How the defeat of Cassie and Molly’s Law could endanger abortion

by Barbara Maloney

Cathay Wagantall’s Private Members Bill C-225 (Cassie and Molly’s Law) was defeatedby a wide margin (209 to 76) in the House of Commons last week. This means the bill will not be sent to a committee for study and is now dead.

Bill C-225 would have allowed charges to be laid for harming or causing the death of a preborn child while committing a criminal offence against a pregnant woman. Such a law would act as a strong deterrent to committing violent acts against pregnant women, increasing the chances she and her baby could make it safely through her pregnancy. It was a compassionate and common sense response to an all too common problem.

Not a single MP from any party other than the Conservatives voted for the bill. This suggests the vote may have been whipped by leaders of the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc, which is odd since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the other party leaders have repeatedly argued in favour of women’s reproductive choice. Bill C-225 would have strengthened reproductive choice for women by making it a criminal offence for a third party to intentionally kill a pregnant woman’s fetus (thus terminating her pregnancy) while committing a criminal offence against her – a pregnancy termination to which she clearly did not consent. We are talking here about someone who attacks a woman and takes away her choice by ending the life of the child who otherwise would have been born alive. Nothing could undermine women’s reproductive choice more than that.

My MP, Chandra Arya (Liberal) wrote to me last month saying that he would not be supporting the bill. I had seen comments from other Liberal MPs as well. No doubt, the Liberal MPs were given a set of talking points to use to try to defend their opposition to C-225. But their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny, which suggests something else was behind their opposition to the bill, as I explain below.

Criticism: C-225 doesn’t address the broader issue of gender-based violence

The Liberal government criticized the bill for failing “to address the broader issue of violence against women.” But why would any MP not support a law that at least partially addresses the problem? No bill ever completely addresses an issue, and so why should C-225 be held to a higher standard than any other bill?

Mr. Arya also told me that “Our government believes that gender-based violence has no place in our society, and we are committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive federal strategy against gender-based violence.” That’s great, and bill C-225 could have been one important part of such a comprehensive strategy. Voting for this bill in no way would have precluded the government from enacting further laws and policies that address gender-based violence. Pregnant women are sometimes attacked precisely because they are pregnant. Cassie and Molly’s Law would act to deter such violence, given the stiff penalties in the bill for purposely causing the death of the woman’s unborn child.

Criticism: C-225 might be challenged under the Charter

My MP also told me the bill “would likely be challenged under the Charter.” Yet, as far as I’m aware, there has been no credible legal opinion by any reputable lawyer arguing that the bill violates the Charter. On the contrary, renowned constitutional expert Eugene Meehan has provided a legal opinion, posted on Cathay Wagantall’s website, defending the constitutionality of the new offences created in the bill.

Most Liberal MPs voted in favour of the government’s bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying, even though several lawyers were of the opinion it was unconstitutional. So if the Liberal MPs were not deterred by the constitutional concerns regarding C-14, it is incredible that constitutional concerns were behind their opposition to Cassie and Molly’s Law.

What was the real reason for opposing C-225?

Given C-225 respects the constitution, including the Charter; given it is one concrete way that MPs can help tackle gender-based violence which they claim they want to do; and given it is supported by amajority of Canadians, it seems that MPs’ opposition to this bill stemmed from something else – something they may not have been even consciously aware of.

Which brings us to the issue of abortion.

Fear that C-225 could reopen the abortion debate

My MP told me that this bill could “reopen the abortion debate.” This bill and the abortion issue do have something in common – they both deal with pregnant women and preborn children. But anyone who is truly pro-choice ought to recognize the difference between an abortion which a woman freely chooses, and a situation where a woman has not chosen abortion and is violently attacked by a third-party who wants to kill her and/or her baby and unilaterally takes away her choice to bring her child safely to term.

So how do we account for supposedly pro-choice MPs voting against a bill that would have made it a crime to forcefully end a woman’s pregnancy against her will? Why did these MPs ignore the significant role that the woman’s free choice plays in differentiating C-225 from abortion? Are these MPs not pro-choice after all, but rather pro-abortion, even pro-forced abortion?

I don’t believe so – I don’t believe a majority of our MPs voted against C-225 because they actually believe that a dead fetus is better than a live fetus.

The only remaining explanation is that they voted against C-225 out of fear of what it would mean for abortion if we recognized in law that it can sometimes be wrong to kill a preborn child. They would have been asking themselves, even if only at an unconscious level: if it is wrong to kill a fetus during a brutal attack on a woman against her will, how can we justify abortion, which also kills a fetus?

