In light of this, Liberal Member of Parliament Mark Gerretsen has introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-243, known as the National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act. If passed, Bill C-243 will allow women to start their maternity benefits 7 weeks sooner if required or recommended. This means she could collect all 15 weeks of her maternity benefits prior to her child being born. This Employment Insurance could then continue into the 35 weeks of parental leave either she or the child’s father is entitled to, for 50 weeks of total income support.

Bill C-243 passed second reading in October 2016, and is one of the rare private member’s bills to be getting strong cross-party support as it moves forward.

Gerretsen’s bill is inspired by the story of Melodie, a welder in his constituency who was advised by her midwife not to continue her current work while pregnant. She approached her employer, who was unable to reassign her to something safer, so she went on sickness EI despite not being sick. This ran out prior to her maternity benefits being able to kick in, and the gap in income support led to her eventually losing her home, despite having “done everything right”, as Gerretsen says.

Conservative MP Gérard Deltell spoke positively of the need for this bill saying, “Men and women alike can do any job there is. However, this leads to situations, in welding for example, where workers are exposed to chemicals or have to do physically demanding work where they have to stand up, bend, stoop, and do other things that might have an impact on a pregnancy. It is obvious that this is a cause for concern. That is why we are in favour of this bill.”

The NDP have also indicated support, although they did find some issues to address. Niki Ashton pointed out that, “When it comes to risky work, the onus is put on the employee, in this case the pregnant woman, rather than on the employer. This could have an adverse effect as employers would not have any incentive in finding risk-free tasks for workers who are pregnant.”

This is certainly a significant weakness of Bill C-243, as is the fact that taking time off prior to her baby’s birth leaves a mother with less time to spend with her child before going back to work, as the total number of weeks of paid leave remain the same. Gerretsen stressed, however, that this is not the intention of the bill. The goal is improved income support for women taking time off for pregnancy and child-rearing. As a private member’s bill, there can be no requirement for funds but, Gerretsen says, “These changes are just a first step and only a partial solution to what I see as a much larger overall problem. Recognizing this, the second part of my bill calls on the Minister of Employment to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that pregnancy is not a barrier to a woman’s full and equal participation in all aspects of the labour force.”

Women’s roles in the workforce have changed dramatically. All parties should recognize the need for a maternity benefit strategy that honors claims to value women’s equality in the workforce, while also honoring a woman’s ability and choice to have children. Improved maternity benefits will allow women to work in their desired field while also making the best possible decisions for their health and the benefit of their families.  Bill C-243 is needed because, as Gerretsen says, “we are behind the ball on this, so to speak. There are other countries that are leading the way.”  It’s time for Canada to catch up, and good to see our representatives cooperating to make that happen.

This article was also published on LifeNews.com.

One specific area of vengeance that is sure to come up is that of some women toward men.  Men who, whether out of courage or naïveté, think they can join the abortion conversation in a reasonable way soon find out otherwise as virtually all female commenters zero in on this poor easy target.

The retaliation is swift and certain as it is predictable: who are men to tell women what to do with their bodies?! Men can’t have babies, men abandon women all.the.time, men live lives free of consequence and responsibility, men are controlling, overbearing, anti-feminist, likely even downright abusive and dangerous.  In short, who are men to have an opinion on whether a baby lives or dies?

Let’s take a moment to release some of that anger in a big ol’ breath.  Because ladies, we actually really like men. If it weren’t for men and our dealings with them, we wouldn’t be talking about abortion at all, would we? Maybe we hate that they can walk away without taking responsibility for their child, and maybe we hate that we have to carry a baby for 9 months before its ready to come out (and preferably abstain from alcohol, sushi, unpasteurized cheese and other fun things during that time), and maybe we hate to be held to the same standard of beauty we were before having babies while our bodies have undergone so many changes we no longer recognize parts of them.  But does all of this mean we hate men? Even more, does it mean we hate men willing to take a principled stand on a major issue?  I think we should be grabbing those men and marrying them and having their babies on purpose.

Men who are willing to enter the abortion debate should theoretically be the same men who would not leave a pregnant girlfriend without financial support, the same men who would not leave a wife for a newer model and never send a child support check, the same men who would have principled ideas on the value of women and on how a woman should be treated.

The men willing to join the abortion debate are men with principles.  These principles, in the men I know, extend far beyond an online debate about abortion. These are men who are willing to care deeply, and willing to stand behind decisions and responsibilities even when the going gets tough.

To attack a man for having an opinion on abortion is to say we can only have opinions on things that directly relate to our own life experiences. I have never been homeless, so who am I to have an opinion on homelessness? I have never murdered someone, so who am I to give an opinion on whether murder is right or wrong? I will never have prostate cancer, so how dare I have an opinion on whether treatment for it should be publicly funded?

