BLOGBURST: One person, one body, one count

On Friday I posited that the "Unborn Victims of Crime" bill coming up for debate this Friday might be good for absolutely nothin' (say it again!). Here's MP Ken Epp talking up his bill:

“This is all about protecting the choice of a woman to give birth to her child,” said Mr. Epp. “It is about condemning the actions of those who would take it upon themselves to criminally assault a pregnant woman and the child she wants and loves, destroying that child against her will.”

Um, yeah... except that "unborn victims" laws like the proposed C-484 simply don't do what they purport to do -- protect pregnant women and their fetuses, and render accountability to those who'd harm a fetus in the commission of an assault on a pregnant woman.

In the US, many states have had such laws in place for long enough to produce statistical evidence of their deterrent and protective effect. Yet no such evidence has been forthcoming -- crimes against pregnant women, assaults where fetuses are damaged, continue apace. Clearly such legislation is neither protective nor deterrent, and those who'd suggest it is either don't know the facts or are willfully ignoring them.

With the "protection" myth so irredeemably kicked to the curb, the fallback position is "justice rendered". Supposedly, because C-484 would recognize an assault on a fetus as a separate crime, it would "render justice" in the form of a separate charge/accountability for that crime. Well, maybe... until you look again at those pesky facts that refuse to be ignored.

Currently, the Criminal Code recognizes that an assault on a pregnant woman is a more heinous crime than simple assault, and accordingly imposes harsher punishment. Further, because Canada has no consecutive sentencing provisions, an Unborn Victims law would actually reduce the ultimate sentence -- because the two charges, individually, would be less than the current single sentence. So in this respect, the supporters of C-484 are onside with those who'd beat pregnant women and harm their fetuses. That can't be the justice they want rendered. What then? What is C-484 good for?

If you guessed "absolutely nothin'", go stand in the corner. You're wrong.

To see what bills like C-484 are good for, one only need look south of the border, where pregnant women are routinely charged for harming their own fetuses. Most of these cases involve substance abuse, and oh yeah, sure, there haven't been many convictions -- yet -- but it doesn't take much imagination to see what eventually transpires when pregnant women and fetuses are put into an adversarial position -- whose rights trump whose?

Taking issue with a proposed "unborn victims" bill 8 years ago, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy nailed it:

"First, this bill unnecessarily injects the abortion debate into our national struggle against violence towards women. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade held that "the word ‘person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." This bill purposely employs terms designed to undermine a woman's right to choose by recognizing for the first time in federal law the legal rights of a person as applied to the earliest stages of development of a fetus, an embryo or an egg." [...]

"Finally, the bill ignores the problems of domestic violence, sexual assault and other forms of violence against women and, in fact, does not even mention violence against women. In short, this bill ignores the reality that an attack that harms a pregnancy is inherently an attack on a woman." (emphasis mine)

Bill C-484 isn't a sneaky foot-in-the-door stealth attack on reproductive rights -- it's a jackboot kicking the door wide open and stomping on the faces of women... forever. Sign the petition. Tell your MP to oppose it. Most importantly, tell Stephane Dion to whip the Liberals to oppose it, let him know that your vote for his party hangs in the balance on this issue.

The pregnant woman and her fetus speak in one voice, and that voice is hers. One voice, one person, one body, one count.

C-484: What is it good for?

Absolutely nothin'!

Next Friday, the so-called "Unborn Victims of Crime" bill comes up for debate. If passed, this bill would set the dangerous precedent of allowing law to venture into the uterus; it's perhaps even more dangerous than a simple abortion law because it would establish a fetus as having rights apart from those of the mother. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out where this goes.

Bill C-484 supporters claim an "Unborn Victims" law would offer "protection" to fetuses, and for those who don't bother to pursue this train of thought to its logical conclusion, that would seem to be a good thing. Yeah, sure, protect the babies, who wouldn't be down with that? Except that there's no statistical evidence that this kind of legislation is a deterrent, and thus far, no-one I've asked (and I keep asking) has been able to tell me how such a law would afford any protection. So what is it good for? Absolutely nothing?

Not quite. But C-484's supporters don't want to go there, at least not yet.

Scott Tribe has an excellent post up that goes into more detail about this. Meanwhile, here's a link where you can send Stephane Dion an email asking that he whip the Liberals to vote against this travesty. Because when it comes to womens' reproductive rights, we won't give an inch -- absolutely nothin'.