But as MikeSchouten writing in the National Post points out, there would be no reason for anyone who is pro-choice to fear that C-225 would endanger abortion if they actually believed in their own pro-choice rhetoric: that a woman’s freedom to choose is enough to justify abortion (that is, that the choice of the woman trumps the life of the fetus.)

The defeat of C-225 was in essence, then, a sign that a majority of our MPs do not believe that freedom of choice, in and of itself, can justify abortion. A majority of our MPs could not get past focusing on how C-225 and abortion are alike (preborn child’s death), rather than how they differ (woman’s choice). It was apparently easier for our MPs to deny that it can ever be wrong to kill a fetus – and vote against C-225 – than to be put into the uncomfortable position of having to justify why abortion is not wrong. They are apparently only able to defend abortion if they deny there is any inherent value in the life of a preborn child. They would have had the confidence to defend abortion if they truly believed deep down that the choice of the woman trumps the life of the fetus.

Thus in defeating C-225 for fear it could endanger abortion, our Members of Parliament ended up revealing a lack of confidence in their own ability to defend abortion. If even our supposedly staunch “pro-choice” MPs feel so ill-quipped to defend abortion, then what kind of message does that send about the acceptability of abortion? C-225 itself could never have endangered abortion. The irony is the MPs who opposed the bill might end up doing just that.

Bill C-225 should satisfy pro-life and pro-choice people

Regarding Mike Schouten: A new bill would make it a crime to harm a fetus against a woman’s will. What’s wrong with that?

My letter published in the National Post on October 4, 2016:

It seems to me that if pro-choice people like Joyce Arthur can’t support a sensible bill like C-225 (that protects a woman’s choice to carry her pre-born child to term), it confirms one thing and one thing only: that is that they are not pro-choice at all, but rather pro-abortion. Hopefully, MPs can see this and vote accordingly. Blind ideology without common sense isn’t useful or helpful. Especially for the women who would be protected by this bill.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Canadians support Cassie and Molly's Law

Great news on the results of a poll on Cassie and Molly's law:

"Poll confirms majority of Canadians support legislation that creates a new offence for criminals who knowingly injure or cause the death of a pregnant woman’s preborn child: Wagantall

Ottawa, ON – Today, MP Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton-Melville) released the results of a national poll that shows the majority of Canadians support legislation that will create a separate offence when a violent criminal knowingly injures or causes the death of a preborn child while committing a crime against a pregnant woman. 

According to the Nanos poll, a majority of Canadians are in favour of Cassie and Molly’s Law, with nearly 70% of respondents saying that they support a law that would make it a separate crime to harm or cause the death of a preborn child while harming a pregnant woman. Support among women is even higher at nearly 75%..."

Of course not all people are happy with this bill. They have to attack it. Which is really kind of pathetic. But Cassie and Molly's law is a fantastic piece of legislation. This law, which we now know the majority of Canadians support, would make a new offence in the case where a woman has chosen to keep her unborn child. It is a good law. A positive law. A law that provides extra protection for a woman who is carrying a child she loves and she wants.

This law has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "abortion rights". The pro-abortions think they have to protect these "rights" at all costs, at all times, never letting up in their relentless attack on anyone and anything they perceive would harm these precious sacred "rights" of theirs.

Their rabid ideology can only blind them. I feel sorry for them.

That the unborn are not “legal persons” is irrelevant

Barbara Kay turns the pro-choice legal personhood argument on its head in the National Post when she discusses Bill C-225 Molly's law:

 "— aims, in the words of abortion-law activist Mike Schouten, to “provide justice for women and families who have chosen to carry their babies to term...” 

"...Pro-choice argumentation was weak in 2008 and remains weak today. One fallacious gambit is that mother and fetus, even though each has her own unique DNA, should continue to be considered one person because their biological systems operate symbiotically. This implies that conjoined twins, whose systems also operate symbiotically, are one person, when they manifestly are not. However, the mainstay of the opposition is the “legal personhood” canard. That the unborn are not “legal persons” in law is true, but morally and historically irrelevant: women, after all, weren’t “legal persons” until 1929, but were always considered murder victims in their own right before that date. 

Hardline ideological feminists, who have a huge influence on politicians and the judiciary (which is why this bill is probably another exercise in political futility), regard the law as their ideology’s handmaiden..."

Ms. Kay has that right. Our hard line feminists scare our politicians to death when it comes to abortion. Joyce Arthur and anonymous blogger "Fern Hill" have of course already spoken out against Bill C-225. No surprise there.

