C-484... part 4 or 5?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pride for Red D...

So bill c-484 is effectively dead in the water ? Itr has been withdrawn ? YAY!

martin dufresne

Le Devoir journalist Helene Buzzetti - who was on C-484 from the get-go like The Star's Antonia Zerbisias, thank you ladies! - made the point a few hours ago on Radio-Canada that Justice Minister Nicholson had refused to answer when asked if the Conservative gov't was "killing" C-484. As I wrote above, he didn't even have a wrtten version of this new bill he is touting. So C-484 is still on the parliamentary agenda: the Cons. have just distanciated themselves further from it. They may want to avoid alienating its supporters, or to protect its chances of resurfacing as a gov't bill after an election that would give them a few more seats, or a nn-election, that is more unqualified support from the Grits.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Pride for Red D...

To me this suggests that letters and protests are still warranted then..act for the worst, hope for the best type thing.

remind remind's picture

Was reading some articles last evening on Epp's reaction to the CPC press conference stating they were discarding this Bill. The fact is he isn't, and that it is a private members Bill, and as such they cannot just ditch it, as a party. So it apparently is just smoke and mirrors and down BS that came out of the press conference to try and manage the public message about it...

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by laine lowe:
[b]Excerpt from an excellent review on all these abortion related private member's bills:

[url=http://www.lawtimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41... door abortion law[/url][/b]


Thanks for bringing that article up, laine.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001423]I tried to start a thread[/url] with it some time ago, but nobody bit.

remind remind's picture

Thank you mspector, for bringing this information up a 3rd time. I had completely missed laine's post and link, as well as your initial thread on it.

quote:

The Conservatives are bringing in anti-abortion legislation by the back door...His backbench Conservative MPs are doing the job for him, [b]with a little help from some [i]Liberals[/i][/b]It’s a complicated plan, using [b]four[/b] members’ private bills which would give a fetus the legal status of an “unborn child” — a major step towards going to the Supreme Court with a Charter challenge to ban abortion.

...[b]The strategy starts with bill C-484[/b], the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, sponsored by Conservative MP Ken Epp,

[b]Bill C-338, sponsored by a Liberal MP Paul Steckle,[/b] criminalizes abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, unless the mother suffers from mental problems or the fetus has severe anomalies. This legislation bothers doctors. How to tell when 20 weeks (abortion legal) is not 21 weeks (abortion criminal).

Bill C-537, “protection of conscience in the health-care profession” (sounds like freedom), is sponsored by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. It would allow doctors and nurses to refuse to perform medical acts — including abortions — that are against their religion. Abortion refusal in public hospitals, here we come. But good news for religious Muslim and Orthodox Jewish health professionals.

Bill C-543 “abuse of pregnant women” would make attacking a pregnant women an “aggravating” factor.

MPs who support the legislation meet regularly for a prayer breakfast in a chapel built for religious worship inside the Parliament Buildings. Lately, to their surprise, they’ve been joined by Muslim and Jewish MPs, who happen to share their views on abortion.


*bolding mine

remind remind's picture

Status information on the other 3 Bills.

Bill C338: passed first reading Oct 2007

quote:

Pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, this bill was deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList... Act to amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after twenty weeks of gestation)[/url]

Bill 543 - 1st reading May 14, 2008

quote:

C-543 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of pregnant woman)
Brent St. Denis (Algoma--Manitoulin)

[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Par... of bill[/url]

And the Protection of Conscience Bill for Health care Professionls by Vellacourt.

Bill C537: 1st reading April 16th.

[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList... to status of Bill as it will not show text of the Bill[/url]

These Bills all passed first reading, and have been ordered in for 2nd reading this fall. Now I am going to go look at who seconded them.

[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Pride for Red D...

Indeed it's still on the table- I got an email from the FFQ last night saying that the September 28th protest is still on.

remind remind's picture

Bill C537 - Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin), seconded by Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni), Bill C-537, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mod... 16th Hansard[/url]

Bill C543:

quote:

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing), seconded by Mr. Valley (Kenora), Bill C-543, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of pregnant woman), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mod... 14th hansard[/url]

Bill C338 - Liberal Paul Steckles' Bill limiting abortions to 20 weeks, now this is interesting as it says it was introduced Oct 16th 2007, however, I could not find anything about it being presented on Oct 16th in Hansard.

