Those who spoke against Bill C-225 (Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act or “Cassie and Molly’s Law”) in yesterday evening’s debate are endangering Canadian women and the choices they make. They may not be doing so in principle, but certainly in effect.
Bill C-225 addresses gender-based violence, specifically by protecting pregnant women who have chosen to carry their child to term.
“It is shocking that many Liberals and NDP are opposed to a bill that is designed to protect choice,” said Mike Schouten of WeNeedaLAW.ca. “Cassie, who the bill is named for, chose life for her daughter Molly, but Cassie was murdered before her baby could be born. Under our laws the killer will not be brought to justice for taking the life of her daughter without her consent.”
Bill C-225 is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow in the House of Commons. In the second hour of debate last night the lone MP to speak against it was Kevin Lamoureux, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.
“If the [Justin] Trudeau government truly believed that a woman’s choice is paramount, then they would have no problem justifying a woman’s choice to have a legal abortion while also supporting a law against the violent crime of killing a fetus when the pregnant woman has not chosen abortion,” said Schouten. “If they cannot do this, the only option they support is abortion, which is really no longer a choice at all.”
If choice is removed from the equation, there is nothing to distinguish a legal abortion from a violent attack on a pregnant woman that results in the death of her wanted child.
“Opposing C-225 out of fear that it will endanger abortion has the effect of endangering women,” concluded Schouten. “Because the Liberals and NDP are so fixated on abortion, perpetrators of violence against pregnant Canadian women like Cassie will continue to get away with their horrific crimes,”
Editor’s note. This comes from Weneedalaw.ca
In recent years, Canadian society has been engaged in a heated debate surrounding “Cassie and Molly’s Law.” This proposed legislation, named after two unborn children tragically killed in a drunk driving incident, aims to recognize fetuses as victims of violence. However, its opponents argue that such recognition poses a threat to women’s rights and reproductive choice.
At the heart of the controversy lies the question of personhood and the legal status of fetuses. Proponents of Cassie and Molly’s Law contend that recognizing fetuses as victims of violence is essential for justice and accountability. They argue that by acknowledging the harm inflicted on unborn children, the law can provide a deterrent against acts of violence that endanger pregnant women and their babies.
Furthermore, supporters of the legislation emphasize the need to address gaps in the Canadian legal system regarding crimes committed against pregnant women. They argue that existing laws often fail to adequately recognize the harm caused to both the woman and her unborn child, leaving perpetrators unpunished for their actions.
However, opponents of Cassie and Molly’s Law raise valid concerns regarding its potential impact on women’s reproductive rights. They argue that granting legal personhood to fetuses could set a dangerous precedent, opening the door to restrictions on abortion and reproductive choice. Moreover, they fear that such legislation could be exploited to undermine women’s autonomy over their bodies and medical decisions.
Critics also point out the inherent contradictions within the proposed law, particularly regarding its implications for abortion rights. While proponents argue for the protection of fetuses as victims of violence, they may inadvertently strengthen arguments for fetal personhood, which anti-abortion activists could exploit to push for restrictive abortion laws.
Another aspect of the debate revolves around the broader societal implications of Cassie and Molly’s Law. Opponents argue that the legislation risks prioritizing the rights of the fetus over those of the pregnant woman, potentially placing undue burden and scrutiny on expectant mothers. They emphasize the importance of upholding women’s rights to bodily autonomy and decision-making throughout pregnancy.
Moreover, critics highlight the disproportionate impact that Cassie and Molly’s Law could have on marginalized communities, particularly women of color and those facing socio-economic challenges. They argue that restrictive laws and increased surveillance of pregnant women could exacerbate existing inequalities in access to healthcare and legal protection.
In light of these concerns, it is essential to consider alternative approaches to addressing violence against pregnant women without compromising reproductive rights. This could include strengthening support systems for expectant mothers, improving access to prenatal care and mental health services, and enhancing legal protections for all victims of violence, regardless of their stage of development.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding Cassie and Molly’s Law underscores the complex intersection of women’s rights, reproductive choice, and the protection of vulnerable populations. While the recognition of fetal personhood may offer a sense of justice for some, it must be approached with caution to ensure that it does not infringe upon women’s autonomy or contribute to the erosion of reproductive rights in Canada.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
