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.

Vengeance -- and More -- Drives "Unborn Victims" Law

I said I had no more to say about the new “unborn victims” law proposed as a private member’s bill by double-plus good fetus freak Cathay Wagantall.

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.”

A sample:

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.