CON³ cranks up the anti-abortion wurlitzer

Conservative Convention Constitution, aka CON³, Resolution P-207 -

legislation to make assault causing harm to fetus a separate crime - PASSED

Kady from the convention floor :

"A delegate from the East Coast bravely makes the argument that this would, indeed, open the door to fetal rights - which gets a cheer, and then boos when she indicates that this would be a bad thing."

G&M : "The “Protecting Pregnant Women” policy resolution passed by a narrow margin despite warnings to Tories from abortion rights advocates that it was part of a “slippery slope” to criminalizing abortion.
Mr. Nicholson said the Harper government would move as it promised in August to enact similar legislation to the passed resolution. He repeated earlier Conservative pledges that this was not an effort to attack the right to abort."

Ok, apart from the cheering on the convention floor that would indicate this is, indeed, an effort to attack the right to abortion, what was that previous "similar legislation" for, Rob?

Ken Epp, author of C-484, via We Move To Canada :

"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."

Alrighty then. As JJ says : Bring it.

Emma the Embryo : If a fetus is a person...

If a fetus is a person, then a woman isn't.
Or, if you prefer, any separate legal rights granted to a fetus as a person with the right not to be killed or injured must necessarily come at the expense of the person carrying the fetus.
In Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the word "child" appears 14 times and the phrase "unborn child" five times. Clause 5 states :
"It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."

Read that again : "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."

In Bill C-484 Endangers Abortion Rights and Women’s Rights by Establishing Fetal Personhood, an excellent rebuttal to the supposed innocuousnous of the bill, Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada writes : "Regardless of Ken Epp’s stated intent for the bill – to protect pregnant women and wanted fetuses from violence – he should realize that once enacted, his bill can be used in ways he did not intend......By recognizing the "rights of the unborn," it creates the risk that pregnant women’s behaviour could be regulated or punished, and abortion rights restricted."

Plus, although Epp cannot be held directly responsible for the, uh, enthusiasm of his followers, referring to his bill as Kicking Abortion's Ass isn't really helping his case much.

Tuesday update : Terrific post from PSA at Canadian Cynic :
Ken Epp's Big Con

Paging Charles McVety to the white evangelical courtesy phone

Tory bill could lead to abortion ban: Que. doctors

"Quebec's medical specialists say a private member's bill that would make harming a fetus a crime is likely to outlaw abortions.
Gaetan Barrette, who heads the province's association of specialist doctors, criticized Bill C-484 for opening the door to recognizing the rights of a fetus.
The bill, tabled by Conservative MP Ken Epp, would amend the Criminal Code to allow separate charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when a pregnant woman is attacked.
It passed first reading last month with support from both Conservative and Liberal MPs.
Barrette, whose association rarely weighs in on policy debates, pointed out that the bill's supporters are already eyeing a court challenge to Canada's abortion laws.
He says the association wants to protect abortion doctors from possible lawsuits and avoid a return to back-alley abortions."

Meanwhile, evangelist Charles McVety has been doing yeoman's work inadvertantly scuttling Bill C-10, the bill to deny government tax credits to tv shows and movies the SoCons don't like, by boasting he'd personally been the guiding hand behind the bill all along.

Hey Chuck, what about Bill C-484? Don't be shy. Surely you and the Canada Family Action Coalition had at least a little influence on writing up this one, huh? C'mon, Chuck, help us out over here - tell the Canadian people you're the force behind C-484 too.

Go to a party or defend women's rights....hmmmm

Liberal leader Dion attended a reception to celebrate International Women's Day tonight. Oh, the irony.
Live it up, flyboy. Good of you to show up.
Where the fuck were you this afternoon when Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, aka the Stealth Act to Recriminalize Abortion, passed its second reading in the House today?

The vote was 147 to 132 in support of allowing the bill to proceed to committee stage, meaning that just a few more Libs showing up for work today and voting Nay would have ended this bullshit.

As Kuri at Thought Interrupted put it : "The Liberals failed to stand up against the Conservative agenda they warned us against."

And a big fuck you to NDP Peter Stoffer who voted for it as well, courtesy of Mattt at bastard.logic

So off it goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where six of the twelve members including Chair Art Hanger distinguished themselves by voting Yea.
That's six for and six against.

And now a debate on granting fetal rights under the law can begin - which was what this was always about from day one.
Don't believe me? Horse's mouth right here.

