It seems glaringly obvious that a baby died, and justice should be served. Yet a judge had to decide that the accused would stand trial for the death of the child, as the prosecution and defence “differ[ed] on whether the fetus was legally considered a living being.” Whether that child counts as a victim will be decided by a jury; let’s hope and pray they make the right decision.

As Canadians, we are passionate about victims’ rights, and the need to support and uphold the vulnerable. Our government, on the other hand, seems determined to eschew responsibility when it comes to who the law protects.

There are numerous cases in recent Canadian history where surviving family and friends are shocked to learn that the pre-born child they so looked forward to holding counts for nothing in our laws and in our courts if it is killed by a criminal. That there could be any question in this case when the baby was actually delivered is shocking. A mother carried this child for 8 months, and had that child taken away by an act of violence. The fact that there is any gray area here shows just how much we need laws protecting pre-born children from the earliest possible stages of development.

The comment section was full of weeping emojis, angry red faces, and hate for poachers. Words like “heartbreaking”, “unbelievable”, and “disturbing” are repeated over and over. And it’s true: this little rhino was a victim of poaching no less than her mother. But why should it bother us so much when we allow the same thing to happen to human fetuses killed when their mother is victimized?

We observed something similar just a few short years ago right here in Canada. As the result of a selfish act, Cassie Kaake was murdered, along with her 7-month old pre-born child. There was national outrage that someone could commit such a heinous crime, and genuine shock that our laws did not recognize Cassie’s child (who she had already named Molly) as a victim alongside her mother. When MP Cathay Wagantall had an opportunity, she put forward legislation that addressed this void in Canadian law. Her bill recognized Cassie’s choice, and honoured it by recognizing Molly as a victim too. Ms. Wagantall, and the family of Cassie Kaake, worked hard to ensure that the outrage manifested was translated into meaningful action.

Unfortunately, many lawmakers are only about words, not meaningful action to effect change. Cassie and Molly’s law, as Ms. Wagantall’s private member’s bill was called, was voted down in Parliament.

Just as this baby rhino does not count in poaching statistics, so Molly did not count in the murder charges laid against the perpetrator in her mother’s death.

When we see this rhino, perfectly formed, no one hesitates for a moment to call it a rhino, a baby, and a victim. Where is the disconnect of political correctness that makes this ok for a rhino, but not for one of our own kind? Why can we not recognize the humanity of the pre-born child, and value it accordingly?

I was not the only one to feel the painful irony here. Commenter @rhettmoffett stated, “Imagine how sad it would be if it was a human baby rather than a wild animal.” Another, @bmoneyjo16, said, “Interesting because you’ll say a baby rhino was lost but won’t consider a baby in the womb to be human. Double standard.”

Commenter @whycantibejohnyoung gets more direct: “Maybe if half of you people actually saw a human fetus in a jar after an abortion you might think twice about shedding your fake emoji tears on this post. There are no words that can describe the magnitude of the moral hypocrisy I’m seeing here. I challenge Nat Geo to put equal spotlight on human fetuses, and I challenge each one of you to observe.”

Among multiple pleas to be kind to animals and the planet, one commenter added, “We are their only voice.”

We are called to be a voice for the voiceless, defenders of those weaker than ourselves. One commenter writes, “I think this is the saddest photo I’ve ever seen. Maybe spread this across the world.” As @lishlange states, “It’s all wrong – human babies & animals being poached.”

Every day, babies’ lives are terminated in the wombs of their mothers, often for the same reason as this rhino: simple human self-interest. National Geographic knows the power of pictures, and they do an incredible job advocating for so many of the earth’s voiceless inhabitants. It is our job to continue to do the same for our pre-born neighbours. When people think of abortion, may their first responses also be weeping, anger, and a righteous demand for change.

We talked about the very specific changes we ask for through our goals of banning sex-selective abortion, recognizing pre-born victims of crime, and implementing an International Standards Law to regulate abortions after 13 weeks gestation. To hear the full conversation, including what some of her listeners had to say, click below (to skip the commercials, start listening at 2 minutes 40 seconds).

