It's Baaaack: Unborn Victims Bill, C484

UPDATE: December 7, 2015
This old blog-post must have been linked to somewhere because it's getting some action in the comments recently. I published a couple as you can see and there are more.

But I've said what I said and have nothing to add. Discuss this elsewhere. I will publish no more comments.

******************************


Here we go again. Another brutal murder of a pregnant woman and people are again braying for vengeance.

Firefighters discovered [Cassandra] Kaake’s body Dec. 11 after she was murdered and mutilated. Kaake, 31, was seven months pregnant. She planned to call the baby Molly.

Police said Kaake died from blood loss caused by severe trauma. The killer also allegedly torched Kaake’s Benjamin Avenue home with her body inside.

Matthew Brush, 26, from LaSalle, is charged with break and enter, arson causing property damage, possession of incendiary material for arson, arson with disregard for human life, first-degree murder and indecent interference with a dead body.

If found guilty, I think it's pretty safe to say that this fella will have the book thrown at him, including a very harsh sentence based on Canada's sensible notion of aggravating circumstances.

From a 2007 Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Position Paper on "Fetal Homicide" Law (pdf):

In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges (such as first degree murder or aggravated assault), judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.

Perhaps we want a new law that codifies such practices. Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime. Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses or interfering with abortion rights, and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they are pregnant.

No doubt this has been explained to the grieving family and friends, but is apparently not enough. A woman named Kim Badour started a petition to bring back Ken Epp's ill-fated private member's bill, C484.

The bill would have made it a criminal offence to cause harm to an unborn child during a crime against the mother. It passed second reading in the House of Commons but was later dropped. Badour wants to bring it back.

As the ARCC quote indicates, there are tons of problems with "fetal homicide" laws, however well-intentioned they are. (We do not believe that Epp and other fetus freaks were well-intentioned. We believe they were and are crass anti-choicers preying on the grief and outrage of bereaved families in order to bring in anti-abortion legislation by the infamous back door.)

So what does Official Fetus Freakdom have to say?

Perhaps surprisingly, it is quite clear-eyed and balanced (!!!!) in its response. First the obligatory whine.

[Mary-Ellen]Douglas [spokesperson for Campaign Life Coalition] hopes a pro-life MP will take up Bill C-484 but doesn’t give it much chance of passage. “Harper stopped it the first time,” she said, and there is no reason to believe he won’t do the same again.

But next, a pretty straight account of the other side.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) opposed Bill C-484 then and still does, seeing it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While it appeals to all concerned about violence against women, according to ARCC, it really targets women’s “reproductive rights.” ARCC’s Joyce Arthur told LifeSiteNews that 38 U.S. states (and the U.S. federal government) have passed unborn victims laws or other “fetal personhood” measures that have “resulted in hundreds of pregnant women with wanted pregnancies being arrested or prosecuted, or subjected to forced interventions, for behavior perceived as potentially harmful to the fetus.”

Arthur cites a study titled Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973–2005: Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health, and further studies by the same researchers, Lynn Paltrow and Jeanne Flavin. They count 780 instances since 1973 (380 of them since 2005) of women jailed or institutionalized by the courts either to get them off drugs during their “wanted” pregnancy or on suspicion they deliberately caused themselves to miscarry, but sometimes when women merely resisted doctors’ wishes that they deliver by caesarean section. 

None of the laws used were intended to jail pregnant women, the researchers report, and about 10 percent of the arrests fell under unborn victims of crime laws.

The piece ends with another obligatory whining flourish.

Mary Ellen Douglas countered, however: “Joyce Arthur and her crowd will do anything to avoid talking about the 4 million unborn children that have been legally aborted in Canada. They can’t face that reality.”

Here's a link to the executive summary of the study Arthur cites. It is a chilling documentation of the criminalization of pregnancy in the US, resulting in arrests, trials, and imprisonment of mostly poor, vulnerable women.

Two recent examples show the gross injustice these laws enable, both cases targetting women of colour: Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shuai.

But however tragic these cases are -- whether they involve murder, spousal abuse, sustance abuse, or mental health issues -- there will always be the opportunists.

Like Mike Schouten of We Need a Law (Like a Hole in the Head).

