And yes, motive factors into crime in determining intent. This murder was heinous. The fact that they beat her and left her alive and then came back and beat her again, speaks to the violent nature of the murderers.

But I think they would have been just as brutal if the motive was money, or anything else.

We don’t need a separate law, unless it is going to include intimidation or coercion to “not” have an abortion. Only the woman has that right and should not be “intimidated” or “coerced” to make any decision.

But again I believe that the true intent of this bill, as with any other that skates around the issue is aligning abortion with violence.

And knowing the iron control that Stephen Harper places on his caucus, if he really didn’t want the bill presented, we would not be having this conversation.

And when Harper votes “no” it raises his creds with pro-choicers.

The PMO’s office has made clear they will not be supporting this bill.
Bruinrooge is a Conservative MP.
Same thing when Epp introduced his. (C-484)

It is the right of any MP to draft a private members bill.

Motives are not secondary to our justice system or to how the public thinks about crime. They haven’t been for some time if indeed they ever were.

I notice also that your post seems to try to define opposition to abortion as a Tory position. This is simply not true. There are anti-abortion Liberals as well. Trying to get our political parties to line up on the sides of an abortion debate is an imported culture war that we don’t need in this country.