Freeman Clarke once said, “A politician thinks about the next election. A statesman, about the next generation.” I hope today’s politicians consider the next generation and that we, as voters, expect as much from our elected officials. Bill C-484 has the potential to contribute to the establishment of a safer Canada for future generations.

In a piece published in the National Post on April 1, Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada put forth a rebuttal to a previous commentary made by Suzanne Fortin, who had pronounced herself in favour of the bill. Unfortunately, Arthur’s claims were nothing more than ad-hominem attacks. Furthermore, Arthur attempted to discredit the legislation and to prove that it is “all about abortion” because of the recurrent use of the terms “child” and “unborn child” in the bill. Ken Epp, Conservative MP for Edmonton Sherwood- Park and sponsor of C-484, addressed Arthur’s concerns about the language of the bill in a reply, also published in the National Post, in which he explained that he chose the words that are already used in the Canadian Criminal Code. No hidden agenda there.

Pregnant women are referred to as expectant mothers by people who hold a variety of social convictions. This acknowledges that the strong love a pregnant woman feels for her child does not come about only when she delivers. Perhaps Arthur should speak with women have who survived violent attacks, but lost a child who “was not yet born.” She should ask them if they feel less like mothers because their unborn children were stripped away from them by a third party without giving them a choice. The perpetrators of such crimes, under current legislation, can only be convicted of assault, aggravated assault or attempted murder (on the mother). In these cases, considering pregnancy an aggravating factor does not make a difference; the punishment simply does not fit the crime.

Arthur claims there is a common desire to protect pregnant women against violence. Pardon me if I doubt not her intent, but rather, her willingness to rally behind C-484, a bill that would protect pregnant women, simply because the MP who introduced it has pronounced himself pro-life. Family members of some victims, who stand on both sides of the abortion debate, have expressed their discomfort about the fact that Bill C- 484 is being used as a platform to discuss the issue of abortion, but it is the pro-abortion side, not the pro-life side, that has done that.

On March 27, a group of pro-abortion students opposing bill C-484 met at Ryerson University. Incredibly, some argued the bill could open the door for criminal charges to be laid against pregnant women who have HIV/AIDS. This delusional insistence on making C-484 into something it is not is childish, disrespectful to the public’s intelligence, irrational and simply wrong. It also exposes the extremes to which abortion advocates must go to in order to demonize a common-sense piece of legislation.

In her rebuttal to Suzanne Fortin, Arthur referred to an essay she wrote and concluded that “it’s up to the pregnant woman to decide how she views her fetus and that it’s society’s job to support her decision.” What greater way is there for Canadian society, through the vigilant decision of its Parliament, to demonstrate to women that we, as a society, support their choice to embrace motherhood than by supporting the Unborn Victims of Crime Act? This supports women who have chosen motherhood and protects them and their unborn children from violent crime. Who, really, can be against this?

Marie-Christine Houle is the executive director of Women for Women’s Health.