Monday, 25 April 2016

C225, or Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill

Double-plus good fetus freak MP Cathay Wagantall's private member's bill C225, or The Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill has its first hour of debate on May 2.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), which opposes the bill, is calling on similar right-minded people to send letters to our MPs asking them to oppose it too. Here's a sample letter to cut and paste from.

There are many reasons to oppose it, but the main one is that is a "personhood" bill.

From the sample letter:
Bill C-225 is almost identical to Bill C-484 (“Unborn Victims of Crime Act”), a 2008 bill that passed second reading but got no further, and was widely criticized as a sneak attack on abortion rights. Like C-484, the new bill ascribes an implicit form of legal personhood to a fetus. Although it defines the fetus as not a human being, I think that’s disingenuous because C-225 would modify the “Offences Against the Person” section of the Criminal Code, and give the fetus the human right not to be injured or killed. But legal precedent in Canada has already established that a pregnant woman and her fetus are considered “physically one,” and that separating them would risk infringing women’s Charter rights (Supreme Court in Dobson v. Dobson). Also, I find it telling that support for the bill comes largely from the anti-choice movement. I fear that the anti-choice movement would use this law as a stepping stone to restrict abortion.

Its proponents say: no, no, no, this bill has nothing nada zip zero to do with abortion. Just as they said about C484, unless they're talking amongst themselves, and then of course it's about abortion, wink wink. Here's a link to an old blog-post by JJ, the unrepenant old hippie, with screen-caps of their "is it or isn't it?" flip-flops.

I do believe Jeff Durham, ex-partner of the murdered woman, Cassandra Kaake, and most vocal and sympathetic supporter of the law, when he says he's pro-choice and this bill is not intended (by him at least) to affect abortion rights.

But look what I found the fetus freaks saying about him amongst themselves.

After noting that Durham describes himself as "pro-choice," the piece in the Catholic rag, Interim, goes on:
Wagantall says that Durham’s public support of the bill is part of the strategy to counter so-called pro-choice objections that unborn victims laws are pro-life laws in sheep’s clothing.
Thus, my name for the bill: The Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights Bill.

They are absolutely shameless about using a man's grief and pain and thirst for justice/revenge to advance their misogynist agenda.

And the freaks know they have an emotional wedge here. Hearing of a vicious crime in which a woman is killed along with her wanted fetus, most people react with horror and condemnation. When slyly informed that the perpetrator cannot be charged with an additional crime for the death of the fetus, these people are shocked.

When further slyly informed that there is a remedy for that in this proposed law, a remedy that will NOT impinge on abortion rights or the rights of pregnant people in general, these people will nod and be reassured.

It is precisely this knee-jerk sympathy and shock that the fetus freaks intend to exploit.

I doubt C225 will pass, but who knows? C484 got further than sane people expected.

Please take a few minutes to contact your MP. (The handy MP finder by postal code thingy is here.)

Because C225 is a wolf in sheep's clothing.


choice joyce said...

Thanks Fern, great piece!

Also, if any readers are part of a group, we're collecting names of organizations that oppose Bill C-225, so MPs debating against the bill on May 2 can cite the numbers. Please email (preferably before May 2) with your group's name and city. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Going by some of your twitter feeds(which led me here)and some of your blogging subjects,it seems to me that you consider yourself to be a pro choice advocate Fern.The same applies to Choice Joyce.But yet you so called pro choice advocates are advocating against a woman's choice in opposing this Bill C-225.I consider myself to be pro choice and support this bill because I believe in a woman's "choice" on either side of the spectrum.To me,it makes sense and that is what being pro choice is.Are you sure you and Choice Joyce are not misrepresenting yourselves in the public eye and simply going under the guise of being pro choice? You both seem to be more like pro abortionists or along those lines to me.

fern hill said...

Here we go with the disingenuous comments again.

Can you not read, Anon?

I have spelled out my reasons for opposing this sneak attack on reproductive rights MANY times.

I post this comment for others to see -- yet again -- the slippery way these people argue.

And yes, I'm pro-abortion. I'm also pro-adoption and pro-birth.

And no, that's not a gotcha. That's what pro-choice means.

fern hill said...

I should add that I allowed that comment on this old blogpost only because C225 is up for second reading this Wednesday, October 5, and there is a push going on by its supporters to save it.

Post a Comment