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 Canada’s 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 Queen’s 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, Canada’s 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 infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.
Under Canada’s 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 woman’s 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, Singer’s views are becoming more mainstream. For example, the world’s 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 mother’s 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 Queen’s Bench.”
This so-called Judge is a she.
“Now, it’s 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.
End times
End times
End times
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.