Politicians listen to Joyce Arthur rather than reason

From Jeff Durham: Montreal stabbing of mom and baby highlights dangerous gap in Canadian law:

"...Most places in the world have some sort of “fetal homicide law” to fill in this gap.  They recognize the danger it poses to women and the importance of legislation to account for such crimes. 

Laws can be carefully written to consider abortion rights, and designed to only be implemented when such “non-consensual abortions” occur. 

But the advocacy group Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada have fought against any such proposal, arguing they are all attempts to weaken women’s right to an abortion. 

When asked by a reporter from the CBC, Joyce Arthur, president of the organization, said she has no problem with how the Criminal Code is applied to those who are charged in the killing of a baby if an attack on a pregnant woman leads to the baby’s death after it has emerged from the womb. 

“I think the law is fair in that sense,” she said. 

There was no comment in regard to the “sense” that isn’t fair. 

Isn’t it up to the Feds, not the ARCC? 

Political liability is something every elected official has to consider. When a pregnant woman is murdered the national news outlets look to Joyce Arthur and the ARCC for the final word. It is not hard to see her influence.  Canadian politicians are acutely aware of it. 

Any effort to address this legal gap is easily spun in the media into, as she puts it, “a backdoor attempt to smuggle in fetal personhood and make it a building block towards recriminalization of abortion.” 

Because of this, certain political groups have become inclined to avoid the subject all together, and in turn, this bizarre circumstance of law that rewards greater brutality in assaulting pregnant women is allowed to continue to be a uniquely Canadian reality..."

What a sorry bunch of cowardly politicians we have here in Canada. They can't think for themselves when it comes to the human fetus. And if they can think for themselves, they hide it pretty well. As soon as Joyce Arthur speaks out against anything to do with the rights of pre-born children--even wanted pre-born children--politicians cower like a dog in a thunderstorm. Sorry. I didn't mean to insult dogs.

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.

Anti-choice Choice Joyce

Jeff Durham responds to Joyce Arthur's comment on this blog entry I wrote: The anti-choice pro-abortions.

Durham's response to Arthur is well worth the read.

The anti-choice pro-abortions

Jeff Durham (of Molly Matters) wonders why Joyce Arthur et all don't like Bill C-484, Unborn Victms of Crime. (Jeff tragically lost his wife and unborn child in one go to murder.)

In fact Durham wonders if ARCC is really anti-choice:

How can any reasonable person who claims to advocate for the choice of a woman call a law that would make it so that the choice was only hers “anti-choice”? 

What is your true agenda? How can you put forth no effort to defend the choice of one woman when it is violated? Or the choice of all of the women who were murdered when they were carrying a child? 

How can you conscionably tell people that to protect what a woman has chosen would take away their right to make a choice? 

If it is not the choice of women that you defend, who’s choice exactly is it? 

Are you even conscious of your contradiction? 

Canada is waking up to your double talk. 

Molly was Cassie’s choice and Molly matters."

Calling the pro-abortions anti-choice makes complete sense. Because the only choice they ever advocate for is the choice to dismember, decapitate and disembowel pre-born babies. The pro-abortions almost never advocate for adoption or, for women to keep their baby heaven forbid.

I also got a good chuckle out of Fake Person's indignant tweets to Jeff Durham about his blog post which she clearly didn't like--she tweeted him at least five times with the very same link to some bill the pro-abortions would support. As if Durham was an imbecile and one tweet wasn't enough.

When Ken Epp first introduced his Unborn Victims of Crime Bill Joyce Arthur wrote a lot of nonsensical stuff on the bill. Ken Epp provided some excellent rebuttals to Arthur. It's funny how often pro-life people have to always spend time correcting Arthur. Well it's not really funny, but you know what I mean.

Protect the pre-born

My letter in today's National Post, in response to Jeff Durham's desire to bring back Bill C-484, Unborn Victims of Crime. 

Re: Make Violent Death Of Unborn Crime, July 10. 

Jeff Durham believes his pre-born child, Molly, the victim of a violent death, deserves to be treated the same way any other human being in the same circumstances: charge the killer. 