But we know why the pro-abortions are really against Bill C-225. Joyce Arthur said it herself about Bill C-484:

"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion," 

For the pro-abortions, it is very very important that this never be allowed to happen. The legal killing of preborn children must be preserved at all costs.

Even when a woman is attacked and the child she chooses to carry to term is brutally killed.

Cassie and Molly Matters - Petition

The OFFICIAL online government petition is now active.

Mar 22, 2016 — The OFFICIAL online government petition is now active. It stays open for 120 days. Please sign and ask others to do the same. The change.org petition was for awareness, this one is to get the lawmakers to hear our voice. #MOLLYMATTERS #CASSIEMATTERShttps://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-183Read more

Real and imaginary Charter rights

It's been a difficult time for pro lifers.

First there are the pro-life clubs still trying to practice their freedom of expression rights on campuses when they protest abortion. And still they receive no help from the very institutions (universities) that we would (incorrectly) expect would be a bastion of free speech rights.

Next we have hospitals having to defend their freedom of conscience and freedom of religion rights against being forced to participate in assisted suicide. In fact it used to be wrong to kill someone. Not anymore.

Then there's the radical Joyce Arthur who just can't bring herself to support Cassie and Molly's Law because:

"it It gives some human rights to fetuses and could thereby pose a threat to women’s constitutional rights and abortion rights."

Never mind that Bill C225 would not give human rights to pre-born children:

"This bill is about protecting pregnant women and their preborn children from the actions of third parties who want to do them harm. It addresses those tragic and horrific situations, like the case of Cassie Kaake and her preborn daughter, Molly, who were victims of a brutal attack. This bill does not in any way impact a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion is, by definition, excluded from the bill because of the clear wording in the bill that makes causing injury or death to the preborn child an offence only if the person does so “while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant.”  In other words, these new offences are not stand-alone offences. The new offences in “Cassie and Molly’s Law” address only the situations where a third party harms or kills a woman’s preborn child while committing or attempting to commit a criminal offence against the woman – action to which she clearly has not consented. This legislation honours and protects a woman’s ‘right to choose’ to give birth to her baby."

And never mind that there isn't even a constitutional right to abortion. Never mind any of that. Arthur just opposes the bill because as she said about Bill C-484:

“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”

For Arthur, changing people's minds about abortion would be a pro-choice mortal sin. It must never be allowed to happen and she will do everything in her power to make sure it never does. 

Actual constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, are always trumped by the magical mythical right to abortion. 

Bill C225 - Cassie and Molly's law

Justice for Expecting Families Coalition of Canada

Cassie and Molly's Law

This morning MP Cathay Wagantall introduced a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-225 into Parliament. (See Molly Matters for more information on Molly and Cassie.)

More info here.

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 23, 2016

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman and to add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.

Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:

http://www.parl.gc.ca

1st Session, 42nd Parliament

64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

Preamble

Whereas Cassie Kaake was seven months pregnant and eagerly anticipating the birth of her daughter Molly when she was brutally murdered in Windsor, Ontario, in 2014;

Whereas no charges could be laid for Molly’s death because existing criminal law does not recognize the injury or death caused to a preborn child as a separate offence when a pregnant woman is the victim of a crime, even if the sole purpose of her attacker is to kill her child;

Whereas not being considered a human being under the Criminal Code does not mean that a preborn child does not deserve protection under the law;

Whereas a majority of Canadians support the adoption of legislation that would make it a separate offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child during the commission of an offence against the child’s mother;

Whereas Parliament wishes to address this gap in the law and allow for two charges to be laid in such circumstances;

And whereas Parliament wishes to more strongly denounce violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short Title

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law).

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code

2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

Definition of preborn child

238.‍1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.

Offence — causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence

(2) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes the death of her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) if the person means to cause injury or death to the preborn child or injury to the mother that the person knows is likely to cause the preborn child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years,

(ii) if the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the preborn child, to imprisonment for life, or

(iii) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Reduced punishment

(3) An offence that would otherwise be punishable under subparagraph (2)‍(a)‍(i) may be punishable by imprisonment for life if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation as described in section 232.

Offence — injuring a preborn child while committing an offence

(4) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes injury to her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding10 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Separate offence

(5) An offence referred to in this section is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the preborn child.

3 Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person who they knew was pregnant,

4 Section 743.‍6 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.‍2):

Power of court to delay parole

(1.‍3) Despite section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment, including a sentence of imprisonment for life, on conviction for an offence under subsection 238.‍1(2), the court shall order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence and the objectives of specific and general deterrence would be adequately served by a period of parole ineligibility determined in accordance with that Act.