Personally, I think more men should have an opinion on abortion. Too many women who find themselves pregnant also find themselves with a man who tells her it’s “her decision” when that’s the last thing she wants to hear. That, really, is the ultimate excuse for a man: “It’s your decision” says “I don’t care – about you, your health, our baby, or my role in this.” She actually wants support, someone to talk to, and likely the assurance that she and her child will both be supported, loved and wanted regardless of the circumstances.

If men want to support choice, they need to support women. If men want to support women, they need to have principles. Principled people take a stand regardless of how popular that makes them (hint: usually not very.)  Ladies, stop attacking men just because they don’t get pregnant. Instead, engage them on what their opinion really means. Find out if they’re men of principle who genuinely oppose the killing of pre-born children, whether their own or someone else’s, or really the authoritarian, paternalistic control freaks you fear.

The belly button means that, as independent and self-sufficient as you may now be, at one point you were so intimately connected to another person that your time together left a permanent mark for all to see. This mark is not a scar or a blemish, or a misguided tattoo choice, but something common to every man or woman you’ll ever meet. It is a sign of your innate need for others, a need that, while it changes and develops, does not leave you.

We all have one. They don’t all look the same, and they don’t all stay the same, but they all mean the same thing: we have a permanent, central mark connecting us to the woman who carried us, who chose to let us live, who delivered us and who, only then, allowed us to be separated from her, but not without leaving her signature.

At this point the story diverges greatly. Some of our mothers welcomed us with tears of joy and open hearts and arms. Others struggled through post-partum depression and the crushing weight of responsibility that was now theirs. Others cried tears of pain as they handed us over, physically or legally, to a nurse, foster parent, or adoptive parent. Others kept us but cared for us badly, unwilling or unable to give up addictions, dangerous anger, or a perilous home situation.

Regardless of where our life story leads after the arrival of the belly button, though, we could not have had any of the chances or choices we have had without that first step. Without a mother willing to carry us for as long as we were willing to stay inside, our belly button would be a mere dent in a tiny discarded body, long gone, if not entirely forgotten.

Our belly buttons, silly and strange and ticklish as they may be, signify a much deeper truth about ourselves: we could not have gotten here on our own. To now decide to make the choice of whether to grant a belly button to another human being who is completely dependent, at least temporarily, on his or her mother, would be arrogance beyond measure. Whether you are a doctor, a counselor, a nurse, a mother, a father, a friend or a grandparent, that is simply not a choice you get to make.

Human life depends on dependence. To stomp on that dependence is to irreparably violate a sacred cycle. To suggest that dependence or a need for others makes one less valuable is to forget your own belly button.

One of the more disputed claims of the pro-life movement is that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, and more abortions increase that cancer risk exponentially. This claim is controversial because many see it as a scare tactic or threat that will “make” a woman keep her child out of fear for herself. But is that really why pro-life advocates would mention the link between abortion and breast cancer?

This is a misunderstanding of the purpose and tone of the vast majority of pro-life advocates. In fact, the pro-life movement includes not only heartfelt care for the right to life of pre-born children, but also genuine care for the women who carry these children. We already know a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk of depression, suicide, and substance abuse, and now we’re also going to suggest a greater risk of breast cancer? Well yes, as it turns out, abortion isn’t good for anyone, anytime, regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary.

Evidence exposed in the documentary film Hush discusses this link in detail, as does work done by The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research.  Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is one of the prominent voices in this discussion, as she has studied the possible connection in her practice for years. Since abortion has been legal and widely practiced for almost 30 years in Canada, and a bit longer in the United States, we are now starting to see the true long-term effects of abortion on women.

Abortion cuts out a pre-born life while a woman’s body is in the midst of major hormonal shifts in anticipation of caring for that life.  Some of those hormonal changes directly impact her breasts, as they get ready to produce milk. Ending a pregnancy while that tissue is changing, but not giving it time to complete that change, leaves it particularly susceptible and vulnerable to cancer. Conversely, carrying a pregnancy to term decreases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, as the hormonal changes that are allowed to complete their course leave the breast tissue more resilient against cancer than they were prior to pregnancy.

A full term pregnancy, especially for young women, can result in breast tissue changes that make up to 85% of the tissue essentially immune to cancer. The note that this is especially true for young women is important, as abortion frequently has the effect of delaying child-bearing to a later age, adding to the increased risk.