I agree. The last time the Unborn Victim of crime bill was introduced in Parliament, the radical pro-choice lobby did everything it could to scare MPs into believing such a bill would open the door to abortion restrictions. Their abortion blinders prevented them from grasping a pre-born child in these specific circumstances, is in as much need of protection as its mother. In this case, their “choice” argument falls especially flat since these children are wanted — their mothers and fathers have chosen to keep them. So why can’t we provide them protection? 

As Joyce Arthur, Canada’s most extreme “pro-choicer” let slip about her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 in the National Post in 2004: “If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.” 

Durham is calling his campaign “Molly Matters,” after his daughter. Molly does matter, and if we won’t protect her and future Mollys, who will? 

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa. 

(See http://www.mollymatters.org/
And here: http://www.molly-matters.ca)

Molly Matters - Let's resurrect Bill C-484

Casandra Kaake met a violent death when she was seven months pregnant. The child's father, Jeff Durham, believes that his child Molly, also a victim of the same violent act, deserves to be treated the same way any other human being: charge the killer.

This is so logical you have to ask yourself how anyone could oppose it? Unbelievably, there are such people. Joyce Arthur comes to mind.

Durham would like to resurrect the Unborn Victim of Crime bill first introduced by MP in 2007, and which was killed when the Conservatives called an election. (How convenient of Stephen Harper).

The last time the Unborn Victim of crime bill was brought forward, the radical pro-choice lobby did everything they could to scare members of Parliament that such a bill would open the door to abortion restrictions. Their ideology blinded them from the simple truth that a pre-born child in these circumstances, is in as much need of protection as her mother. In fact their "choice" argument fails miserably since these children are wanted--their mothers and fathers have chosen to keep them.

So why won't the pro-abortions support such a bill? Well Arthur let slip what her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 was.

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

Durham is calling his campaign "Molly Matters", after his daughter. Yes Molly matters. And so do all the future children killed in utero by means of violence.

Sign the petition here to bring back Bill C-484.

Federal Conservatives don't support all conservatives

Rex Murphy talked about 2013 and how Prime Minister Stephen Harper reacted to the senate scandal:

"As always in a crisis, Mr. Harper drew up the drawbridge and retreated to the fortress, i.e., his political base. There is a genuine hardcore of Conservative followers who will stay with the party however dark the clouds; and when in difficulty, Mr. Harper tends to them and them only. (The Liberals and NDP both can claim a similar core of diehards.) But in Mr. Harper’s case, the power of the Senate scandal was such as to detach even some from this otherwise unshakeable support group."

Here is my response to this in a letter in today's National Post:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Re: For Harper’s Conservatives, 2013 Was All About The Senate Scandal, Rex Murphy, Dec. 27.

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.

I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject. [This motion was deemed non-votable because it was supposedly outside of federal jurisdiction. So how could it be legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?]

As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.

I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Aggravated Murder and Unborn Victims of Crime

This from the National Post today. Ariel Castor has been convicted of "aggravated murder" for forcing Michelle Knight to miscarry.

Remember MP Ken Epp's Bill C-484, Unborn Victims of Crime Act? Maybe we need to resurrect that bill. Any MPs out there willing to take this on? Looks like this would be a good time to do it.

Harper or Obama: who would you choose?

There are two ways to be "pro-choice". The first is the Barack Obama way. The second is the Stephen Harper way.

The way Mr. Obama does it, is the in your face approach. There can be no doubt about where Mr. Obama stands on "women's rights". He is not even against partial birth abortion. And neither is Mrs. Obama.

This is what Mr. Obama said regarding the Born Alive Act, a bill that requires doctors to give care to babies who survive abortions. In the audio Mr. Obama argues against a law that would require another doctor to come in and save the baby if it's viable.

(Also notice he has some trouble with what to call the born child, calling it a fetus):
"That if that fetus, or child, however you want to describe it, is now outside of the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's non viable but there's lets say movement or some indication that they're not just coming out limp and dead that in fact they would then have to call in a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved?"

In fact Mrs. Obama actively campaigned for her husband in 2004 calling partial-birth abortion “legitimate” medicine:
“The fact remains, with no provision to protect the heath of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned.”