It is particularly rich that Schouten with his astroturf organization -- set up by Dominionist Association for Reformed Political Action to jump on "gendercide", or the alleged MASSIVE phenom in "certain" communities of aborting female fetuses -- would attach itself to a proposed law that would target poor, vulnerable women like Patel and Shuai.

Ah well, "gendercide," "fetal homicide," criminalized pregnancies, grieving families, targetted "communities" -- what does it matter to people on a Mission from Gawd?

Here's our Minister of National Defense at ARPA's "God & Government 2014" bunfest.

(Yes, I realize that photo is irrelevant, but I like it.)

UPDATE, Feb. 25/15: Windsor Star is running a poll on whether a fetal homicide law is needed. And as commenter Anon says, people are letting their emotions get in the way of the actual threat to women's rights such a law would present.

The Wayback Machine: March 7, 2008

 Dear Members of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee,

 First, I would like to thank all the Members of Parliament who voted against the proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Bill (C-484). I would be remiss not to highlight my appreciation for Marlene Jennings (MP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine), Irene Mathyssen (MP London—Fanshawe) and Raymond Gravel (MP Repentigny) who spoke eloquently about the dangers the passing of this Bill into legislation would present.

 I am writing as a Canadian woman who has recognized the need for and championed women’s human rights throughout my life. I am alarmed with how the public debate on this and other human rights issues has been framed these past few years. I never thought that such a Bill, built on the grief of families who have witnessed violence against their mothers, daughters, sisters or partners, to exploit human compassion in an attempt to usher in a precedent for re-opening a debate on what constitutes human life, could ever have been ordered up and passed a second reading. Whether Ken Epp (MP Edmonton–Sherwood Park) honestly believes he is championing women’s human rights is debatable knowing his public statements on abortion and his close affiliation to numerous pro-life organizations, including LifeCanada who commissioned the Environics Poll that Mr. Epp’s has relied upon for support for his Bill.

 The murder of every woman in this country is a tragedy, whether she is pregnant or not. The criminal assault of a woman who has chosen to carry her pregnancy that results in a miscarriage is also tragic. The sheer number of domestic assaults in this country is frightening – I would applaud any MP or government that actually tackled that issue. This proposed Bill does little for Canadian women, pregnant or not, who are murdered or assaulted.

 Of course, I would prefer to see policy and programs put in place that would prevent the occurrence of these violent and tragic attacks on Canadian women. Proponents of Bill C-484 cite the case of six pregnant women having been killed in over the past three years. The Robert Pickton case alone dwarfs these numbers and the Crown has decided not to bother pursuing a trial on the twenty outstanding cases. According to the data collected by Statistics Canada, an average of 180 women have been victims of homicide annually between 2002 and 2006. The age range with the highest incidence of homicide is that of women aged 30 to 39 with an average rate of 35 homicides per year. This Bill does not address in any significant way the violence faced by countless Canadian women on a daily basis. 

Here is an excerpt of a report issued by Statistic Canada in 2006, entitled Measuring Violence Against Women: Statistical Trends 2006 by Holly Johnson:

Violence against women is a persistent and ongoing problem in Canada and around the world. It affects women’s social and economic equality, physical and mental health, well-being and economic security…

…Gender-based violence is perhaps the most wide-spread and socially tolerated of human rights violations. It both reflects and reinforces inequities between men and women and compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims.

The 1995 Federal Action Plan for Gender Equality emphasized the interconnections between equality and not only gender, but other personal characteristics: Barriers to equality are rooted in long-standing attitudes and traditions not only about women, but also about race, age, sexual orientation, disability, colour, etc. In particular, the life situations of women outside the dominant culture—women with disabilities, Aboriginal women, women from visible minorities, elderly women, lesbians, lone mothers, women in poverty—are quite different from the mainstream. For them, the path to equality has been, and continues to be, even more difficult. Equality for all women will come about only as these attitudes, imbedded in the workplace, educational institutions and the family, are challenged and begin to change…

This Bill only proposes to deal with the aftermath of violence against women, and only pregnant women at that. Bill C-484 wraps itself in concern for women but obviously misses the mark in addressing the serious issues that underlie violence against women. This Unborn Victims of Crime Bill not only fails to address the sweeping problems that exist for female victims of violence by selecting only a specific group of women who are assaulted or murdered, but it only seeks to find remedy through the courts and the application of criminal law.