Bill C-484 is the ninth private member's bill attempting to regulate abortion tabled by theReform/Alliance/Con party. Their last attempt to make the "murder of an unborn child when a third party murders a pregnant woman" a new criminal code offence, M-560, was introduced on March 11, 2004.
Today marks the first time such a private member's bill has reached second reading.
It was under your watch, M. Dion, and you didn't even show up for the vote.

Thursday update : Red Tory lists the 27 Liberals who voted for this piece of shit plus the 10 who were "conveniently absent".
H/t to Godammitkitty at Hope and Onions

Bill C-484, because fetuses are persons too!

On Feb 13 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously upheld the 2005 double homicide conviction of Texas teenager Gerardo Flores for helping his girlfriend end her pregnancy of twins. Under the Texas' Prenatal Protection Act, Flores received a life sentence.

"We are very pleased with the Court's opinion," said Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life. "The highest criminal court in Texas has again recognized that unborn children are individual persons worthy of protection from murder and assault the same as other persons already born. The Court essentially held that unborn children are babies."

From Canadian LifeSite News: "The decision comes just weeks before the Canadian House of Commons is scheduled to proceed with the second hour of debate on similar legislation for Canada (Bill C-484 - the Unborn Victims of Crime Act).
"Such a decision by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals will hopefully inspire Canadian Parliamentarians to pass Bill C-484 into law." said Marie-Christine Houle, Executive Director of Women for Women's Health, a group which has been advocating for the passage of the bill."

Bill C-484 permits separate homicide charges to be laid for the death of a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked. Con MP Ken Epp who introduced the bill is openly anti-choice but has pleaded with opponents to accept that its wording only applies to wanted fetuses, that it is not a stealth attempt to re-criminalize abortion in Canada, that his Unborn Victims of Crime Act is entirely unrelated to the various "fetal homicide" laws adopted to such disastrous effect in 37 states in the U.S.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, persons do not gain legal status and rights in our society until they have completely exited from the birth canal, alive.
We Move To Canada caught Ken Epp on a call-in cable show. Not a direct quote, says Laura at WMTC, but "a very close paraphrase" answer from Epp to the question of why this bill was necessary :
"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."

Busted, Ken.
One body. One person. One count.

Wedging the foot of the foetus in the backdoor

Bloc MP and Catholic priest Raymond Gravel opposes anti-choice anti-gay Con/Reform/Alliance MP Ken Epp's Unborn Victims of Crime bill, calling it an attempt to recriminalize abortion.
The bill, C-484, would allow additional criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of a foetus in the event the mother is the victim of a crime. It could also wedge the foot of the foetus firmly in the backdoor of personhood.

LifeSite : Gravel said he was "uncomfortable" with the bill "because the member putting it forward is part of a pro-life group, the Campaign Life Coalition, which in my view is a rather extreme fanatical group, when it comes to life." Gravel continued:

"I also think this bill will open the door to a re-criminalization of women who have abortions, and that's not to be desired. I'm against abortion, but this is no way to solve the problem of abortion. It's through education, through outreach, through helping women who have undesired pregnancies I think that's how to solve the problem of abortion. But not recriminalizing abortion, I don't ever want to see that happen."
"...when the fetus is still in the mother they're just one being. Its only when the fetus is born is when it becomes another being, when it becomes a human being."

Well, exactly, sir.

Campaign Life Coalition, however, are displeased with his speech, and presumably also with being labelled as "a rather extreme fanatical group", and they are taking steps :

"We have written to the Papal Nuncio to inform him of Fr. Raymond Gravel’s bizarre House of Commons speech. We noted that typically, Catholic clergy are prevented from running for elected office except when it is necessary to defend the interests of the Catholic Church. Certainly, making speeches undermining the teachings of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of human life indicates that Fr. Gravel is not the man to defend the Church’s interests; rather he has brought scandal, and his presence is a detriment to the Catholic Church’s ability to provide clear moral leadership...yada, yada, yada."

The next article on the CLC website bewails the use of Human Rights Commissions "to silence and punish people for their ideas and beliefs. That is dangerous and undemocratic, but it is all the more dangerous because the decisions consistently run one-way - against Christians."

Heh. I guess it's ok to silence and punish Christians for their ideas and beliefs if you're a Christian.

Oppose Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act"
One body. One person. One count.

Update : Kuri at Thought Interrupted has a very heartful post up on this and Ken Epp responds to it in the comments.