[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mod... 16 2007 Hansard[/url]

Oh, I did find this though:

quote:

Pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, all items of Private Members’ Business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the Order Paper at prorogation, on Friday, September 14, 2007, are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper or, as the case may be, referred to committee

So, if it was presented before, and it must have been, in the 38th Parliament session and got carried over, and deemed read in, one would have to look through everyday the House was sitting from February through June 2007. Perhaps sometime later today, I will browse through them to see when it was actually presented and who seconded it from the Liberal Party.

Here is the calendar link to that sessions if someone wants to look:

[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&... session Hansard Journal links[/url]

ETA: I went to Steckles' website to see if he had anything about when he presented it there. He didn't, though he had everything else he has ever done in parliament going back to 1998. I guess he did/does not want his consituents knowing what he was up to in that area.

Rural francesca, if you are about, have you heard of his promoting this Private Members Bill within the community?

[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:[b]Indeed it's still on the table- I got an email from the FFQ last night saying that the September 28th protest is still on.[/b]

I figured as much, I could not see Epp, nor indeed, the CPC and selected Liberals letting this go.

Accidental Altruist

So the election is on but I can't relax yet. Can folks here gimme reassurance that both C-484 and C-537 are [b]REALLY dead[/b]?

I wanna give my Facebook action groups the *all clear*.

Thanks.

martin dufresne

C-484 may have ended with the most recent session, but with the number of polls and pundit opinions pointing to a majority for the Harperites - and at least 21 Liberal MPs on record as opposing the right to abortion - there is no way an 'all clear' signal could be warranted.
The demo is still on in Montreal on Sept. 28.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I agree with martin. If Harper gets a majority, all bets are off and chances are that the legislation will be introduced in a new omnibus bill to amend the criminal code to include Epp's former bill as well as other ugly stuff like prosecuting/sentencing youth as adults.

remind remind's picture

I disagree with Martin, Harper is not in majority territory.

martin dufresne

I pray you are right. But add 21 Libs and 2 Ind to the number of Cons that will be elected and... [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

remind remind's picture

But martin the Liberals are "progressive" now don't ya know? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] There are plenty of threads here detailing why he is not in majority territory, what it would take to indicate that, where he stands to actually lose seats and he pissed off many in the CPC ranks today over the launch of the CPC's interactive website.

martin dufresne

Remind, I assure you that I very much [b]want[/b] to whistle in the dark... I just can't read the damn partition!

remind remind's picture

Martin, I never whistle in the dark, primarily because I never learned to whistle, and I also carry my clip on book light wherever I go.

Bricker from Ipsos Reid has a very long expose about just why Harper is not in majority territory, it is in the polling thread #867 I believe, or its precedent one.

martin dufresne

Is that the one where I read:

quote:

It doesn't mean they won't form a majority. It just means that to say they're flirting with one right now is not true," said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs.

?

remind remind's picture

Yes, Bricker said the notion that Harper is fliting with a majority right is not true. And it isn't.

They could indeed someday form a majority, if conditions went right for them that could be the case, only right now the conditoons do not appear to have changed since last election other than Harper has increased voting support in crystalized areas of ON where he already has the seats anyway.

There are also seats Harper is going to lose. And the Bloc is no where near melting down in PQ.

Accidental Altruist

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]C-484 may have ended with the most recent session, but with the number of polls and pundit opinions pointing to a majority for the Harperites - and at least 21 Liberal MPs on record as opposing the right to abortion - there is no way an 'all clear' signal could be warranted.
The demo is still on in Montreal on Sept. 28.[/b]

ok. that's good (and freakin' scary) to know!
I shall advise my troops. Thanks

Pride for Red D...

