Bill C - 484 Fetal Homicide Bill at Bene Diction Blogs On

Bill C - 484 Fetal Homicide Bill

Here is the close free vote held today on C-484. The fetal homicide bill.
Library of Parliament

142 yeas 132 nays

C-484 has now gone to the Justice Committee.
While on face value Mr. Epp’s private member bill looks good and looks as it it added safeguard (just read Christianity.ca for their legal council position) current laws against domestic violence need to be enforced, we do not need new legislation.
My MP kept his word, he is a man of faith who is opposed to this bill. Many who voted against it are.
Politicians are busy human beings worried about re-election, are pressed to time to actually read a bill and can make bad choices with good intentions.
Justice committee members need the opportunity to make intelligent decisions
From unrepentant hippie:

Justice Committee. Write them if you can.

Chair: Art Hanger CON, YES

Real Menard - BQ, NO

Brian Murphy - LIB, NO

Members:

Larry Bagnell - LIB, NO

Blaine Calkins - CON, YES

Joe Comartin - NDP, NO

Rick Dykstra - CON, YES

Carole Freeman - BQ, NO

Dominic LeBlanc - LIB, NO

Derek Lee - LIB, YES

Rob Moore - CON, YES

Daniel Petit - CON, YES

If a committee member voted no, encourage them to explain to fellow committee members why and thank them for their service. Just an email with a few sentences can make a difference.
If they voted yes, encourage them to explain why and listen to their fellow committee members reasons, ask them to ponder why this is bad legislation. Thank them for being willing to listen to why this bill does not benefit justic for Canadian women.

Garth Turner (MP Halton) explains after research and discussion why he opposed C-484.

Epp ( MP Edmonton-Sherwood Park) has also put a lot of effort into trying to get this legislation through, and twice my desk has been papered by him as he tried to allay fears this is an attempt to do indirectly what he has failed in the past to gain directly – outlaw abortion.
However, his marketing efforts have been effective, citing horrific examples of women who have been brutalized and lost their unborn as a result.

I thought a lot about this. We discussed it in caucus. I talked it over with my seatmate, Robert Thibault, from Nova Scotia. I corresponded with constituents and I had research done to understand the implications.
My conclusion:
Since an unborn child is not currently recognized as being distinct from the woman carrying it under current law, then this bill would change that, and open up abortion for legitimate review.
Second, the bill would fail to address more than 80% of the incidences where abuse, usually inflicted within the home by a partner, causes loss of a fetus.
Third, the most effective way to deal with the kind of situation Mr. Epp put forward is through harsher sentencing.

I’ve written earlier why Canadians benefit from the opportunity to weigh for themselves on why this is bill bad legislation. It is not going to take up very much of your time. We are smart enough to sort through the highly charged emotion and goals whipped up by Epp and his bill..
I’d ask BDBO Canadian readers of faith to read the pros and cons instead of just accepting feel good emotional and pandered bills at face value because a legal person in a well respected evangelical groups says to.
Be Bereans, discern, read and weigh out worth and consequences.

Published 5 months, 3 weeks ago

4 Responses to “Bill C - 484 Fetal Homicide Bill”

RSS

1 BD on Mar 6th, 2008 at 12:49 am

A comment from Steve at a Connexions abortion post

The question is not whether we set up some sort of artifical demarkation between the “innocent” and the “guilty,” but how much grace we believe should be given toward all groups of people.

Using the popular labels of the day, you could call me “pro-life”: anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-capital punishment. I believe that Jesus modeled on the cross a grace that gives value to even the most guilty of persons.

I would much prefer to be precise with my language than to engage in the vilification of people who do not agree with me through my choice of labels.

I am personally opposed to abortion and believe that we should be working to change the hearts and minds of people with regard to this issue. I also believe that the church and our society should make greater strides toward eliminating the conditions which make abortion attractive - a fear of poverty, lack of adequate childcare for single mothers, abusive families which threaten pregnant mothers who are discovered, and a lack of adoptive families for orphaned children, among other things.

And so I would prefer to work on hearts and minds, where I believe we can make a difference, rather than working to change laws which will largely be irrelevant.

In the end, I refuse to take up either label (”pro-life” or “pro-choice”), as they add no light to the discussion, only heat (and hate).

(edited for clarity to assist this C-484 discussion - BD)
2 Christian on Mar 6th, 2008 at 11:16 am

Thanks for your Blog God Bless
3 JJ on Mar 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Great post, BD, thanks so much for this.

I’d be very interested to hear the take on this from other progressive people of faith — I think they’re too often overlooked in the political arena because the more strident voices of the right-wingers tend to drown them out. (And possibly because they believe in keeping faith out of politics?)

The commenter you quoted has the right idea: those who oppose abortion would do better to work on changing minds but also affecting change to the situations that make abortion seem like the only choice. That, and education (so unwanted pregnancy doesn’t happen in the first place) would do more to reduce the overall number of abortions than just forcing the issue through laws that legislate our private lives.

I guess the next step would be, as you say, to encourage the committee members who voted No to share the reasons for their vote with the ones who voted Yes. At least the bill could be amended to the point where there’s no possibility of threat to abortion rights. As it stands right now, we’re looking at the equal personhood of the fetus, which makes abortion rights vulnerable to attack.

Round Two, here we come!
4 Bene D on Mar 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

The EFC casts a wide umbrella (similar to the National Evangelical Association in the US).

I don’t think progressives in the faith community are overlooked at all, whether evangelical, mainstream, Catholic… we’re there/here; maybe we are so much a part of the landscape we just blend in to help get done what needs to be done.

The two webtorials at the public face EFC (not their main website) site by Cryer and Hutchinson were predictable and the second one was quite sloppy, the EFC executive isn’t going to tick off the Epps.

I’ve seen just one Catholic group speak up in favour of C- 484.

I dunno JJ, individuals who care who are remotely up to speed, would write their MP’s on this one. I agree it would be interesting to see if groups feel the need to go public.