This does not apply only to women who have abortions, of course. The same science applies to those who never have children, as evidenced in breast cancer rates among nuns, as well as in those who experience miscarriages or premature births before 32 weeks’ gestation. But the fact remains: abortion is one of the causal factors in increasing your risk of breast cancer. Isn’t that something someone who is genuinely pro-life would tell you, out of care and concern for both your pre-born baby and you? Shouldn’t someone who is pro-choice also be willing to tell you that? As a woman, isn’t that something you would want to know as you made your “choice”?

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.

A recent article in the National Post presents the regulations around the pill, and the response. Pro-abortion groups are angry that this medication can be prescribed only by a physician, and further incensed that those doctors may choose to have the patient ingest the first dose in their office. In apparent evidence of their desire to make this a game-changer for easing access to abortion in Canada, they want to ignore the warnings of potential harm with which these drugs come. Blood infections, hemorrhages, one (non-fatal) heart attack – it is no wonder this drug took 4 years to be approved, “due to insufficient or missing safety data”.

You would think a group that claims to be focused on women’s health would be a little concerned with safety data. And if we’re concerned about women, we should insist she see an actual doctor, shouldn’t we? If the pregnancy is farther along than she claims, complications also increase. Secretly taking drugs designed to make you bleed quickly, painfully and heavily is not recommended for just anyone.

Let us also consider more closely the point of contention that the doctor has the option to insist that the first dose administered in the office. Abortion advocates argue that the purpose of these drugs should be to revolutionize abortion access in Canada. This “revolution” would allow anyone, anywhere, to get these drugs quickly and quietly in the mail, and deal with the aftermath in the privacy of her own home, where she can pass it off as a natural miscarriage or never tell anyone at all.

This free-for-all undermines actual care for women. To suggest it is unreasonable for a doctor to see the patient take the medication says they are willing to open up vulnerable women to likely abuses of such a drug. This is not just prescribing a medication someone’s teenager may sneak to get high, this is choosing to end a developing life. It seems fairly important that the woman asking for the drug is, in fact, the woman using the drug. Otherwise, if you have a girlfriend, daughter, or student you accidentally impregnated you could find a way to get these drugs and then slip a few pills into their smoothie or pass them the “antibiotic” their doctor prescribed. So much for “choice.”

The abortion pill is already a travesty in Canada. In the womb, the place that should be the safest for a pre-born child, she is deliberately targeted by a medication that thins the uterine lining on which she depends and then, while she’s barely hanging on, follows up with strong contractions to force her out of her haven into arms waiting with a hand on the toilet paper roll and an elbow on the flush handle.

To suggest that we still aren’t making it convenient enough for a woman to kill her baby goes beyond all comprehensible moral standards. If other contract killers had half these conveniences, you can bet the mob would have taken over the world.

Thank you to LifeNews for also publishing this article.

The legal action by Abortion Access Now, and the frenzied support of Ms. Dwivedi, shows that some Canadians are completely out of touch with the majority who understand and accept that, even with a top-notch health care system, not every single medical procedure will be available in every single area of the country.

Here is why I was quite properly annoyed by this outlandish demand. Three days into our annual winter vacation, my husband and I were sitting in an emergency room of a remote hospital in northern British Columbia waiting for a nurse to call a doctor out of bed to come look at our son. He was lying on a gurney, writhing in pain, while we waited anxiously for medical help.

After a series of tests, it was determined that he had a ruptured appendix and the infectious contents had abscessed in his lower abdomen. The doctor informed us that he required immediate surgery and, because there was no surgical team nearby, they had to fly him 684 kilometers to BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver.

As we waited to be flown to Vancouver for life-saving treatment, the air ambulance was delayed because a patient with a head injury from Kamloops also required emergency evacuation, as they didn’t have a neurosurgeon available in that city. In two small British Columbia cities, holidays were cut short by medical emergencies requiring significant travel for necessary treatment. We waited our turn.

When I eventually arrived home from the hospital and found out that this group of PEI activists felt they were entitled to expanded access to abortion I was rightfully upset. In fact, I am tired of abortion advocates demanding all Canadians support their fabricated right to an abortion. The Morgentaler decision, which Ms. Dwivedi refers to throughout her diatribe, did not give women a right to abortion. The reality is that the Supreme Court judges recommended that Parliament take steps to protect the rights of pre-born children at some stage of pregnancy. That was twenty-eight years ago. It’s about time we did something about it.  

There is no consensus among physicians’ groups that abortion is medically necessary. Yet, every Canadian province funds it, including PEI ­(the service is just not available on the island itself). In the face of truly necessary medical services, feminists have nothing to complain about. To quote Sarah MacDonald, provincial pro-life coordinator in PEI, “There is a great need in our province for medically necessary services, such as trauma care, cancer treatment, surgical care and more. Why aren’t these activists suing the government to increase access to these services?”