I read somewhere the other day (FFQ ?) that even if the bill is off for noew because of the election, there's nothing to stop it form coming back after the election under as different #.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
[b]I read somewhere the other day (FFQ ?) that even if the bill is off for noew because of the election, there's nothing to stop it form coming back after the election under as different #.[/b]

That would be true of any bill in the world.

martin dufresne

True. But there is more. The grim Harper only committed to not legislate on abortion in his FIRST mandate. In a second one, with a possible majority - and more than 20 anti-choice Liberal MPs in Parliament - nothing would stop him from recriminalizing abortion. Quebec's Cardinal Turcotte just held a press conference to hand back his Order of Canada medal (over Dr. Morgentaler's nomination) - with the unanimous support of Quebec bishops - challenging the population to make abortion an issue in this election. The Quebec mainstream media are eating it up today.
Separation of Church and State? Don't kid yourself. The Roman Catholic church and the Right in general are totally cynical about using religion to push back women's rights.

Mick

Sorry if I missed this but are there any demonstrations planned in Ontario for the 28th of September?

Or is the Montreal one a national mobilzation?

martin dufresne

Harper stated this morning (in French) that a new Harper government would put forward a bill to further criminalize assaults on pregnant women, but he commited to this bill not opening the way to constraints on women's reproductive rights, as C-484 was perceived to do.

martin dufresne

Uno Who at Montreal's demo... (note stains from 5 lb of overripe tomatoes and 2 cream pies)

[img]http://picasaweb.google.fr/dufresne43/Pape#5251550326132734402[/img]

[url=http://picasaweb.google.fr/dufresne43/Pape#5251550326132734402]http://pi...

[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

remind remind's picture

Link does not work

martin dufresne

Have you tried clicking on the little icon? I am sorry I am clueless about linking images from a website (here, Google Picasa) and Babble's How-To guide is a sad joke.

Harumph

I read M. Spector's linked column but I'm still a little unclear.

Did the bill try to redefine when a fetus becomes "human" in order to facilitate charging people who kill/injure the fetus in the process of attacking a pregnant woman with stiffer charges?

Can someone be convicted of murder for killing a fetus (intentionally or not) in the process of attacking a pregnant woman? I know you can in some (maybe all) states, I remember reading a case a while ago.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Harumph:
[b]Did the bill try to redefine when a fetus becomes "human" in order to facilitate charging people who kill/injure the fetus in the process of attacking a pregnant woman with stiffer charges?[/b]

No, it didn't. The harsher penalty would apply whether the death or injury was to a two-day-old or an eight-month-old fetus.

quote:

[b]Can someone be convicted of murder for killing a fetus (intentionally or not) in the process of attacking a pregnant woman? I know you can in some (maybe all) states, I remember reading a case a while ago.[/b]

Not in Canada at present.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I am sorry I am clueless about linking images from a website (here, Google Picasa) and Babble's How-To guide is a sad joke.[/b]

Martin, the only mistake you made was to put the URL of the web page in between the "IMG" tags. You should have used the URL of the [b]photo itself[/b], thus:

[img]http://lh6.ggpht.com/dufresne43/SOFBMp06ecI/AAAAAAAAAIo/xae5irAqwX4/s400...

I'm running Windoze XP: I got the URL of the photo by right-clicking on the photo itself and then left-clicking on "Properties".

martin dufresne

Thanks (I still don't understand (URL of a photo?) but thanks.
Note the stains from 5 lbs of over-ripe tomatoes that the golden lacrosse racket merely sluiced and 2 maraschino cherry whipped cream pies (grand finale of the pontifical monologue).

[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

remind remind's picture

Was just reading at Dawg's blog, who is at the Con Con, and P-207, Epp's Bill C484 has passed for adoption, in the workshop phase and is being voted upon in the plenary sessions today.

So, it seems we can watch for it to be entered back into the house this session, as I personally expect it to pass in the plenary.

Moreover, given that women's equity pay dissolution has also been passed as a proposal, and that Canada is now behind the USA in gender equity rights, I do not expect the male politicians in Ottawa, in any party, to be supportive of women's gender equity rights.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Pride for Red D...

