But there have been developments. The bill (C225) has been deemed votable, which mean we will be subjected to a glurge-filled debate in Parliament on it.
Like Ken Epp’s ill-fated C484, this “unborn victims law" is intended to and will, if passed, impact Canadian women’s right to autonomy by giving rights and status to fetuses.
DAMMIT JANET! opposes C225 as does Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) (pdf).
This bill, like other attempts, was spurred by a horrible crime and is being pushed by, not to put too fine a point on it, vengeance-minded people.
Principally by the ex-partner of the murdered woman who now seems to have come completely unhinged.
In a 2500 word rant, he is now attacking Joyce Arthur of ARCC, claiming that she is “anti-choice.”
You are NOT an advocate for a woman’s choice if you are only willing to protect one of her options. In fact, you have been a cancer to the rights of these women, and it has come at a cost to their physical protection at the very time they should have it most. Please for the sake of women – get right or step down.
LifeShite reported on his latest under the title
“‘Pro-choice’ dad rips top abortion activist: the only ‘choice’ she pushes is abortion.”
Jeff Durham is the man’s name and he lists the “unborn victims laws” that ARCC — and all pro-choice people — have opposed. His blogpost includes photos and names of pregnant women killed.
He is in effect blaming pro-choice, and Joyce Arthur in particular, for the deaths of these women.
I don’t know if Joyce is a litigious person, but in her shoes I sure as hell would be inclined to speak to a lawyer about this situation.
Oddly missing in all this is the accused, Matthew Brush. At his last court appearance in March, the judge decreed that he would be tried for first-degree murder and the next court date was set for April 8, but I can’t find any mention of it.
Media coverage of the crime has been extremely tight-lipped. Cassandra Kaake was determined to have died from blood loss caused by extreme trauma. Her body was discovered in the ruins of a deliberately set house-fire.
I have seen nothing about possible motive or the relationship (if any) between Kaake and Brush. Nothing.
There is clearly much more to this story. Is that “more” what’s driving Durham’s rage?
I guess we’ll find out.
Previous posts on C255 here and here.
UPDATE: Dig this.
After noting that Durham describes himself as "pro-choice," the piece 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.So, is Durham being manipulated by fetus freaks? Sure looks like it.
And they have the gall to call us out for noting that is *IS* an anti-abortion law in sheep's clothing.