 Bill C-484 fails to explain how having two separate charges differs from the current law, which already takes pregnancy into account as an aggravating factor. In addition, in an attempt to disingenuously distance itself from the underlying intention of the Bill to bestow legal personhood to the fetus, this Bill (unlike previous similar Private Members’ Bills with the same underlying intent that failed constitutionally) actually has the audacity to include the exclusion of consensual abortion as some sort of safeguard measure.

 I have yet to see any legal opinions on this Bill but even though I am not a lawyer, I can see huge gaping legal holes in this piece of legislation. How can you have one piece of legislation bestowing human rights to a fetus and have other laws that recognize human life beginning at birth simultaneously? Bill C-484 is almost set up to dare one group of concerned citizens or another to challenge the discrepancy. The bottom line, this amounts to challenging our current status quo on reproductive rights for women.

 It seem unfathomable to select a very distinct group of women for special protection under the law, especially given that that protection is focused uniquely on the fetus. How does this help our society deal with violence against women at large? How is this Bill, despite the qualifying statement, not about abortion rights in this country?

  Recent events in Parliament have clearly demonstrated that there is a dogged attempt to change the social and legal landscape of Canada one incremental step at a time. Whether it is censoring film and television productions for “offensive” content or repudiating our long standing commitment to protect Canadian citizens from the death penalty, the current government is certainly trying to undermine the great strides Canada has made as a progressive nation and a leader in human rights.

 In closing, I would ask you to think of one last question. If this was a noteworthy and necessary piece of legislation to protect women from violent crimes, why wasn’t it included in the Conservative Government’s omnibus crime legislation (Bill C-2) that was recently passed? Surely a party that voted overwhelming for this Bill would have seen its value and included it in their legislation. Or is the fact that Stephen Harper promised not to revisit the abortion issue the reason that he wants his government to distance itself from Bill C-484?

 Respectfully yours,

The Conservative Conspiracy

We at Birth Pangs had not read this blogger before. He's a card-carrying Conservative, he says. This week he took a look at Ken Epp's now defunct private member's bill, C-484, or The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

And by gadfry, he gets it.

Keep Talking

We at Birth Pangs are laffing our asses off at Ken Epp, the Reforma-Tories, the so-conned, etc etc on the demise of Bill C-484, aka The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

But this, as they say, is gonna leave a mark.

The freakin' Editorial Board of the National Pest, main MSM stirrer of the C-484 pot, has also made a screeching 180. Under the title 'Conservatives choose clarity over compromise on Epps' Bill', it opines:

(Quick, swallow anything you have in your mouth.)

As Mr. Epp explains here, the bill is careful to define lawful abortions by willing women as non-criminal acts, and in explicitly taking away the possibility of the defence that a fetus is not a human being, it even acknowledges, in a sense, that it is not necessarily founded upon any unstated notion of fetal rights. The Conservative government could probably have defended and passed this bill on that basis, without making the public uncomfortable or in any way reviving the abortion debate. But it rightly prefers not to take chances conveying nuance to the Canadian public through the generally cockeyed instrument of the media.

Nuance . . . generally cockeyed instrument of the media . . .

Be sure to kiss him, Ken

Holy moly. Rob Nicholson just screwed Ken Epp.

OTTAWA — Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says his Conservative government will not reopen the abortion debate, but it will penalize offenders who endanger the lives of unborn babies.

Nicholson says he will introduce new legislation that will include a victim's pregnancy as an aggravating factor when judges consider sentencing violent offenders.

But the justice minister says the new law will be written in such a way that it cannot influence the abortion debate and legal interpretations of the rights of the unborn.

BWAHAHAHA!

Say buh-byeeee to The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

We can't wait to hear what the fetus fetishists have to say about this.

UPPITY-DATE: The Globe:

Tories abandon 'unborn victims' bill

The Harper government cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus just as election speculation hits fever pitch.
. . .

"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives of the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights. Let me be clear. Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," Mr. Nicholson said.