That great abortion mecca in the US, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), even gave Obama a "100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007".

Mr. Obama also cozies up to International Planned Parenthood. So much so, that the White House actually produced a video on Youtube where he thanks IPPF.



Now we come to the Stephen Harper way of being pro-choice. Where does Mr. Harper stand on abortion? Well, he's never said that he supports abortion. He's also never said that he's against abortion. (Though I did find this quote in 2002 where he says he's "moderately pro-life". Whatever that means). Ever since of course, Mr. Harper has refused to discuss abortion in any way shape or form.

Even though Mr. Harper won't talk about abortion, his actions clearly tells us he is pro-choice.

For instance, in the fall of 2008, Mr. Harper conveniently called an election, killing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, Bill C-484, which had previously passed the Second Reading vote in the spring of 2008 (Note: all bills die when an election is called). Then Mr. Harper voted against Roxanne's Law against coerced abortion (Bill C-510). Next Mr. Harper voted against study to look at when life begins (Motion 312). And finally, Mr. Harper tells us his government will vote against a Motion against sex-selection abortion (Motion 408).

And last and probably most, Mr. Harper won't let us discuss abortion in Parliament, which is quite puzzling. Mr. Harper is not afraid of debating any other issue in this country. So why is he so afraid of debating or discussing abortion?

At least Obama is up-front about where he stands on abortion, he supports a "woman's right to choose" and says so. Mr. Harper just zippers his lips. But if you aren't against something, you're for it. So Mr. Harper is pro-choice.

If I had to choose between the two "pro-choice" strategies, I'd choose Mr.Obama's any day. At least we know what we're up against.

For so long Social Conservatives thought Mr. Harper was pro-life and just waiting for that majority, which he got, yet nothing changed. Except maybe, Mr. Harper dug in his pro-choice heels a little bit deeper.

I have only one question I'd like to ask. We all know that behind every great man stands an even greater woman. This is certainly true of the Obamas, the Clintons, and others. What about the Harpers? Is the great woman behind Mr. Harper the driving force behind his irrational refusal to discuss abortion? Interesting question, n'est ce pas?

A refresher course for pro-abortions

There are so many things wrong with what Joyce Arthur says in her article attacking Stephen Woodworth’s motion, but I’ll focus here on just a few points where she plays fast and loose with the facts.

1. Ms. Arthur says:

“The Supreme Court has already decided the issue.”

Wrong. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently left it up to Parliament to decide this issue. Did Arthur not read Ken Epp’s response to her in 2008 when she made similar misleading comments about Bill C-484 (Unborn Victims of Crime Act), or has she simply forgotten?

For your convenience, Ms. Arthur, I provide a link to Mr. Epp’s report, The truth about Bill C-484: A compassionate and constitutionally valid remedy to current injustice in Canadian criminal law.

On page 20 Mr. Epp says:

“The courts have said that the fetus is not a “person” in Canadian law, and this is because our existing law does not recognize the fetus as a person. So the Courts have simply acknowledged the law as it stands today. But the Supreme Court has also said on numerous occasions that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the protection of the fetus and that it is not up to the courts to decide how to provide this protection – in spite of the fetus not being a “person” according to existing law – it is up to the legislature, that is, Parliament, to decide. Contrary to Ms. Arthurs claim that C-484 “flies in the face of several Supreme Court of Canada rulings,” C-484, in fact, is reinforced by Supreme Court of Canada rulings, including the very three cases Ms. Arthur cites, namely, Dobson v. Dobson, Tremblay v. Daigle, and Winnipeg and Child Family Services v. D.F.G.”

Mr. Epp then goes on to describe in detail these three cases and how the SCC clearly stated how it is within Parliament’s jurisdiction to protect preborn children in law.

2. Ms. Arthur says:

“Giving personhood to fetuses invites criminal prosecution of pregnant women for negative outcomes”
and then goes on to condemn C-484 and says:
“At the time, the U.S.-based group National Advocates for Pregnant Women prepared a 15-page brief for ARCC-CDAC, documenting the hundreds of unjust cases of prosecutions of pregnant women in the U.S.”

