Skip to comments.Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge
Posted on 09/16/2011 1:34:41 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canadas absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians sympathize with the mother.
We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court, said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.
Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence. She was 19 at the time.
She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court. In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide.
On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench. As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.
According to Justice Veit, Canadas lack of an abortion law indicates that while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.
Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infants death, especially at the hands of the infants mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother, she added.
Under Canadas Criminal Code, a woman who has not fully recovered from the effects of birth can be found guilty of the lesser charge of infanticide. To bring forward the infanticide defense, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, there must be evidence that the womans mind was disturbed.
According to the Crown, the evidence showed Effert was not suffering mental disturbance. They highlighted the fact that she planned for the birth by getting scissors to cut the umbilical cord and towels, and then hiding in the bathroom in her parents basement. They suggested that she had tried to miscarry the child during pregnancy by smoking and drinking. She lied during initial police questioning, claiming she was a virgin.
But Justice Veit agreed with defense lawyer Peter Royal, saying that this was a classic infanticide case the killing of a newborn after a hidden pregnancy by a mother who was alone and unsupported.
Pro-life advocates have warned for years that widespread acceptance of abortion will open the door to greater societal acceptance of infanticide, beginning with the euthanizing of disabled newborns. Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.
Though he once was considered to be on the radical fringe, Singers views are becoming more mainstream. For example, the worlds most prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, published in 2008 an enthusiastic defense of the Netherlands practice of euthanizing newborns.
Where will it end: a one month old child whose parent has decided is not worthy of life, a six month old child, a two year old child, a special needs child or how about a teenager? asked Hughes.
It is time that Parliament, whose duty it is to protect and legislate regarding the Constitution, examine its duty with regard to the first constitutional right - the right to life and enact legislation which recognizes that life begins at conception and must be protected from that time until natural death, said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC. The mothers stress cannot equate to the loss of a lifetime for the child.
Sounds logical to me. What’s the difference?
This is merely a 4th trimester abortion.
This is going to be a bit shocking, but hear me out.
I think it’s actually a good thing, in the big scheme of things, that the judge ruled this way,
because he just ripped down the facade that there is some difference between killing the unborn and killing a newborn.
Now, it’s up to society to respond either with revulsion or acceptance of infanticide.
Saw this story on Fox News last night. So sad, someone would have loved to have adopted that baby boy. Canada ought to be ashamed. We are not far behind.
hmmmm... some teenagers I've known make me question this prohibition... [no, can't go there, even in jest]
In the real world being a mother means indulgent, ectasic in the state of motherhood. In the real world providing for a child is uniquely fulfilling as one of nature's greatest experiences, in the real world being a mother means there is no sacrifice, there is no burden, there is nothing onerous, there is nothing at all that a mother would not do in the best, most sincere interests of their child.
there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.
That’s what I’ve been saying for years. Although in support of the unborn.
Liberal pro-aborts should not be allowed to hide behind the false curtain that there is a difference.
But, when cornered, they won’t answer. They know they can’t.
I totally agree with you. If society isn’t outraged at abortion then they shouldn’t be outraged at murder after birth.
Anyone ever see that documentary “Dear Zachary”? If you want to learn how far liberalism has gone in Canada and how far it can go, watch that movie. I could-not-believe what the hell I was watching when seeing it. This is the “Utopian society” liberals from the US want and it surprises me not it the least the movie was all but buried.
If you got a Netflix account watch it, or even better go to BTjunkie and download it. Either way, make damn sure you see that movie. That flick converted my cousin who was a life long liberal into a hardcore Conservative. Just gave him a major life slap right across the brain.
From the Article: “...Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.”
This so-called Judge is a she.
“Now, its up to society to respond either with revulsion or acceptance of infanticide.”
Now, I think it’s up to the people, through their elected representatives, to write a new “infanticide” law.
I agree with you, unfortunately that scale can tip either way. Many people would of course rather see abortion over infanticide and decide “better one than the other” and become even more accepting of the practice.
your logic is poison, the epitomy of sophistry.
Proof that you don't have to be an uneducated hick to be a Darwin Award Winner.
I assume only the mother can kill her own infant although to continue with the consistent theme I suppose qualified abortionists also will be able to strangle newborns as well. I wonder how much they will charge for that new and unique service?
bump for later viewing
your logic is poison, the epitomy of sophistry. .... the invisib1e hand
The Judge did not give permission to kill. The infant was already dead.
If a routine conviction had occurred, that infant's death would have passed, unnoticed, except for an article in the local paper, and the infant would still be dead.
As it is, the ruling has put the entire issue of late term abortion not only in the Canadian headlines but in the American headlines.
The infant, instead of dying without notice, is now the face of a moral debate that will now start in Canada. From beyond the grave, that infant has now been given a voice in that moral debate.
Whether the Judge intended it to be that way is uncertain but the fact remains that such is the end result of the ruling.
You have no concept, apparently, of the nature of authority. And please don't try to "prove" to me that you do. You've already told me all I need to know about it.
I hear you, but it’s still appalling.
You’re right, there is no difference.
Who, except you, invisib1e hand, said anything about "authority"?
MrB expressed an opinion, on an opinion forum, and gave an explanation for it.
I expressed an opinion, on an opinion forum, and gave an explanation for it.
All you have done is throw out two ad hominem attacks in a row, one directed at MrB and one directed at me, without even addressing any of the points brought up.
You have added absolutely nothing to this discussion except to play the role of the irate, yapping chihuahua.
In my opinion, MrB, you are correct that this ruling with force a debate in Canada about the morality of late term abortion.
I wonder what the acceptable age window is. If we have legal post-birth abortion and legal end of life euthanasia, don’t we need specific guidelines defining murder too. Perhaps all laws on murder and manslaughter should be amended to specify that such laws only apply to the unlawful taking of a life between 17 3/4 years of age and 59 1/2 years. That’s where libs want to take this; why not follow the short cut and jump to that standard now?
I didn’t expect total agreement on my posted take on this issue, and you folks don’t even know if I’m 100% behind that posting.
I just put it up as an alternative way of looking at the issue. Indeed, infanticide is a highly charged topic,
which is why it is so powerful in the anti-abortion arsenal, and it is also why the pro-”choice” people avoid it like the plague.