Showing posts with label Molly Matters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Molly Matters. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

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
1This 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
2The 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.
3Paragraph 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,
4Section 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.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

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.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

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)