She conveniently omitted to tell the reader that Ken Epp also refuted those NAPW claims in his other report called, Claims that US “fetal homicide / “unborn victims of violence” laws target pregnant women: A Smoke-screen to attempt to discredit Bill C-484.

3. Ms. Arthur says in point 6:

“abortions after 20 weeks are rare in Canada – virtually all are confined to cases of fetal abnormality where the fetus cannot survive after birth.”

I’ve already challenged Ms. Arthur to provide evidence of how many late-term abortions occur every year and the reason for each one in The great pro-abortion urban legend.

I’m still waiting for that evidence. You’d think that if she wanted people to believe her, she would provide some evidence to back up her claims.

All we do know, is that the number of late abortions is somewhere between 552 and 70,621 (that's 552 known late term abortions, plus 70,069 unknown gestational age abortions) and we have seen no published data on the reasons for these abortions.

4. Ms. Arthur says:

“Woodworth also continually uses the word ‘child’ to describe a fetus, which is just another ‘begging the question’ ploy to try and lead people to equate fetuses with children and therefore accept that they should have rights. ...Although ‘child’ is often used informally to refer to fetuses, this is a colloquial usage that has no legitimate place in modern law or medicine – including in Woodworth’s motion.”

Wrong again, Joyce. Let me repeat how Ken Epp already responded to you on this point on pages 16-17 of The truth about Bill C-484: A compassionate and constitutionally valid remedy to current injustice in Canadian criminal law:

“ The Criminal Code currently uses no term other than “child” to refer to the unborn child (Sections 223 (1) , 223 (2), 238 (1) and 238 (2)). The term “fetus” is never used in the Criminal Code.

....the existing section 238 refers to the “child that has not become a human being”; section 223 states that the “child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother”;

....Ms. Arthur is also incorrect in her understanding of section 223 (2). She says, “The meaning of child in subsection (2) is the same as that in the definition – a born-alive human being.” The exact wording of this section is: “223 (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” In section 223 (2), the term “child” is used to refer to both the unborn child and the born child.

..... Given that the term “child” is already used in the Criminal Code to refer to the fetus/unborn child/human offspring before birth, one is left to wonder why Ms. Arthur displays such an adverse, extreme, reaction to the use of this term in C-484. It is worth noting that what Ms. Arthur refers to as “anti-abortion activist” language was actually used by none other than staunch pro-choice advocate and former Cabinet Minister Barbara McDougall twenty years ago in the House of Commons:

'Society and religion, over the centuries, have had differing views on the mores of abortion, of killing an unborn child. Let us not be afraid of the vocabulary. [emphasis added] (Hon. Barbara McDougall, Hansard, P. 1 8080, July 27, 1988)'”.

As Joe Friday used to say on the TV series from the 1950's, Dragnet:

"All we want are the facts, ma'am".

Crippling free speech on campus and in Parliament

(An edited version of this article appeared in the March/April 2011 issue of LifeCanada News)

There is a disturbing parallel between what is happening to university pro-life clubs, and politicians’ refusal to debate abortion in Parliament. In both cases, those in authority are censoring freedom of speech and freedom of expression as it relates to abortion.

In an interview with CBC's Peter Mansbridge in January, Stephen Harper was asked if his government received a majority in the next election, whether he would "reopen the abortion issue". Mr. Harper responded:
"No, no, no. Look Peter, I've spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party have passionate views, they're all over the map, and you know what I say to people...as you know, many people I know are pro-life...what I say to people, is if you want to diminish the number of abortions you've got to change hearts and not laws, and I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law."

But Mr. Harper doesn't seem to get it. Changing laws, and the necessary debate that the legislative process involves, is actually a very powerful mechanism for changing hearts, as one of Canada's most vocal abortion proponents herself admitted.

A few years ago MP Ken Epp introduced a bill C-484 in Parliament, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act (1). The bill created heated discussion in the media, both from the pro-life side and from the pro-choice side. Many so-called "pro-choicers" argued vigorously against the bill, most notably, Joyce Arthur, head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Arthur let slip her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 when she said:
"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion".(2)

Arthur was worried about what effect legal recognition of the value of the fetus would have on the public's perception of abortion, even though Bill C-484 did not in any way criminalize consensual abortion. The bill only offered protection to the pre-born child in one very narrow circumstance (i.e., when the pregnant mother is the victim of a crime and her baby is intentionally harmed as well).

