Judges would consider a victim's maternity when determinative a time for a violent offender under a bill proposed by the federal justice minister.
But Rob Nicholson aforesaid the new legislation, which has not yet been tabled in the House of Commons, will non challenge the legality of abortion or confer rights on fetuses.
"Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on miscarriage," he aforesaid Monday in Ottawa as he announced plans for the bill.
"The government will introduce legislating that volition punish criminals who devote violence against pregnant women, but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."
The bill calls for gestation to be added as one of the exacerbating or mitigating factors a judge tin consider when sentencing, as laid tabu in the Criminal Code.
Would supervene upon backbencher's handbillThe legislation replaces Bill C-484, known as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, which was introduced by Conservative backbencher Ken Epp lowest year.
The notice, which calls for the slaying of a foetus to be considered a separate offense from the slaying of a pregnant woman, survived one vote in the House of Commons in March, simply would motive to pass at least one more Commons vote and be approved by the Senate before seemly law.
Pro-choice advocates denounced the planned invoice and the Canadian Medical Association voted Thursday to oppose it.
Even some prominent Conservatives hesitated to support the bill. When it passed 147-132 in the release vote in March, Prime Minister Stephen Harper supported it, merely Lawrence Cannon, Gordon O'Connor and Jos�e Verner did not.
"We've heard the literary criticism from crossways the state, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's beak could be interpreted as instilling fetal right," Nicholson said.
He aforementioned the new bill was specifically worded to avoid that interpretation.
"This bill will be very clear and straightforward, and the government note will not be misinterpreted," he said, noting that Epp had not in time been informed that another bill was being introduced to replace his.
Nicholson would not make exact inside information about how the two bills ar different.
Election telephone could repress billThere is a chance the bill will never be tabled in the Commons. If a federal election is called in the next few weeks, as many hypothecate will happen, the fall session of Parliament will not catch a luck to start up, and Nicholson will not be able to confront his bill.
But Nicholson denied he was simply delivery the posting forward, knowing it may never be tabled, because he wants to fire up his supporters and boost his party's standing in prevision of an election call.
He argued that the minority Conservative authorities has been facing a possible election since it took office, and the strategy has always been to advertise ahead with legislative changes despite the threat the government could fall.
"I've got to continue to move forward," he said. "We can't be governed by threats."
Abortion legalized in 1988In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a Canadian law severely constraining access to medical abortions was unconstitutional because it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Between 1969 and 1988, Canadian jurisprudence stated that abortions could be performed in a hospital if a committee of doctors decided that continuing the pregnancy could endanger the mother's life or health. Access to abortions wide-ranging across the country.
Canada is now one of a small routine of countries without a law confining abortion. An abortion is now tempered like any other aesculapian procedure and is governed by provincial and medical regulations.
Critics have expressed concerns the Conservative government would reopen the debate if it introduced new torah that take into account fetuses put-upon by violent crime.
More info