On April 7, less than six months later, 27-year-old Arianna Goberdhan, 9 months pregnant, was murdered. From reports, it seems the baby did not survive the beating she took prior to her death. Her husband has been arrested and charged, but not in connection with the death of Goberdhan’s baby.

Where is justice?

Three months ago, I had my son three weeks early. Had Arianna also been so fortunate, her baby would have survived. Had her husband then attacked that baby along with his wife, he would feel the full weight of the law in regards to two murders. This discrepancy in charges based solely on timing is heart wrenching. Anyone who has ever seen a woman at nine months pregnant is well aware that the baby could literally come at any time. Now, Ms. Goberdhan’s baby will never be recognized as the person he or she was, because we could not protect the mother who carried this child for so long.

Violence against women is a serious issue, our MPs were right about that. But to call for a “national strategy” or “committee investigation” while ignoring a tangible bill right in front of you is simply ridiculous. Bill C-225 might not have prevented Ms. Goberdhan’s death, this is true. What it would have accomplished, though, is justice that recognised her choice to spend almost a year of her life nurturing new life. Allowing her baby to be acknowledged publicly as a victim would honour her family’s grief, and honour the choice she made to carry her child.

Bill C-225 was introduced largely because Molly, a pre-born baby who died when her mother was murdered, had a father left behind who cared deeply. Her father, Jeff Durham, wanted her recognized as a victim along with her mother because that recognition would be a validation of the choice Cassandra Kaake made to be a mother. In the case of Ms. Goberdhan, who will fight for her baby? Who will miss that awaited child silently, knowing justice can never be fully served?

We need to re-calibrate society

Fear of the abortion debate, and the hardline stance of the Liberal government on this issue, have contributed to a state of immense imbalance when it comes to a woman’s choice. When will we stop devaluing mothers out of fear of offending those who have chosen not to be mothers? When will we celebrate mothers who choose life as much as we celebrate reproductive choice?

If we want to tackle violence against women, we need to tackle tolerance with truth. The truth is, many women want to be mothers. When the unthinkable happens, as in the tragic case of Arianna Goberdhan, we honor her choice by stating the obvious that she can no longer state for herself: her pre-born baby is a victim of violence as much as she is, and the offender must be charged and sentenced accordingly.

Take Action

Let your Member of Parliament know that Canada’s law needs to change. We need a pre-born victims of crime law to honour the women who die carrying their child. Take 10 minutes to send this letter or write your own and make your voice heard.

This article was also published on LifeSiteNews.

Many of you have joined the efforts of the Molly Matters campaign these past several months. Thousands of Canadians rallied together to support the families of Cassie and Molly and the private member’s bill of MP Cathay Wagantall (C-225), signatures were gathered and individuals were mobilized in a renewed effort to see whether Canadian Parliament would finally acknowledge the lives of pre-born victims of crime. Thank you for all you did to ensure the story of Cassie and Molly was heard across this country.

We persevere in our efforts, and one way we do that is by continuing the conversation that began many months ago. Below you will see an alphabetical listing of how MPs voted on C-225 and we encourage you to write a letter in response (scroll down for sample letters). Note: those who were absent or did not vote, are not listed below (52 MPs did not vote, or were absent from the house), however you are encouraged to send them an email inquiring how they would have voted.