But Arthur was afraid such a law would do exactly what Mr. Harper said, and hearts would be changed against abortion.

Even if a law on the subject matter of abortion does not in fact pass, the discussion and debate it generates is a crucial means to changing hearts. It is difficult to fathom the Prime Minister not recognizing this connection.

Now let’s look at what is happening to pro-life groups on university campuses, and the latest pro-life group casualty, Carleton’s Lifeline. This is just one more campus pro-life group, in a long line of many, which is being silenced across our country.

Last fall these pro-life students were charged with two counts of trespassing each: one count of engaging in prohibited activity and one count of failing to leave the premises when asked.

Why were they charged? Because they planned to display the Genocide Awareness Project (the GAP exhibit compares abortion to historically recognized forms of genocide) at Tory Quad, a large outdoor area on campus with high traffic.

Lifeline is now suing the University (3). Lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos says about the lawsuit:
"If universities begin to censor students on the basis of their political belief, universities will become centres of indoctrination as opposed to centres of learning. Freedom of expression on a university campus is essential to its integrity.”

So why did CUSA want to prevent Lifeline from showing the GAP project?

It's the truth behind those pictures. Graphically showing abortion destroys the euphemistic label "pro-choice". A picture really is worth a thousand words: "Pro-choice"=bloody killed fetus. There really is no nice way to say this. If University students see these pictures, they see the truth--the result of abortion. They do not see "pro-choice".

If CUSA allows Lifeline to show these graphic depictions of abortion, young impressionable university students might turn against abortion. They might have a change of heart.

CUSA and other anti-prolife student unions are learning from our political leaders that censorship and quashing of debate on abortion is acceptable. This disturbing ripple effect encourages students to discriminate against pro-life students because some people have decided they don't like the message.

We reap (in our universities) what we sow (in our Parliament).

Canadians must become engaged in the political process at all levels. Because censoring debate, whether in Parliament or on university campuses--is not freedom of speech. And it is not democracy.

(1) This bill would have created a separate offense for intentionally harming or killing an unborn child during the commission of an offense against the child's mother. The bill passed at Second Reading in the spring of 2008, but it died before it could get to the Third Reading vote because an election was called in the fall of 2008.
2) "Fetal rights stir debate on abortion," by Charles Lewis, National Post, March 1, 2008
3) Statement of claim http://carletonlifeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/statement-of-claim.pdf

The law of Unintended Consequences

I have created a new website to go along with my blog. I will use this site to post articles when needed, so I can easily refer to them when necessary.

The first article I would like to link to is Ken Epp's "The truth about Bill C-484: A compassionate and constitutionally valid remedy to current injustice in Canadian criminal law". It is a response to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada which claimed that C-484 would "endanger abortion rights and women's rights by establishing fetal personhood". I have obtained permission from Mr. Epp to post his article here:
http://sites.google.com/site/runwithlifeblog/home/unborn-victims-of-crime

The fact that I have become a vocal advocate for the unborn started with the debate that ensued after Mr. Epp introduced "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (Bill C-484) in the fall of 2007.

There were very loud protests coming from those who claimed to be "pro-choice." It was obvious to anyone that actually read the bill that because it did not outlaw abortion, but rather the bill sought to: "amend the Criminal Code by making it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother" it wasn't an anti-abortion bill at all. In fact, abortion was explicitly excluded from the bill "for greater certainty."

Because it did not tamper with a woman's so-called "right to choose" abortion whenever and wherever and for any reason or no reason at all, it was a pro-choice bill. I could only conclude that the vehement opposition to the bill was because those people opposing it weren't really pro-choice. They were, in fact, pro-abortion.

At the time I wrote a few letters to the newspapers (that were published) supporting the bill. As I followed the abortion debate that ensued since that time and up to the present, I am convinced many of these very loud vocal persons in the so-called "pro-choice" crowd are in fact pro-abortion. And so this year I started my pro-life blog.

I guess I should thank these pro-abortion people whose radical views are what egged me on in the first place.