(Edit: debate is Friday Feb.29, not Monday)

ONE: body, person, count.

What the hell is a "fetal homicide law"? And why do we need one?

Short answer: it's a legal work-around aimed at banning abortion, which is why *some people* think we need one. We clearly do not.

Long answer: A "fetal homicide" law recognizes that murdering a pregnant woman constitutes two charges, with the fetus being a separate count of homicide. The "Unborn Victims of Crime Act", a private member's bill proposing a "fetal homicide" law, was tabled by Conservative MP Ken Epp and debated just before Christmas. How fitting that an odious bill which could lay the groundwork for a sneak attack on women's rights would sidle stealthily past an electorate whose minds were filled with visions of sugar plums; predictably, it got little attention. On February 29 it's being debated again, then on March 5, this nefarious bill goes to a vote.

The bill is wrapped in the kind of fuzzy emotional language ("unborn victims") that makes it sound "protective", but the facts belie the sugary semantics. The fetal homicide laws in the US, such as "Laci & Conner's Law", haven't reduced the number of pregnant women assaulted or killed (and of course that was never their true intent), so there's no evidence that such laws serve any protective purpose to either pregnant women or their womb-bound offspring. They say it's about "choice" -- protecting a woman's choice to give birth -- but if no protection is afforded, then what's it really about?

What "fetal homicide" laws do, and no doubt all they were ever intended to do, is recognize a fetus as a separate entity with rights of its own apart from the mother. The next logical step is the granting of legal "personhood" status to a fetus, and once that's done, we're on the slippery slope to an abortion ban. Check out some of the slick wording of this bill:

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

Yeah. That slippery slope might as well be strewn with banana peels that have been soaked for a week in linseed oil.

"Fetal homicide" is always an attack on the woman first, the fetus second. If the proponents of this bill were serious about protecting pregnant women and fetuses, they'd concentrate their efforts on reducing the domestic violence that's almost always the cause of murders of pregnant women. Yet that's not a concern -- this isn't about protecting pregnant women, it's about making fetuses their equal under the law.

When this thing goes to a vote on March 5, it will be amidst the sound of pro-choice bloggers who'll start getting loud on February 25 and in the days leading up to the debate. Although it's the most likely outcome, we can't assume it'll die on the House floor.

A fetus is not a person: until it takes its first breath, mother and fetus speak with one voice, and that voice is hers. One voice, one body, one person, one count.

It's about protecting choice. Really.

Who'da thunk? Those anti-choice nitwits are suddenly all about choice. And today they have cause to rejoice about choice, because finally it brought a little government attention their way.

The latest jeans-creaming dream come true for Gileadean fetus-fanatics is a private member's bill tabled today by Alberta MP Ken Epp, the "Unborn Victims of Crime" bill. The UVOC bill would "protect a mother's choice to give birth", making it a crime to cause the injury or death of a fetus in the commission of violence against the mother.

Don't get excited. Nothing "anti-abortion" to see here, noooooo, just move along. Why, the UVOC bill is just about protecting "choice" -- the mother's choice to carry a pregnancy to term and have it culminate on Day 273 as a baked-to-perfection babycake. And anyone who wields a knife or baseball bat (or scalpel?) and stops that from happening would be committing murder, as surely as it would be murder to kill the mother. Fetus? Hell, never mind that, this bill would protect embryos... zygotes, even. "At any stage of development before birth":

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

A little class-action traction for petri dish plaintiffs? Tsk. Speaking of dead things...

Although ostensibly in response to the tragic murders of pregnant women recently, the UVOC bill or variants of it have been hanging around being studiously ignored for awhile. Last year MP Leon Benoit tried to get a similar measure tabled and was shut down by his own Conservative party -- to a brand New™ Government, it wasn't a politically-expedient issue. But with a new year and impending election, a revved-up Law and Order Conservative Government is reaching out to its base by hinting at all manner of the kind of petty meanness that makes socons wet themselves. The whispers are barely audible but the message is clear: "Give us a majority and we'll bring back the death penalty. Give us a majority and we'll ban abortion."

So while moronic little wastes of time and taxpayer dollars like the UVOC bill bear keeping an eye on, this one won't be going anywhere. It's really just a subtle Pavlovian reminder to the base to vote Conservative, early and often.

Update: Birth Pangs has the goods on a new poll that seems to support the concept of an UVOC bill... NOT.

(h/t RedTory)