Our family’s vacation was cut short by a medical emergency requiring an unscheduled flight in an air ambulance to a distant hospital for immediate medical attention. We are not bitter, and we certainly aren’t demanding that surgical teams be established throughout northern B.C. for our convenience. Universal health care is a pillar of Canadian society and we are thankful to live in a country that takes the health of its citizens seriously.

The majority of Canadians understand and accept that, for our top-notch health system to work for everyone, not every single medical procedure can be available in every single area of the country.

By Jennifer Schouten, a proud mom and Canadian who doesn’t need the government to provide everything for her.

The latest example comes from our neighbours to the south where Carafem, a new abortion clinic in Washington, DC is seeking to break down the stigma surrounding abortion by offering a ‘spa-like’ experience to all its customers. Has it really come down to this? Apparently it’s the choice of flooring and upholstery that is a barrier for women who feel that abortion is the only choice they have? While it remains to be seen as to how many more women Carafem can attract to their facility with this new marketing ploy what is perhaps more disturbing is the fact that abortion advocates continue to disregard the often times serious psychological problems caused by abortion.

Every year approximately 100,000 Canadian women walk into a clinic or hospital in order to abort their pre-born child. The reasons are varied but the results are the same; the life of a human being with inherent dignity is ended. For many women there is considerable regret after having an abortion. The psychological impact of abortion cannot be minimized. Studies vary and some put the increase in mental health problems as high as 81% when comparing women who had an abortion with those who did not.[1] This reality has become problematic for abortion advocates and if Carafem’s stunt is any indication they aren’t willing to address the root cause of regret.

Some of the most prolific apologists for pre-born human rights are the very people who have been mostly deeply affected by abortion; women who have regretted their abortion.

Regret is a major obstacle for the pro-choice movement in foisting their ideology on Canadians. In fact last year at an international conference on Prince Edward Island the majority of speakers spoke of the need to “normalize” abortion as a response to this obstacle.

Herein lies the hypocrisy of the pro-choice movement. The feelings a women has had after killing her baby are real and justified. No matter what the décor is the regret will still be there. But instead of working to minimize the need for abortion (and thereby reducing the regret) abortion advocates are attempting to normalize it – with attractive floor coverings and comfy chairs.

The Asheville Citizen is reporting that a North Carolina man has been charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of a Cristie Codd, a finalist from the TV show Food Network Star and her husband. Ms. Codd was pregnant at the time of her death. It is unclear from news reports how many weeks pregnant she was. But because North Carolina has a fetal homicide law that makes it a crime to unlawfully kill a pre-born child at any stage of development the police have laid an additional charge for the murder of the Codd’s pre-born child.

In another tragic news story, this one even more disturbing, a Colorado woman was stabbed in the abdomen and her pre-born child ripped from her womb. The woman, who was seven months pregnant at the time of the vicious attack is expected to survive, but her pre-born child did not. The State of Colorado allows for pregnancy to be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing a convicted offender but unlike North Carolina, it does not recognize the pre-born child as a separate victim. Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett said his office is still considering what formal charges should be filed against the suspect. “The issues involving an unborn child are complicated under Colorado law,” he said. “In most circumstances, if a child was not actually born alive, then homicide charges are not possible.”

In the past ten years there are countless Canadian tragedies which are eerily similar to the ones described above. Yet, because there is no recognition in law of children before birth – even for those children a woman has chosen to carry to term – justice is denied when it is needed most.

This legal void is a result of culture fixated on the right to abortion even though pre-born victims of crime legislation has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is legal in Canada throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any reason. A pre-born victims law would not change this. The current reality is that when a pregnant woman is attacked and her assailant causes harm or kills her pre-born child, no charge can be laid in the death of the woman’s child, even if the sole purpose of the attacker was to kill her child.

Unfortunately, even though a majority of Canadians want this injustice corrected, a pre-born victims law is only discussed when tragedy strikes. I’ve written here before about the loss experienced by the Kaake (pronounced “cake”) family in Windsor, Ontario when their daughter Cassandra was brutally murdered along with her pre-born daughter Molly. Thanks to the courage and tenacity of the Kaake family they are pursuing justice for Molly and her peers. They have launched a national written petition drive to build support for a change in the law that would see pre-born children treated as a separate victim when a crime is perpetrated against a pregnant woman.

There are far too many politicians who willfully paralyze themselves when they should be enacting just laws that address these injustices and as a result real life consequences are felt by already grieving individuals and families. Even though it is unlikely the Kaake family will see justice for Molly if all Canadians get on board with their efforts politicians will not be able to ignore this issue any longer. And God willing, no family will need to experience the same lack of justice ever again.

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.

CLICK HERE FOR PETITION LINK

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!