PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE:
2004.04.04
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Opinion
PAGE:
A14
SOURCE:
Calgary Herald
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting
the unborn: U.S. may be pushing fetal rights too far, but at least they're
having the debate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There
is something inherently healthy about a democracy that can debate contentious
public policy issues, such as the legal status of a fetus, and arrive at
sensible middle ground in legislation. Regrettably, that democracy is not yet
Canada.
This
week, U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, which makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a
pregnant woman. It passed with a convincing majority in Congress, winning more
than 60 per cent of the vote in both the Senate and the House.
In
Canada, politicians can scarcely utter the words "protecting the
unborn" without being branded extremists. Yet, in the U.S., it's the
pro-choice activists who are making the extreme statements. The National
Abortion Rights League is calling this legislation "a sneak attack on a
woman's right to choose." It is nothing of the sort.
A
woman's right to choose includes the choice to carry a child to term. If a
pregnant woman is attacked and loses her baby as a result, she will feel it is
murder just as surely as if her attacker had waited to commit the crime until
after the baby was born. If both mother and fetus die -- as in the case of Laci
and Conner Peterson -- the remaining family members will feel double the loss,
and are entitled to expect the murderer to pay double the price for his crime.
This
law is not a blow to women's reproductive choice, or the beginning of a slippery
slope to recriminalize abortion -- enshrining the rights of all fetuses is not
going to be next on the docket. Though this bill is being called Laci and
Conner's law, in deference to them both, it has taken five years to wind its way
through Congress. Decisions on these matters aren't made lightly or quickly.
Curtailing abortion rights, should it ever happen, would only occur after
prolonged public debate and a sea change in the national consensus.
Even
Bush acknowledges Americans aren't ready to start banning abortions. However,
there is no question his administration is not afraid to push the envelope.
Aside from this bill, the president has also signed legislation that bans
partial-birth abortions, he's curtailed funding for embryonic stem cell
research, and the U.S. has stopped funding international agencies that support
abortion.
Canadians
may not agree with all of these decisions, or any of them for that matter. But
it would be nice to have the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------
NEWS
RELEASE - March 12, 2004
NEW
CRIMINAL OFFENCE FOR MURDERING AN UNBORN CHILD PROPOSED
“Domestic
violence statistics against pregnant women show that something has to be
done.”
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/breitkreuzgpress/abort15.htm