Where can we read these proposals ?

remind remind's picture

In the meantime, possums, a delegate was kind enough to give me the entire
gen-in on the "Social and
Democratic Framework" workshop
. So here you go:

P-201. Fixed terms
for Supreme Court of Canada judges. Defeated.
P-202. Support for
Charter including notwithstanding clause (wink, wink). Passed.
P-203. Essentially
get rid of Section 13 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act. Unsurprisingly,
passed overwhelmingly.
P-204.
Transparency and accountability. Defeated. Concern was apparently
expressed that the resolution would compromise quasi-independent agencies like
NAVCAN. Make of that what you will.
P-205. Arctic sovereignty. Passed.
P-206. Elected
senators from the Territories. Defeated.
This was
considered superfluous, because the CPC supports an elected Senate in
general.
P-207. The disguised fetal rights resolution. Passed.
P-208. Cutting back
on student loans, but letting kids with rich parents have access to what
remains. Passed.
P-209. Abolition of
student contributions to EI when working summer jobs. [I didn't get the result
here.]
P-210. SSM issue. Defeated on a close vote--because
delegates are still hoping that Parliament will define marriage as between and
man and a woman.
P-211. SSM again. Defeated, for the same
reason.
P-212. Abolishing position on childcare. Defeated.
P-213. Abolish notion
of equal pay for work of equal value. Passed.
P-214. Homelessness.
Defeated.
P-215. Urban issues.
Defeated.
P-216. Mass-marketing
fraud. Defeated.
P-217. Wireless
telephone industry. Defeated.
P-218. Finger-wagging
on "Canadian values." Passed.

P-219.
Amateur sport. Passed.
P-220. Amateur sport
again. Passed
P-221. "Genuine"
refugees. Defeated. The notion of "criminal
record" was deemed to be too vague.
P-222. Immigration by temporary workers.
Passed.
P-223. Aboriginal
affairs--program coordination and outcome audits. Passed.

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Sharon

Quote:
The ruling Conservative Party toughened its hard-line stand on crime even further Saturday at a policy convention in Winnipeg and adopted a divisive resolution backing extra legal penalties for individuals who commit violence against pregnant women.

 

[URL=http://tinyurl.com/59qlom] The Globe and Mail [/URL]

the regina mom the regina mom's picture

Here we go again!  *sigh*

remind remind's picture

Ya, just as I figured they would, well let's see if it makes it to the floor of the House or not.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Pride for Red D...

round and round and round we go, where it stops no one knows ! But I hope it does.

 Also, do we have a spy in the Conservative party ? Not that one can't be friends with a conservative of course. 

the regina mom the regina mom's picture

I found it interesting to note that at least one woman spoke against it at the ConCon, but she was booed.

Pride for Red D...

Yes- I heard she was a pro-choice delegate form New Brunswick.

the regina mom the regina mom's picture

Isn't NB the province where there are the most restrictions on the procedure?  Or am I mis-remembering?

remind remind's picture

You are correct, in NB they are withholding public funding!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Michelle

To me, it all depends on the wording.  If they do it in a way that makes it so that they don't grant personhood to the fetus, then I'm fine with them tacking on an extra penalty for assault that also causes a woman to be deprived of her choice to carry a fetus to term.

remind remind's picture

Do not know whether or not that is naivety Michelle, but do you really think, that they would bother putting in extra assault charges specifically protecting a pregnant woman, if it did not contain wording that grants "personhood"? Moreover, how can you grant extra penalties beyond that of what everyone else gets, if not for declaring "fetus" rights?

The wording of P 207 at Con Con stated "unborn child", that statement is granting personhood.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

the regina mom the regina mom's picture

My understanding is that there are already sentencing provisions which allow judges to give extra penalties for assault, and they do.  But everyone is so [email protected] scared to talk about this issue that none of the politicians mention that.

I don't like the look of this, of placing pregnant women on a pedestal.  I mean, yes, it's reprehensible that an abused woman tends to suffer more abuse when she is pregnant.  But abuse is abuse is abuse. 

Why single out abusers of pregnant women if not to glorify the fetus?

remind remind's picture

the regina mom wrote:
My understanding is that there are already sentencing provisions which allow judges to give extra penalties for assault, and they do.

 

Quote:
I don't like the look of this, of placing pregnant women on a pedestal. Why single out abusers of pregnant women if not to glorify the fetus?

Me either, and you are exactly correct it is in any circumstance a "glorification" of a fetus.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

remind remind's picture

Joyce has been hard at work denoting who is a prochoice MP, or not,  after the election and has a stats table at the arcc-cdac web site along with other tables.

[email protected]

h/t BnR

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

the regina mom the regina mom's picture

The chart of who's where on reproductive freedom is here.

 

Pages

Topic locked