"For this reason ... I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."

MORE: CBC's take:

The new law will be written in such a way that it cannot influence the abortion debate and legal interpretations of the rights of fetuses, Nicholson told reporters at a news conference in Ottawa on Monday.

First published at Birth Pangs.

Stick a Fork in It

We're flying here at Birth Pangs, but we had to do this:

The Canadian Medical Association tells Ken Epp and his band of lying liar fetus fetishists to f*ck right off.

Canada's largest doctors' group has strongly condemned a private member's bill it fears could limit women's access to abortion and criminalize doctors who assist them.

By a wide margin, the Canadian Medical Association voted yesterday to oppose Bill C-484, "and any legislation that would result in compromising access for women to the medical services required to terminate a pregnancy."

Seems the FFs can't get a single professional health care association to back their ploy.

We know. It's not over yet. But it's getting harder and harder to argue that the people opposed to the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill 'misunderstand' it.

UPPITY-DATE: Radio Canada has the numbers on the 'wide margin':

"Réunis en séance plénière, mercredi, 88 % des quelque 300 médecins participant aux assises annuelles de l'AMC ont voté pour la résolution."


(First published at Birth Pangs.)

More Support for the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill!

Woowee! Off to update our Activist Page. Another heavy-hitter has come out in support of Ken Epp's sneaky backdoor attempt at creating fetal rights, Bill C-484, aka The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

What heavy-hitter, you ask?

The Centre for Reproductive Loss. (And no, we didn't forget the linky; the Centre seems not to have a web presence.)

Here's its mouthpiece messenger:

In related news, advocates of private members bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill, received further support in form of the Centre for Reproductive Loss, which, for over fifteen years, has provided grief care support services to bereaved mothers and fathers whose lives have been affected by miscarriages, stillbirths, infertility and other related losses.

The centre released a statement giving their support to the bill,

"The traumatic loss of a woman's unborn child by assault or violence intentionally inflicted upon her child, whom she holds dearer than even her own life, can give rise to serious health complications and consequences," read the statement.

The statement detailed the many sufferings only a mother who has experienced the loss of an unborn child can understand: "The additional traumatic nature of this loss can intensify, compound and prolong her grief. She may suffer from a profound clinical depression or manifest post-traumatic stress disorder. As well, her ability to have other children may be seriously compromised, should she survive the attack, as indeed this may have been the one and only time she would be able to conceive."

Give that guy a really loud microphone

Oh, look. Mr. Kicking Abortion's Ass is at it again. Referring to the sad story deBeauxOs mentioned yesterday, the lying liar uses this headline:

Another Unborn Victim and Mother Die; Pro-Aborts Shrug Shoulders Vow to Press On Approving of Double Homicide

He quotes some of the LifeShite article including this:

Current Canadian law has no legislation regarding the unborn. Hence, White will escape unpunished for the murder of his child.

That's a lie. He has been charged, is in custody, and if found guilty, will serve time. That is not escaping punishment.

But note also -- not even LifeShite claims 'pro-aborts' did any shrugging of shoulders over this story. Nor did it claim 'pro-aborts' approve of double homicide.

We at Birth Pangs usually prefer to giggle at our enemies opponents, but this is a bit much.

Looky here at his conclusion:

I’m sure the cold, heartless butches will be gnashing their teeth about this one and the bad PR this is going to have for their inalienable right to prevent women from giving birth. They’ll be screeching something about the baby not being worthy of protection and how the family is just overreacting to a clump of cells.

I know it makes us puke to hear them speak, but we must encourage them to keep talking. Everytime they utter a word in opposition to C-484, the more fanatically pro-abort they sound.

So hand them the mic and turn it up real loud.

Actually, this is pretty funny, considering it comes from the guy who coined the cute nickname we have co-opted, The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill. Ya think it's sweethearts like this that Ken Epp is attempting to distance himself and his bill from?

[T]his Bill, if it becomes law, will enhance the rights of women, and certainly not jeopardize their freedom of choice on the question of abortion. I have had to remind pro-life supporters of this very point. This Bill is not what some of them are thinking, hoping or wishing it would be.

