| Historical Information |
|---|
| This post is about a previous Session of Parliament. Any legislation here that did not receive Royal Assent has been terminated. |
C-311 – The Violence Against Pregnant Women Act – increases the punishment for crimes against a pregnant woman.
Specifically C-311 changes the Criminal Code so that if an offender abused a person they knew was pregnant, or if the offence resulted in physical or emotional harm to someone who’s pregnant, then it will be considered an aggravating factor when deciding on sentencing.
Progress
C-311 went up for its Second Reading vote and failed with 113 voting in favour and 205 voting against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 148 | 2 |
| Conservative | 113 | 0 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 30 | 2 |
| NDP | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| Green | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Independent | 0 | 2 | 0 |
The Liberals say that this is an attempt to open up the abortion debate in Canada. (Apparently Cathay has made several references to the need for abortion laws while promoting C-311, pushed a petition calling for abortion laws, and previously sponsored a Bill to protect “preborn children”, so the Liberals argue this is just another attempt.) They also point out that there are already things that count as aggravating factors that help pregnant women, and that requiring evidence that the offender knew they were pregnant actually hurts existing protections.
The Bloc also believe this is an attempt to give fetuses legal status, and oppose it because that goes against women’s rights.
The NDP voted against C-311 for the same reason, adding the argument that no organization working to protect women from violence have asked for this.
Author’s Note
I think a bit of context could be useful here for the reason the other parties believe this is anti-abortion legislation.
As it stands the Supreme Court has regularly ruled that a fetus has no legal protections. Several laws have been passed and struck down, and court cases have reached the Supreme Court, and in every instance they’ve ruled that the fetus has no rights and that the well-being of the fetus can’t be used as a reason to limit the rights of the mother. (Interesting note there, if the fetus is injured but survives, is viable, and is born then the person who caused that damage can be sued for it. Important exception here is that the mother cannot be sued, as once again that would limit the rights of the mother)
So the reason the other parties argue this is an attempt at introducing anti-abortion legislation is because it suggests that the presence of a fetus is a special case for increased punishment. That could lead to additional legislation involving the protection of the fetus, which could then lead to anti-abortion laws.
Discover more from Commons Sense
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.