Bill C-484 is winding its way through the parliamentary process. Named the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, the proposed legislation is a private members’ bill sponsored by Conservative MP Ken Epp. The bill provides for penalties under the Criminal Code for injuring or killing unborn children.
The legislation does not penalize abortion nor any act or omission done by the mother that leads to the injury or termination of the fetus. Rather the purpose of the legislation is to provide additional offences and penalties in situations where a pregnant woman is attacked or otherwise becomes the victim of a crime and death or injury occurs to her unborn child. Under the current law, a fetus has no “rights” and rights only occur to persons. The fetus only becomes a person after its birth and the severance of the umbilical cord. Absent birth, a pregnant woman can be the only victim of a crime of violence against her and her unborn child.
Despite the fact that Roe v. Wade is firmly entrenched in U.S. law a majority of states have laws that provide the type of criminal sanctions that is contained in Epps’ bill. This hasn’t prevented the pro-abortion feminists from being up in arms over similar legislation being enacted in Canada. Many of them see this proposal as a threat to abortion on demand, even though the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy is clearly exempted under the bill.
One argument that the feminists are making is that providing penalties for injuring or killing unborn children will do absolutely nothing to stop or even lessen violence against women. There is no doubt a lot of truth to this argument. If someone isn’t deterred by the penalties for attacking or killing a woman it is unlikely that an additional penalty for harming or killing a fetus will have an effect on any act that is likely to occur. But it makes you wonder whatever happened to the “if it only saves one life” crowd that were so prominent a decade ago when Canada’s billion dollar gun registry was being debated. Even if Bill C-484 does not effectively reduce violence against women, it shows society’s revulsion to such violence. If the argument that it won’t stop violence against women is going to be used we might as well save the justice system some bucks and legalize wife beating.
A second argument that the feminists make is that if the mother is killed, the killer would receive a life sentence. Under the Criminal Code, any sentence imposed in addition to life must run concurrently and therefore imposing a sentence for injury or death to the fetus will not lengthen the sentence handed out to a killer. This sounds rational but ignores the situation where the mother is injured and the fetus killed. There is room to impose a lengthier sentence in that situation.
Now let’s fast forward to the case of Robert Pickton. Canada’s most prolific serial killer was convicted of six counts of second degree murder and received the maximum sentence for that crime of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years. Currently there are appeals and cross appeals pending. Recently Wally Oppal, the Attorney General for British Columbia, announced that if the convictions hold on appeal, the prosecution will not proceed on the 20 counts of first degree murder against Pickton that remain outstanding. Oppal’s reasons were, after denying that money is a factor, that it is not in the public interest to proceed with those charges as further convictions would not change Pickton’s circumstances or increase his penalty or parole eligibility period.
When it came to the Pickton matter, these same feminists argued the opposite of what they argued in regards to Bill C-484. It is seriously doubtful that any penalty that Pickton receives will do anything to deter future serial killers of women from carrying out their destruction. But you never hear anyone argue that the Crown should not go ahead with the other 20 counts because that prosecution won’t “stop” violence against women.
Assuming that Pickton’s sentence of life with no chance of parole for 25 years is upheld, any further sentences that are imposed have to be concurrent so in the end, as far as Pickton’s punishment or liberty is concerned, there will be no difference. But this truth, seen as a major argument against Bill C-484, is deemed to be irrelevant when it comes to Pickton.
No one should really be surprised at this inconsistency. Arguments that are made against imposing penalties for harming or killing a fetus or in favour of prosecuting Robert Pickton for other offences are not based on any logic. The basis of the arguments rests solely on whatever happens to be the political agenda at any given time.
