C-484... part 4 or 5?

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 ]

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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, 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.

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.

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 #.

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.

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.

Link does not work

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.

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".

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"

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"

Here we go again!  *sigh*

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. 

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

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

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

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 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"

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