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]

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.

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.

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:

Building support for a pre-born victims of crime law is a unique opportunity to work with a broad range of Canadians from across the pro-life/pro-choice spectrum as we seek to advance legislation recognizing the worth of children in the womb.

There are many ways in which we can help this hurting family. Today we are asking you to commit to these three actions: 

1. Please watch the short 3-minute YouTube video and share it with as many people as you can. 

2. Set aside another 3 minutes to send a link for the Molly Matters video directly from your email to your Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister (Justin.Trudeau@parl.gc.ca). You can find your MPs email address here. 

3. Take another 3 minutes to send this Simple Mail letter to your Member of Parliament.

Do you have 9 minutes to help make a difference? Molly matters! 

In the words of Durham:

“There exists no reasonable argument or possibility that the person responsible for the murder of Cassie did not know she was pregnant. There exists no reasonable argument or possibility that the person responsible for this did not intend to kill both Cassie and the baby she carried. In Canada, there exists no law against what this person did to our daughter.

…The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada claims to be a “voice for choice,” but where are they now? Where are the ones that so ardently defend a woman’s right to choose? Should they not be standing up and screaming for Cassie? For a woman whose choice was violently and intentionally ripped away from her?”

You can read the rest of his emotional speech here.