It would decrease access to
contraception, and stigmatize both. It's
restriction that can be used as a wedge to
abortion. It conflicts directly with Prime
promise not to
legislate on abortion.
9. It could lead
to legal personhood for
fetuses, because it confuses the definition of "human
being" under the Criminal
Code by defining the term
"human life" as including fertilized eggs and
could result in restrictions on the
rights of pregnant women, as well as restrictions
10. The bill gives special legal
religious believers, but not to
non-religious people (making it
discriminatory). The word
"tenet" is defined very narrowly to refer to a
religious doctrine about the value of human life.
This is not the
normal English meaning of the word "tenet", plus
the definition implies
that only religious people value life.
The bill is
unjust because it favours
religious belief over other personal beliefs.
There is no
reason to privilege religious
belief over any other personal reason to
refuse services. If we allow a
religious objection, perhaps we should
also allow health professionals
to refuse to treat a person because, for
example, they don't like Jews,
or gay people, or Christians, or because
they disapprove of a patient
whose illness or injury is their own
fault, or for any other personal
reason, even seemingly trivial ones.
bill singles out only
health professionals for
protection. This begs the
question as to why only the
consciences of medical personnel deserve
protection. Why shouldn't
others working for the public trust, such
as police, firefighters, and
government employees, also be allowed to
refuse to serve some members
of the public for personal reasons? This
aspect of the bill points to
the anti-abortion agenda behind it.
13. It's a matter for civil law, not criminal
law, so cannot be included in the
Criminal Code anyway.