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.
]]>
Jeff Durham and Nancy Kaake are pleading for justice – please send the following video to your MP from your personal email account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPv6spDN9Q
To find your MP, search here.
Please also copy your email to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Justin.Trudeau@parl.gc.ca) and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould (Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca).
Here is a sample short message that we encourage you to send along with the video link. Feel free to copy and paste it directly into your email.
Dear [MP Name],
I would like to pass along this video because you will soon be voting on bill C-225, also known as Cassie and Molly’s Law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPv6spDN9Q
This short clip gives more context on the bill from those who were close to Molly, and I want to encourage you not to ignore their cries for justice.
Sincerely,
[Name, Postal Code]
]]>
Jeff Durham and Cassie Kaake were eagerly awaiting the arrival of their daughter Molly. However, in December 2014, about two months from Molly’s due date, Kaake was bludgeoned to death in her apartment in Windsor, Ontario, and her pre-born daughter was killed along with her.
According to the criminal code in Canada, charges could only be laid for the death of Cassie, and not her pre-born child, a fact that shocked and saddened Durham. Since the tragedy, Durham has been on a crusade to obtain justice for the murder of his daughter. He started a campaign called Molly Matters, and began collecting signatures for petitions to bring about increased severity of the legal consequences for committing a crime against a pregnant woman.
When Cathay Wagantall, MP for the Yorkton-Melville riding in Saskatchewan, heard about Durham’s cause she offered to help him create this legislation. She became passionate about justice for pregnant women and their babies. This resulted in Wagantall presenting her first private member’s bill in the House of Commons: Bill C-225 – the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly’s Law).
What Bill C-225 isn’t
MP Wagantall began by emphasizing the importance of understanding the nature of this bill when responding to it. Major opponents of Bill C-225 claim the bill attempts to ‘humanize a fetus’ or criminalize abortion. However, Wagantall reiterated time and again that this is not the case.
“There are lots of laws in our criminal code that are there, but do not apply to human beings,” says Wagantall, “For example, we have laws against harming an animal. They’re not human beings, but we have laws against that. We have laws against doing an injustice to a dead body… Now just like we have laws in those circumstances where it doesn’t apply to a human being, we’re saying that these laws, certainly when you’re dealing with the life inside of a mother who’s choosing to carry her child to term, certainly that should be as important in our criminal code as it is for animals, or other things.”
Wagantall also stresses that this bill could not possibly be used against women who have abortions, or the doctors who give them. “This bill is to deal with a third party who commits a criminal offense against a woman,” she explained. “We’re not in any way incriminating doctors who are giving abortions because the woman is consenting to the abortion.”
In addition, she points out that Cassie and Molly’s Law does not allow for charges to be laid in relation to the pre-born child independent of the mother. This law would only make it possible for additional charges when someone commits a crime against a pregnant woman. In other words, if a woman is consenting to an abortion, no crime has been committed according to the criminal code, and no charges can be laid.
What Bill C-225 is
According to the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, homicide accounts for 20% of all deaths of women who were pregnant. This means that a woman is more likely to be murdered during her pregnancy than she is to die in childbirth. In addition, the United Nations suggests that as many as 1 in 4 women experience violence during their pregnancy. Despite these serious numbers, there is, as of yet, no additional consideration given to the unique and special circumstances of pregnancy. In fact, pregnancy is not even an official aggravating factor under the Criminal Code, and has seldom been used to increase the sentence for a crime against a pregnant woman. “Across the country people are shocked to learn that we have nothing in our criminal code in regards to the life of a child that a woman is choosing to carry to term,” says Wagantall. It is imperative, therefore, that legal safeguards are implemented to prevent these crimes and ensure justice for the victims.
One word that is used frequently in the abortion debate is the word choice. Those who believe abortion is a fundamental right speak about a woman’s ‘right to choose’. However, there are currently no laws that protect a woman’s right to choose to give birth to her child. One purpose of Bill C-225, therefore, is to make the sentences for attacking a pregnant woman properly reflect the loss of a child who was wanted by his or her parents.
Wagantall described situations where a pregnant woman may endure an assault by a partner or other family member who was opposed to her carrying her child to term. In this situation, if the woman did not lose her life but her pre-born child was injured or killed, in the current legal context, the likely charges would only be assault or aggravated assault against the woman. Her child would receive no recognition by the criminal justice system.
With the implementation of Cassie and Molly’s law, the perpetrator would be charged for assault, and additional charges would be given for the death of the fetus. It wouldn’t be a murder sentence, Wagantall acknowledged, because if the bill is going to pass, the definition of a human being cannot change. According to the Criminal Code, a baby becomes a human being when it is fully removed from the womb, and so murder sentences cannot be given for the deaths of pre-born children. However, Wagantall believes that this law would more fully solve this ‘gap in the Criminal Code’ as it pertains to the loss of pre-born children to crime.
