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.

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]

#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.

MP Cathay Wagantall & Dr Dawn Lavell Harvard from the Native Women’s Association of Canada, posted on Wagantall’s Facebook page.

The endorsed bill is C-225, a private member’s bill introduced by Member of Parliament Cathay Wagantall earlier this year. According to Wagantall, her bill would “add new sentences for criminals who knowingly harm a pregnant woman and her fetus.” As indicated by the short name of the bill – Cassie and Molly’s Law – the genesis for C-225 is the tragic story of Cassandra Kaake and her daughter Molly who were brutally murdered nearly eighteen months ago.

Since December 2014 the families of the murder victims have been protesting the fact that Canadian law refuses to recognize the life and value of little Molly – even though she had been very much alive for thirty weeks prior to being murdered.

Jeff Durham, the partner of Cassandra Kaake,father of Molly and spokesperson for the Molly Matters campaign, summarizes the campaign by saying, “The premise of our cause, first and foremost, is that a woman who has chosen to become a mother deserves and should have the protection of law for the life that represents her choice.”

C-225 does nothing to change the status quo on abortion in Canada (abortion remains legal for any reason up to the moment of birth). It is a common sense piece of legislation that would simply level the playing field when it comes to protecting a woman’s choice. After all, if we are going to protect the right to choose to abort a child, shouldn’t we also protect a woman’s choice to carry her child to term safely?
Nearly a decade ago, when a similar bill was introduced, it had overwhelming support from the Canadian public. While that bill failed to pass due to a federal election it appears that Wagantall is working hard to ensure that the overwhelming public support for such a law translates into policy this time around.

The endorsement from the Native Women’s Association – whose collective goal is to enhance, promote, and foster the social, economic, cultural and political well-being of First Nations and Métis women within First Nation, Métis and Canadian societies – should go a long way in silencing some of the critics of Cassie and Molly’s law. In spite of Wagantall’s bill being a commonsense piece of legislation, there is a small handful of self-proclaimed women’s rights activists who apparently only advocate for the right to have an abortion, and not the right to give birth to a child. Standing up for women should include protecting their right to carry a child to term. A cursory glance at the Molly Matters website shows that Cassandra Kaake and her family were excited about Molly’s birth. Yet the law refuses to protect that choice.

We should not accept that abortion of unwanted preborn children is such a sacrosanct act that we refuse to protect wanted preborn children and their pregnant mothers from injury or death at the hands of violent criminals. Clearly Wagantall and Durham are not satisfied with the status quo and are working hard to enact legislative changes. The endorsement from the powerful voice of the Native Women’s Association of Canada provides a welcome boost to their efforts.

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.

Now it’s your turn to make a difference by ensuring that the MPs know there is support from across Canada for the bill to become law!

In cooperation with the Molly Matters team we have developed a postcard campaign with the goal of reaching as many MPs as possible over the coming months.  You can do this on your own, or get together with a bunch of friends or family and have a postcard and pizza party.

Here is what we will send you:

• One (or more) pack of 25 postcards
• A list of 25 MPs to whom you will address and send you postcards
• Talking points to help you in writing a message on the reverse side of the postcards

Postage to the House of Commons is free and this method ensures that every MP will receive a stack of postcards on his or her desk. All you need to do is order your postcards and tell all your friends about it!

We have a limited time-frame for this campaign, so place your order now! Please send an email to cassy@test.weneedalaw.ca and let her know your address and the number of packages you would like to receive!

See below for an example of what you might write:

Bill C-225, just introduced by Ms. Cathay Wagantall in the House of Commons, is titled theProtection of Pregnant Women and their Preborn Children Act. The short title is Cassie and Molly’s Law.

The full text of Bill C-225 can be found on the Parliament of Canada website. Here is the short summary:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman and to add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.

There will be more analysis in the coming days and weeks but here’s a quick rundown of what Bill C-225 WILL DO:

• Create new offences in the Criminal Code for injuring or causing the death of a pre-born child during the commission of a criminal offence against a pregnant woman.
• Add pregnancy to the list of aggravating factors for sentencing. This means that even if the pre-born child is not injured or killed, the courts can come down harder on anyone who is convicted of violence against a pregnant woman.
• This bill will protect a woman’s choice to bring her child to term safely and protects the life of that child through criminal law.

Here are a couple things that Bill C-225 will NOT do:

• Penalize a pregnant woman for any harm done to her pre-born child. The new offences in Bill C-255 can only apply when the pregnant woman is the victim of a crime. 
• Bill C-225 will not change the status quo regarding abortion.
• The bill does not change the legal definition of a human being. Instead, it creates new offences to cover the specific circumstances whereby a pre-born child is harmed or killed during the commission of an offence against the child’s mother.

Is Bill C-225 an imperfect law? Yes, it is. Will it stop abortions? No, abortion will still be completely legal. But, it is a step in the right direction. Cassie and Molly’s Law is not the ultimate answer, but it will protect the human rights of children whose mothers have chosen to carry them to term. And, as we often say, “We need to embrace opportunities to protect some as we work towards protecting all.”

What can you do to support this bill?

• Send one of our new Simple Mail letters specific to Cassie and Molly’s Law
• Follow our updates on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and share them with your friends and followers
• Watch and share the powerful short video released by the Molly Matters campaign. It’s at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPv6spDN9Q
• Keep Ms. Wagantall, Jeff Durham and the Molly Matters campaign in your thoughts and prayers.

With your support and engagement, we have been pushing for incremental changes in law as we seek to advance pre-born human rights. Today we stand at the beginning of what will be an exciting number of months, and we hope you’ll join us in supporting this bill!