• Albrecht, Harold – Conservative – Yes
• Aldag, John – Liberal – No
• Alghabra, Omar – Liberal – No
• Alleslev, Leona – Liberal – No
• Allison, Dean – Conservative – Yes
• Amos, William – Liberal – No
• Anandasangaree, Gary – Liberal – No
• Anderson, David – Conservative – Yes
• Arnold, Mel – Conservative – Yes
• Arsenault, Rene – Liberal – No
• Arya, Chandra – Liberal – No
• Ashton, Niki – NDP – No
• Aubin, Robert – NDP – No
• Ayoub, Ramez – Liberal – No
• Badawey, Vance – Liberal – No
• Bagnell, Larry – Liberal – No
• Bains, Navdeep – Liberal – No
• Barlow, John – Conservative – Yes
• Barsalou-Duval, Xavier – Bloc – No
• Baylis, Frank – Liberal – No
• Beaulieu, Mario – Bloc – No
• Beech, Terry – Liberal – No
• Bennett, Carolyn – Liberal – No
• Benson, Sheri – NDP – No
• Bergen, Candice – Conservative – Yes
• Berthold, Luc – Conservative – Yes
• Bezan, James – Conservative – Yes
• Bibeau, Marie-Claude – Liberal – No
• Bittle, Chris – Liberal – No
• Blaikie, Daniel – NDP – No
• Blair, Bill – Liberal – No
• Blaney, Steven – Conservative – Yes
• Blaney, Rachel – NDP – No
• Block, Kelly – Conservative – Yes
• Boissonnault, Randy – Liberal – No
• Bossio, Mike – Liberal – No
• Boucher, Sylvie – Conservative – No
• Boudrias, Michel – Bloc – No
• Boulerice, Alexandre – NDP – No
• Boutin-Sweet, Marjolaine – NDP – No
• Bratina, Bob – Liberal – No
• Breton, Pierre – Liberal – No
• Brison, Scott – Liberal – No
• Brosseau, Ruth Ellen – NDP – No
• Brown, Gordon – Conservative – Yes
• Caesar-Chavannes, Celina – Liberal – No
• Calkins, Blaine – Conservative – Yes
• Cannings, Richard – NDP – No
• Caron, Guy – NDP – No
• Carr, Jim – Liberal – No
• Carrie, Colin – Conservative – Yes
• Casey, Bill – Liberal – No
• Casey, Sean – Liberal – No
• Chagger, Bardish – Liberal – No
• Champagne, Francois-Philippe – Liberal – No
• Chan, Arnold – Liberal – No
• Chen, Shaun – Liberal – No
• Chong, Michael – Conservative – No
• Choquette, Francois – NDP – No
• Christopherson, David – NDP – No
• Cooper, Michael – Conservative – Yes
• Cormier, Serge – Liberal – No
• Cullen, Nathan – NDP – No
• Cuzner, Rodger – Liberal – No
• Dabrusin, Julie – Liberal – No
• DeCourcey, Matt – Liberal – No
• Dhaliwal, Sukh – Liberal – No
• Dhillon, Anju – Liberal – No
• Di Iorio, Nicola – Liberal – No
• Dion, Stephane – Liberal – No
• Diotte, Kerry – Conservative – Yes
• Doherty, Todd – Conservative – Yes
• Donnelly, Fin – NDP – No
• Dreeshan, Earl – Conservative – Yes
• Drouin, Francis – Liberal – No
• Dubourg, Emmanuel – Liberal – No
• Duguid, Terry – Liberal – No
• Duncan, Kirsty – Liberal – No
• Duncan, Linda – NDP – No
• Duvall, Scott – NDP – No
• Eglinski, Jim – Conservative – Yes
• Ehsassi, Ali – Liberal – No
• El-Khoury, Faycal – Liberal – No
• Ellis, Neil – Liberal – No
• Eyolfson, Doug – Liberal – No
• Falk, Ted – Conservative – Yes
• Fast, Ed – Conservative – Yes
• Fergus, Greg – Liberal – No
• Fillmore, Andy – Liberal – No
• Finley, Diane – Conservative – Yes
• Finnigan, Pat – Liberal – No
• Fisher, Darren – Liberal – No
• Fonseca, Peter – Liberal – No
• Foote, Judy – Liberal – No
• Fortin, Rheal – Bloc – No
• Fragiskatos, Peter – Liberal – No