The Response
Mrs. Wagantall expressed how happy she has been with the general response from the public. People from both sides of the abortion debate have been coming together to support Cassie and Molly’s law. In fact, Durham, the founder of Molly Matters, is pro-choice himself. This is because the emphasis in this law is on protecting women and their right to bear children safely. “[The Molly Matters bill] is not a pro-life or pro-choice issue,” Wagantall noted. “It’s an issue for all women.”
Despite the overwhelming support from the general public, many of the Liberal and NDP MPs showed some reluctance when it came to supporting the bill in the recent discussion in the House of Commons. Many of them, rather than coming out in favor of Cassie and Molly’s law, suggested implementing a national strategy to prevent violence against women, a fact that disappointed Wagantall. “The reality is that a lot of women face this type of violence, and [Bill C-225] is a specific way we can deal with that, so we shouldn’t just be talking in platitudes and bigger-picture issues, we need to do everything we can.”
Wagantall also requested the support of the everyday Canadians in bringing this bill to pass. She suggested first of all, to contact a local parliamentarian to express your thoughts on the matter, and second of all, to print off the petitions available on the Molly Matters website to share around your community and send to the MP for your riding. “That kind of action on the part of everyday Canadians really makes a difference,” said Wagantall.
Molly Does Matter!
Clearly Wagantall’s passion comes from the understanding that, when so many women worldwide become the targets of violence because of their pregnancy, it becomes unthinkable to simply stand by. We need to protect these women, protect the rights of the family, and protect the next generation. One particular point that Wagantall made was that the bill would help protect the family. As she said in her motion for leave to introduce Bill C-225, “Families are the foundation of our country. Canadians deserve a legal system that protects all aspects of a family.”
When so many women worldwide become the targets of violence because of their pregnancy, it becomes unthinkable to simply stand by. We need to protect these women, protect the rights of the family, and protect the next generation. One particular point that Wagantall made was that the bill would help protect the family. As she said in her motion for leave to introduce Bill C-225, “Families are the foundation of our country. Canadians deserve a legal system that protects all aspects of a family.” If Bill C-225 passes, the laws of Canada will better reflect the value of women, family, and life.
]]>
Canadians now know where the NDP and several select Liberal MPs stand when it comes to protecting a woman’s choice: abortion is the only choice they are politically willing to protect.
In the first hour of debate on Cassie and Molly’s Law (The Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act), 62-year-old Liberal MP Bill Blair was one of the numerous men to respond to Cathay Wagantall’s private member’s bill. Blair provided assurances to Jeff Durham and representatives of the Kaake family, whose story is one of the motivating factors behind the bill and who were in the House of Commons for the debate, that the Liberals do care about violence against women. He followed this declaration, however, with spurious references to previous iterations of Bill C-225, fabricating similarities with Wagantall’s bill and claiming this bill will threaten a woman’s “right to choose”.
Next up to challenge Wagantall was the NDP’s Murray Rankin. He too expressed sincere support for the families affected by tragedies involving pregnant women. Rankin, a 66-year-old MP from Victoria, was also sympathetic to the need to address violence against women, even suggesting that the best way to protect fetuses is to protect mothers. After this, he dismissed Cassie and Molly’s Law as not going far enough – as though he cannot vote in favour of a step in the right direction, only an all-encompassing leap that ends all violence against women.
Both Blair and Rankin had just finished listening to Cathay Wagnatall explain in great detail what her bill would do, as well as what it would not do. Wagantall was motivated to do something after learning about the tragic death of Cassandra Kaake, who was seven months pregnant with her daughter Molly at the time of her murder in December 2014. Wagantall’s stated intentions with Cassie and Molly’s Law are to ensure that a woman’s choice to carry her child to term is protected and that anyone who abuses pregnant women will face stiff penalties. At one point in her speech she referenced a woman who had had an abortion and then become pregnant with a wanted child being appalled that her choice to terminate was protected but not her choice to actually have a child.
Wagantall had deftly anticipated the responses of Blair and Rankin by speaking directly to the matter of so-called “abortion rights” and legal “personhood” of the fetus. She stated clearly that she had studied the previous incarnations of similar bills and made many necessary changes to ensure that the offences created by Cassie and Molly’s Law are not stand-alone offences, but can only be engaged if an accused person commits a criminal offence against a pregnant woman knowing that the woman is pregnant. In regards to personhood, she questioned why there would even be a need for a fetus to be defined as a person since the Criminal Code already has many protections for non-persons, citing animals as one example.
The debate today reinforced the sad reality that there are too many politicians in Canada who are more concerned about public perception than about taking concrete action to do something about violence against women and their pre-born children. The irony of “choice” in Canada is at the heart of the matter. Canada doesn’t need our lawmakers to patronize the families of victims by saying they want to protect a woman’s right to choose, when it means they ignore Cassie’s choice.
Women’s rights are not founded on abortion rights and, contrary to the fear displayed by Mr. Blair and Mr. Rankin, there is no risk of Cassie and Molly’s Law affecting a woman’s right to choose. That fear is to their shame, as it devalues women, children and real choice by insisting Cassie’s choice is irrelevant and babies like Molly – wanted babies – don’t matter.
]]>
Ms. Lemire, along with many other Windsor residents want Canadian law to recognize pre-born children as separate victims when they are injured or killed when a criminal act is perpetrated against a pregnant woman. While there is broad support for a pre-born victims of crime law there are still a few shrill voices who, because of their fascination with abortion (which is completely unrelated) will do everything possible to prevent justice being served for Molly and other pre-born victims of crime.
Ms. Lemire recently responded in the Windsor Star to a University of Windsor law professor who published an article in which he downplayed the need for a pre-born victims of crime law. She wrote:
As a friend of Cassie Kaake since we were three years old, I take offence to David Tanovich’s column. In his desire to avoid any discussion surrounding the rights of wanted pre-born children, he suggests that society just needs to address the root causes of the tragedy that took the life of my friend and her baby, Molly.
I wonder if Mr. Tanovich thinks we should do away with other laws, too? Maybe we shouldn’t punish rapists, either. They don’t need jail time. We just need to figure out what caused them to rape someone and address the root causes. Of course, this is nonsense.
Mr. Tanovich, as well as anyone else opposed to justice for Molly, needs to realize that an unborn victim’s law addresses violence against pregnant women and their children. Awareness and education are important but without a law, the purposes of criminal sentencing cannot be met.
Harsh penalties for causing injury to, or the death of, an unborn child are a much-needed deterrent to committing violence against pregnant women. Furthermore, such a law is a societal denunciation of unlawful, heinous conduct.
And without an unborn victims of crime law, our courts cannot fully promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and foster an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims, their families and society.
As with many injustices affecting Canadians, a combination of addressing root causes coupled with the enactment of laws is required. In fact, of all people, you would think a law professor would know that the main task of the government is to use the law as a tool to punish and deter violent criminals.
Ms. Lemire has also launched a national petition. It is posted on her newly created Facebook page and we have uploaded it to our website.
It is also attached in PDF format below this article. Please print it, gather signatures, and bring to your MP or mail to Michelle (her address is included on the bottom of the petition). You may print extra copies of the second page of the petition to gather more signatures, but please note, subsequent pages must be sent along with the first page.
Pre-born human rights matter and we need to help the Kaake family as they pursue justice for pre-born victims of crime! The support that has been building in Windsor now needs to expand across the country so that our politicians can ignore this no longer!
]]>
According to Dr. Greg Hasen, academic director of obstetrics for the Schulich School of Medicine, Ms. Kaake’s pre-born child was fully developed at 30 weeks gestation. In spite of that, there will be no additional charge of murder should the perpetrators of this heinous crime be found.
Cassandra had already named her pre-born daughter Molly. She is a person; a human with a unique story. But there will never be justice for Molly because she isn’t recognized as a human being according to our criminal law. This needs to change.
It was only six years ago that change nearly occurred. In 2008, Member of Parliament Ken Epp introduced Bill C-484 which would have directly addressed the injustice carried out against Ms. Kaake and her daughter Molly. The Unborn Victims of Crime Act, as it was called, would have made it a criminal offence to cause harm to a pre-born child during the perpetration of an offense on the child’s mother. Bill C-484 passed second reading in the House of Commons. It had broad, multi-party support. But an election was called and the bill never progressed any further.
Today there is still widespread support for a law that would punish offenders who harm a prenatal child in an attack. Such a law would not create a new legal right to abortion, nor would it restrict abortion in any way.
In the book Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women, considerable attention is given by the authors to the issue of intimate partner violence against pregnant women. An unborn victims of crime law addresses this issue and is a much needed deterrent to committing violence against pregnant women. An Unborn Victims of Crime Act would send a message that the child is also a victim of the crime if he or she is injured or killed when his or her mother is attacked.
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly said that Parliament has the power to enact laws to protect the pre-born child. An Act like this will protect children of women who have chosen to carry their children to term. Without it, a woman has no meaningful recourse in law should her child sustain injuries or death due to an illegal act perpetrated against her. A pregnant woman could sustain a charge of assault against her, but her child would never receive justice. This legislative void serves to further victimize women, their children, and their families.
Unfortunately it is too late for Ms. Kaake and her daughter Molly. This national tragedy should be a serious wakeup call to our elected lawmakers that it’s time to address this void in our legal system and pass a law that protects and provides justice for Molly’s peers.
]]>