Yeah, well, that's a lie too. This bill is exactly what the no-choicers think, hope, and wish -- a sneaky backdoor attempt to create fetal rights.

We at Birth Pangs will certainly keep talking about this. And we'll happily share our microphone with Mr. Kicking Abortion's Ass. Much as Ken Epp wishes he'd STFU.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

C-484: Is the Fat Lady Warming up Her Pipes?

We at Birth Pangs have not yet been terribly impressed with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's commitment to women's rights.

But if he stands by the promise he made today at a press conference, we'll change our tune.

Stephane Dion vowed today that Liberals will block passage of a Tory bill that some fear might re-open the dormant abortion debate.

"I want to give my word to all the women of Canada that the Liberal Party of Canada is against to reopen woman's right to decide as a debate," the Liberal leader pledged.

. . .

Although the bill specifically exempts abortion, pro-choice advocates fear it would give legal status to the fetus and would, thus, be a step towards recriminalizing abortion.

Dion indicated that he shares the view that the bill would reopen the abortion debate and vowed: "We will not allow that to happen."

He is, of course, referring to Ken Epp's private member's bill, C-484, aka The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill.

We would like to think that M. Dion is taking this stand for the right reasons. But, given the Liberal penchant for power, we wonder if he read the story about how UK MP Harriet (Hardwoman) Harman whipped the recent vote there to block moves to lower the time limit for abortion.

According to one account, women Labour MPs formed a ‘human corridor’ to channel their colleagues into the ‘No’ lobby. One Labour MP claimed to have heard one of Ms Harman’s team shout: ‘Vote against us and the sisterhood will never let you forget it.’

Rest assured, M. Dion, the Canadian sisterhood will never let you forget it either.

h/t to choice joyce at BnR

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

Shhhhhh

OK, we admit it. Sometimes we at Birth Pangs make shit up. But we didn't make this up.

Back in March we started calling Bill C-484 The Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill after a prominent fetus fetishist called it that on his blog.

So, despite the fact that an anonymous commenter there helpfully pointed out that the post had just made a liar out of Ken Epp, today the same blogger posted Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill - The Sequel. (The Freak Dominionists are also discussing it.)

He links to a LifeShite story about Courtney Love refusing to have a abortion despite her heroin use. This is of course celebrated (though we doubt very much else about Ms Love's life would be celebrated by the fetus fetishists). Then the article maunders on about proposed legislation in the US somewhere about banning 'coerced' abortions. This is par for the course for fetus fetishists. They believe that most abortions -- except those for Culture of Death Feminazis -- are coerced, mainly by the menfolk in these women's lives, and of course by Culture of Death Feminazis. They figger if they can outlaw 'coerced' abortions -- presto change-o! -- abortion would just about disappear -- except for those of the Culture of Death Feminazis of course. He wants such legislation here.

Here, we'll let him tell you:

With C-484 and then this as a follow-up? Holy smokes, Batman, talk about having the devil on the run.

Can you imagine how much this kind of legislation is going to cut down on abortion in Canada when we truck it up here? It will show just how fraudulent the whole “choice” of abortion really is.

But, please, nobody go over there and tell him he's just made a liar out of Ken Epp and his minions. Again.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

C-484: Incrementalism Starts Here

Ken Epp on The Current on Monday misspoke or was confused. He said the vote on the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill (C-484) is this Friday. IT IS TODAY. Or at least scheduled for more debate and vote today.

Lest any of you have lingering doubts whether the Krazy Konservative Kriminalizers are wetting their pants in joy, hop over to Unrepentant Old Hippie and bastard logic for some enlightening screen-shots.

We at Birth Pangs couldn't put it any plainer than the 'Support C-484' group at Facebook:

If passed this bill . . . would be a key step in recriminalizing abortion.

What this is about, fans of freedom, is incrementalism.

We'll leave you with an editorial on the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill from last year at the Catlick organ, The Interim:

In the United States, incrementalist legislation – informed consent, waiting periods, defunding, clinic hygiene laws, etc. – have successfully reduced the number of abortions. . . . Every restriction decreases the number of babies killed in the womb.

In Canada, there is NO law on abortion. If we let them win on this, it will be just the beginning of a series of incremental steps towards recriminalizing abortion.