• Fraser, Colin – Liberal – No
• Fraser, Sean – Liberal – No
• Fry, Hedy – Liberal – No
• Fuhr, Stephen – Liberal – No
• Gallant, Cheryl – Conservative – Yes
• Garneau, Marc – Liberal – No
• Garrison, Randall – NDP – No
• Genereux, Bernard – Conservative – Yes
• Genuis, Garnett – Conservative – Yes
• Gerretsen, Mark – Liberal – No
• Gill, Marilene – Block – No
• Gladu, Marilyn – Conservative – Yes
• Goldsmith-Jones, Pam – Liberal – No
• Goodale, Ralph – Liberal – No
• Gould, Karina – Liberal – No
• Gourde, Jacques – Conservative – Yes
• Graham, David de Burgh – Liberal – No
• Hajdu, Patty – Liberal – No
• Hardcastle, Cheryl – NDP – No
• Harder, Rachael – Conservative – Yes
• Hardie, Ken – Liberal – No
• Harvey, T.J. – Liberal – No
• Hehr, Kent – Liberal – No
• Hoback, Randy – Conservative – Yes
• Holland, Mark – Liberal – No
• Housefather, Anthony – Liberal – No
• Hughes, Carol – NDP – No
• Hussen, Ahmed – Liberal – No
• Hutchings, Gudie – Liberal – No
• Iacono, Angelo – Liberal – No
• Jenerous, Matt – Conservative – Yes
• Johns, Gord – NDP – No
• Jolibois, Georgina – NDP – No
• Jones, Yvonne – Liberal – No
• Jordan, Bernadette – Liberal – No
• Jowhari, Majid – Liberal – No
• Julian, Peter – NDP – No
• Singh Kang, Darshan – Liberal – No
• Kelly, Pat – Conservative – Yes
• Kent, Peter – Conservative – No
• Khalid, Iqra – Liberal – No
• Khera, Kamal – Liberal – No
• Kitchen, Robert – Conservative – Yes
• Kmiec, Tom – Conservative – Yes
• Kwan, Jenny – NDP – No
• Lake, Mike – Conservative – Yes
• Lametti, David – Liberal – No
• Lamoureux, Kevin – Liberal – No
• Lapointe, Linda – Liberal – No
• Lauzon, Stephane – Liberal – No
• Lauzon, Guy – Conservative – Yes
• Laverdiere, Helene – NDP – No
• Lebel, Denis – Conservative – Yes
• Lebouthillier, Diane – Liberal – No
• Lefebvre, Paul – Liberal – No
• Lemieux, Denis – Liberal – No
• Leslie, Andrew – Liberal – No
• Levitt, Michael – Liberal – No
• Liepert, Ron – Conservative – Yes
• Lightbound, Joel – Liberal – No
• Lobb, Ben – Conservative – Yes
• Lockhard, Alaina – Liberal – No
• Long, Wayne – Liberal – No
• Longfield, Lloyd – Liberal – No
• Ludwig, Karen – Liberal – No
• MacAulay, Lawrence – Liberal – No
• MacGregor, Alistair – NDP – No
• MacKenzie, Dave – Conservative – Yes
• Maguire, Larry – Conservative – Yes
• Malcolmson, Sheila – NDP – No
• Maloney, James – Liberal – No
• Masse, Brian – NDP – No
• Masse, Remi – Liberal – No
• Mathyssen, Irene – NDP – No
• May, Bryan – Liberal – No
• May, Elizabeth – Green – No
• McCallum, John – Liberal – No
• McColeman, Phil – Conservative – Yes
• McCrimmon, Karen – Liberal – No
• McDonald, Ken – Liberal – No
• McGuinty, David – Liberal – No
• McKenna, Catherine – Liberal – No
• McKinnon, Ron – Liberal – No
• McLeod, Cathy – Conservative – Yes
• McLeod, Michael – Liberal – No
• Mendes, Alexandra – Liberal – No
• Mihychuk, MaryAnn – Liberal – No
• Miller, Larry – Conservative – Yes
• Miller, Marc – Liberal – No
• Monsef, Maryam – Liberal – No
• Moore, Christine – NDP – No
• Morneau, Bill – Liberal – No
• Morrissey, Robert – Liberal – No
• Mulcair, Thomas – NDP – No
• Murray, Joyce – Liberal – No
• Nantel, Pierre – Liberal – No
• Nassif, Eva – Liberal – No
• Nater, John – Conservative – Yes
• Nault, Robert – Liberal – No
• Nicholson, Rob – Conservative – Yes
• Nuttall, Alexaner – Conservative – Yes
• O’Connell, Jennifer – Liberal – No
• Oliver, John – Liberal – No
• O’Regan, Seamus – Liberal – No
• O’Toole, Erin – Conservative – Yes
• Ouellette, Robert-Falcon – Liberal – No
• Paradis, Denis – Liberal – No
• Paul-Hus, Pierre – Conservative – Yes
• Pauze, Monique – Bloc – No
• Peterson, Kyle – Liberal – No
• Petitpas Taylor, Ginette – Liberal – No
• Philpott, Jane – Liberal – No
• Picard, Michel – Liberal – No
• Plamondon, Louis – Bloc – No
• Poilievre, Pierre – Conservative – Yes
• Poissant, Jean-Claude – Liberal – No
• Quach, Anne Minh-Thu – NDP – No
• Raitt, Lisa – Conservative – Yes
• Ramsey, Tracey – NDP – No
• Rankin, Murray – NDP – No
• Rayes, Alain – Conservative – Yes
• Reid, Scott – Conservative – Yes
• Richards, Blake – Conservative – Yes
• Rioux, Jean – Liberal – No
• Ritz, Gerry – Conservative – Yes
• Robillard, Yves – Liberal – No
• Rodriguez, Pablo – Liberal – No
• Romanado, Sherry – Liberal – No
• Rota, Anthony – Liberal – No
• Rudd, Kim – Liberal – No
• Ruimy, Dan – Liberal – No
• Rusnak, Don – Liberal – No
• Saganash, Romeo – NDP – No
• Sahota, Ruby – Liberal – No
• Saini, Raj – Liberal – No
• Saijan, Harjit S. – Liberal – No
• Sangha, Ramesh – Liberal – No
• Sansoucy, Brigitte – NDP – No
• Sarai, Randeep – Liberal – No
• Saroya, Bob – Conservative – Yes
• Scarpaleggia, Francis – Liberal – No
• Scheer, Andrew – Conservative – Yes
• Schiefke, Peter – Liberal – No
• Schmale, Jamie – Conservative – Yes
• Schulte, Deborah – Liberal – No
• Serre, Marc – Liberal – No
• Sgro, Judy A. – Liberal – No
• Sheehan, Terry – Liberal – No
• Shields, Martin – Conservative – Yes
• Shipley, Bev – Conservative – Yes
• Sidhu, Jati – Liberal – No
• Sidhu, Sonia – Liberal – No
• Sikand, Gagan – Liberal – No
• Sohi, Amarjeet – Liberal – No
• Sopuck, Robert – Conservative – Yes
• Sorenson, Kevin – Conservative – Yes
• Spengemann, Sven – Liberal – No
• Ste-Marie, Gabriel – Bloc – No
• Stetski, Wayne – NDP – No
• Stewart, Kennedy – NDP – No
• Strahl, Mark – Conservative – Yes
• Stubbs, Shannon – Conservative – Yes
• Sweet, David – Conservative – Yes
• Tabbara, Marwan – Liberal – No
• Tan, Geng – Liberal – No
• Tassi, Filomena – Liberal – No
• Theriault, Luc – Bloc – No
• Trost, Brad – Conservative – Yes
• Trudel, Karine – NDP – No
• Van Kesteren, Dave – Conservative – Yes
• Van Loan, Peter – Conservative – Yes
• Vandal, Dave – Liberal – No
• Vandenbeld, Anita – Liberal – No
• Vecchio, Karen – Conservative – Yes
• Viersen, Arnold – Conservative – Yes
• Virani, Arif – Liberal – No
• Wagantall, Cathay – Conservative – Yes
• Warawa, Mark – Conservative – Yes
• Warkentin, Chris – Conservative – Yes
• Waugh, Kevin – Conservative – Yes
• Webber, Len – Conservative – Yes
• Wilkinson, Jonathan – Liberal – No
• Wilson-Raybould, Jody – Liberal – No
• Wong, Alice – Conservative – Yes
• Wrzesnewskyj, Borys – Liberal – No
• Young, Kate – Liberal – No
• Yurdiga, David – Conservative – Yes
• Zahid, Salma – Liberal – No
• Zimmer, Bob – Conservative – Yes

Sample Letters

Voted against Bill C-225:

Dear [MP Name],

I was very disappointed to hear that you voted against Bill C-225, also known as Cassie and Molly’s Law. This vote would have simply moved discussion of Bill C-225 to the committee stage, yet you could not find it in your heart to allow this, out of fear that the abortion debate might be re-opened.

C-225 was drafted to extend the Criminal Code protection to “wanted” pre-born children in Canada, who are now left vulnerable to all degrees of violence with no sanction in our justice system. Your “no” vote was a direct statement to pregnant women that their wanted pregnancies are of no concern to you.

Please know that I, along with the other seventy per cent of Canadians who favoured Molly’s Law, will continue to fight for a law that protects pregnant women and their pre-born children.

Sincerely,

[Name]

Voted in favour of Bill C-225:

Dear [MP Name],

Thank you for voting in favour of Bill C-225! Although the vote did not pass, I am thankful that you stood up for Cassie and Molly; indeed for all pregnant women and their pre-born children. It is encouraging that our representative in the House of Commons is willing to speak for vulnerable Canadians and to know that pregnant women and their wanted pre-born children matter to you.

Please know that I, along with the other seventy per cent of Canadians who favoured Molly’s Law, will continue to fight for a law that protects pregnant women and their pre-born children. Thank you for the work that you do!

Sincerely,

[Name]

Did not vote or was absent from the house:

Dear [MP Name},

I noticed that you did not vote on Bill C-225, or Cassie and Molly’s law. As your constituent, I am interested to know whether or not you would have supported it. C-225 was drafted to extend the Criminal Code protection to “wanted” pre-born children in Canada, who are now left vulnerable to all degrees of violence with no sanction in our justice system.

Please know that I, along with the other seventy per cent of Canadians who favoured Molly’s Law, will continue to fight for a law that protects pregnant women and their pre-born children. Thank you for the work that you do!

Sincerely,

[Name]

The bill was inspired by the story of Cassandra Kaake, a mother who was murdered two years ago in Windsor, Ontario. Cassy was 7 months pregnant with her daughter Molly. Her killer was charged with only one murder, to the shock of family and friends who were also eagerly anticipating Molly’s birth.

Cassie and Molly’s Law would fully protect a woman’s choice to carry a pregnancy to term by making it a crime to injure or kill a pre-born child during the commission of a crime against the mother. The perpetrator would have to know that the woman was pregnant for the law to apply, and a pregnant woman could not be charged under the bill for any harm she inflicted on herself, including receiving an abortion. 

Sadly, the bill was attacked by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). Ignoring the fact that Cassandra Kaake had both her life and her choice violently taken from her, the ARCC fixated instead on the term “pre-born”. Radical abortion activists have a deep-seated fear that any acknowledgement of pre-born children as wanted, valued, and human will somehow interfere with unfettered access to abortion throughout pregnancy. They continue to insist that protecting any choice besides abortion will be detrimental to abortion “rights”. In so doing, they undermine the meaning of choice and unnecessarily limit legal protection for wanted pre-born children.

This vote tells us that a majority of Members of Parliament are unwilling to support a law against violent crime that would honor a woman’s choice not to have an abortion. They continue to ignore cries for justice and instead allow fear of the abortion discussion to colour their decisions regarding women’s health and safety. Medical teams will fight to save premature babies, but our criminal justice system will not take a stand against violence targeting pregnant women. This devalues the choice of the hundreds of thousands of women each year who desire to carry their child safely to term.

It was clear already early in the debate that the Liberals and NDP feared this bill would somehow undermine “a woman’s right to choose”—even though the bill protects a woman’s choice to carry a pregnancy to term. Has Canada become so polarized over abortion that even the word “pre-born” can shut down a discussion? It seems that this is exactly the case with this bill: rather than be allowed to proceed to the committee stage on its merits, the word “pre-born” has caused its death on the table. Wanted pre-born children remain unrecognized by Canadian law, sending a strong negative message to the women who carry them. Our elected officials in this case chose to be led by fear rather than tackling the sad reality that Canadian law undermines a woman’s right to carry her baby safely to term.

Member of Parliament Cathay Wagantall was deeply touched by the story of Cassandra Kaake and Molly – a murdered mom and her pre-born daughter – and did all she could to fight for this cause. Tens of thousands of Canadians followed the progress of her bill and stood behind her in this fight. Yet a majority of MPs voted based on assumptions, fear, and the hyperbole of a small group of opponents.

Molly’s father, Jeff Durham, and grandmother, Nancy Kaake, poured out their hearts for this bill and saw justice denied them a second time. When it comes to choice, Canada’s justice system continues to protect only one, and women who want to carry their babies in safety are the ones who lose.

#WagantallWednesdays have been a great success so far, and we’re hoping to keep that momentum going as we come into the homestretch before the vote on the bill in early October.

This week we want to challenge you to take another action, slightly different than the last two weeks.

After hearing from some of you that your MPs responded positively that they will support Bill C-225, and from others that they will not out of an unwillingness to risk reopening the abortion debate, we have crafted 3 new letters in response.  You can use these letters to send a note of encouragement and thanks to your supportive MP, or to put to rest the fears or challenge the assumptions of an MP looking at this from a pro-abortion angle, and to ask them to also talk to their colleagues about this bill.

Below you will find these 3 new letters. We challenge you to choose the one most applicable to your MP and either handwrite it out the good ol’ fashioned way, or copy and paste it into your personal email to send it to your MP. (The link below will help you find your MP’s name and email address).

MPs have told us that emails from personal accounts hold more weight than form letters, and handwritten letters are rare and always noticed – in this small way you can encourage your MP in their support of pre-born human rights, or ask them to consider again what kind of “choice” they are allowing in Canada.

Here are the letters to get you started: 

Thank you for supporting Bill C-225!

Dear (MP name),

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your response and your willingness to support Bill C-225, Cassie and Molly’s Law.  I want to encourage you to keep up the great work, and know that you are appreciated by those you represent.

I hope you will talk to your colleagues about this important issue, and encourage them also to stand up for the value of a woman’s choice to carry her child.  People like you can make a big difference in our Parliament and I look forward to continuing to follow your work.

Sincerely,

(Your name and postal code)

On the fence about Bill C-225?

Dear (MP name),

I am unaware of whether you have decided whether to support Cathay Wagantall’s private member’s bill, Bill C-225 (also known as Cassie and Molly’s Law). There has been some pushback from the pro-abortion movement fearing that this bill, which would make it a separate crime or aggravating factor to kill an unborn child during an attack on its mother, will somehow infringe on a woman’s “right” to choose abortion.

It is absolutely clear from an independent legal opinion released by Wagantall’s office that this is not the case. Instead, the motivation for these arguments is a fear of recognizing that the unborn child is, in fact, more than just a lump of worthless cells. Unfortunately, this argument by those who claim to be “pro-choice” reveals that they aren’t pro-choice at all: the only choice they care about protecting is the choice of abortion.

Bill C-225 recognizes that many women make a choice to keep and carry their child, and that choice also needs to be protected. Pregnant women need the support of society to validate their choice to carry a child.

Bill C-225 clearly values a woman’s choice, including her choice to carry her child. If that choice is taken away from her, there should be consequences for the one who took it.

Will you please support this bill when it is voted on in October? I’d really appreciate hearing your thoughts on this and knowing I can count on you to represent me accurately in Parliament.

Sincerely,

(Your name and postal code)

Afraid Bill C-225 will affect abortion rights?

Dear (MP name),

Thank you for taking the time to consider whether to vote in favour of Bill C-225, Cassie and Molly’s Law. This bill would stand up for pregnant women whose choice to carry their child is taken away from them by a violent crime that damages or kills their child in the womb.

You may be feeling pressured by the “pro-choice” fear that recognizing the value of a wanted pregnancy will somehow infringe on abortion rights or access. In fact, an independent legal opinion on this bill makes it clear that this is in no way the case.

Only a third party can be charged under this bill, not the woman herself, and only in a case where the woman does not consent, such as when she is victimized by intimate partner violence or other violent crime. This protects abortion doctors who obtain consent prior to performing an abortion. In short, there is no possible impact on abortion through this bill.

The “pro-choice” fear, however, is that a bill such as Cassie and Molly’s Law will get into people’s minds and make them think about the unborn child as something other than a blob of tissue. This fear shows that the only choice they protect is abortion; they ignore a woman’s choice to carry her child and give it life.  Voting against this bill means voting against choice, and tells women Canadians only care about them if their choice is abortion.

Please discuss this with any of your colleagues who may be uncertain on this issue, or making their choice based on fear, and so doing no service to Canadian women.

Can I count on you to represent me by supporting this bill, and so supporting women who choose the often-difficult path of keeping their child? Vote in favour of harsher consequences for those who violently take away a woman’s choice, and help fill a gap in our criminal code.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

(Your name and postal code)

Once you’ve chosen your letter and are ready to mail it out or press “send”, here’s what you need to know:

Postage to the House of Commons is FREE. Send your letter to:

(MP Name)

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON

K1A 0A6

To find your MP’s name and/or email address, search by postal code at the Parliament of Canada website.

BONUS free gift for handwriters! If you handwrote a letter, take a picture and email it to us (info@test.weneedalaw.ca), and we’ll send you your choice of a free We Need a Law lanyard or rubber bracelet. Along with the image, send us your preferred mailing address and choice of gift and we’ll get it on it’s way to say THANK YOU for taking the time to get involved.

Bill C-225 was introduced in February 2016 in response to a void in Canadian law that offers no recognition to the preborn child of a woman who has chosen to carry that child. This devalues both that woman and her choice. Statistics Canada reports that domestic violence affects more than 10,000 pregnant women per year. This law would be a step in addressing violence against pregnant women by making it clear that her choice to carry her child is respected and protected.

According to the independent poll, nearly 70% of Canadians say that they support a law that would make it a separate crime to harm or cause the death of a preborn child while harming a pregnant woman. Cassie and Molly’s Law has also been publicly endorsed by the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

MP Wagantall was encouraged by the clear results of the poll, stating in a press release that, “Ultimately a comprehensive strategy to end violence against women must include many targeted initiatives and legal reforms, including new penalties for those who target pregnant women.” Her proposed legislation will create a new offence that would apply when crimes committed against pregnant women result in the injury or death of their preborn child. The bill also codifies into law pregnancy as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing.

ACTION: We have two new Simple Mails to send to your MP drawing their attention to these poll results and asking them to support Cassie & Molly’s Law with their vote. Please take 10 minutes of your time to send one of these letters, or, better yet, give your MP a phone call!

You can see the full poll results, including the questions asked, at the link below.