Please, if you haven't yet taken action, go to our Activist Page to get started.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

Epp, Caught

All credit to laura at We move to Canada for catching Ken Epp, he of the Sneak Attack on Women's Rights on Court TV this week.

After an exploration of what his private member's bill, C-484, would and wouldn't do as well as alternative legislation that would not threaten abortion rights, host Lorne Honickman asked Epp why his bill is necessary. laura says there was a long pause followed by this:

"Because we want to recognize the humanity of that unborn child. Whether that child was killed three months before birth or three months after birth, it was still a child, there was still a loss of life. The other side might wish to deny the humanity of that unborn child, but we want the law to recognize it."

(laura adds that this is not a direct quote but a very close paraphrase.)

A couple of bloggers have already made sport of this oopsie here and here.

We at Birth Pangs would like to offer our site as the Epp-Caught Centre* to record for all time further and past oopsies by Epp and his fetus-fetishizing supporters.

Go forth, Champions of Truth. Search them out in the benighted bits of the blogosphere and bring them back here to face the giggles wrath of loyal BP readers.

And to get this show rolling, here's one we missed from The Shotgun Blog at Western Standard on January 28.

What are our parliamentarians thinking?
. . . . The best way I know to understand what’s on the minds of our parliamentarians is to take a look at the private members bills before the house. . . . And here’s one for the Conservative base: Ken Epp’s crafty little bill to strengthen the legal rights of the unborn and force a debate on abortion.

Nope. Not about abortion atall atall.

And another one from today:

Kicking Abortion’s Ass Alert

From my good friend SUZANNE (is there any other?)

Subject: Important Pro-Life Alert

Ottawa’s News Talk radio CFRA (www.cfra.com) will be covering the Unborn Victims of Crime bill twice more before the second hour of debate on Monday. You won’t want to miss these! Please call-in and make your views known! (Don’t forget, you can “listen live” from the CFRA website; I believe the number to call is 1-800-580-TALK)

Again. No way is this bill about abortion. Only paranoid feminazis think it is. :roll:

See how easy it is?


__________

* Not, of course, to be confused with the Epcot Center,
' from the acronym EPCOT (Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow), a utopian city of the future planned by Walt Disney .'

h/t for the notion to loyal BP reader pseudz

(First published at Birth Pangs.)

One body. One person. One count. -- The Roundup

Wow. That was impressive. Yesterday, twenty-two bloggers participated in the 'One body. One person. One count' blog-burst in opposition to Ken Epp's private member's bill, C-484, a back-door attempt to create fetal rights as the necessary first step in recriminalizing abortion.

Some, including Scott Tribe and In the House and Senate, posted a few days earlier.

We at Birth Pangs were pleased to see the turn-out by the usual Vicious Abortion Crusaders. ;) But we were very pleased to read this from Blast Furnace Canada. Blast Furnace is Catholic, Liberal, and, soi-disant, 'pro-life'. But BF is obviously rational with the concomitant bullshit-spotting ability.

For the record and in no particular order, here's the list of participants. (We've no doubt missed some. Please let us know and we'll add.)

BLOG-BURST: One body. One person. One count.

Bad company ruins good morals.
--1 Corinthians 15:33

We at Birth Pangs believe that all one needs to know about private member's bill C-484 is the company it keeps.

Canada's Numero Uno Blogging Fetus Fetishist said recently:

The opponents of unborn victims of crime like to point out that many people who support Bill C-484 are fetal rights supporters.

This is true.

From wiki’s entry on fetal rights:

Legislative measures sometimes seek to establish the right to life of the fetus from the moment of fertilization. Such laws regard the fetus as a person whose legal status is on par with that of any other member of the species homo sapiens. . . Much opposition to legal abortion in the West is based on a concern for fetal rights. Similarly many pro-choice groups oppose fetal rights, even when they do not impinge directly on the abortion issue, because they perceive this as a slippery slope strategy to restricting abortions.

LifeNews sets out the talking points here and
here.

We won't bother to list all the flying monkey bloggers who patter along behind these giant organs of zygote zealotry.

But we did find this bit of gloating from LifeShite last November illuminating: