By Dave Andrusko
Katrina Effert is led out of the Edmonton Law Courts Friday by her father. (CBC)
By complete coincidence Pro-Life Perspective today largely focuses on the valiant campaign waged by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s against infanticide. Today was the first time I heard about a case in Canada in which a woman was given a three-year suspended sentence for infanticide of her newborn son.
“Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard,” according to CBC News.
I’m running Wesley Smith’s item on the case, so let me add just a few thoughts but ones I hope help put this case in context.
Everyone who, like me, is outraged by the decision focuses on the excusatory paragraphs in Judge Joanne Veit’s opinion delivered Friday. Here’s how CBC News describes them:
“The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects 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,’ she writes.
“The judge noted that infanticide laws and sentencing guidelines were not altered when the government made many changes to the Criminal Code in 2005, which she says shows that Canadians view the law as a ‘fair compromise of all the interests involved.’
“’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.’”
Two quick thoughts. As columnist and author Mark Steyn put it, “Speaking of ‘onerous demands,’ suppose you’re a ‘mother without support’ who’s also got an elderly relative around with an ‘onerous’ chronic condition also making inroads into your time?”
Second, Effert’s attorney is fighting one last left-over charge.
“Next week, the court will hear arguments on a remaining issue from Effert’s long legal battle: the 16 days of jail time she still must serve for throwing her baby’s body over the fence.
“Her lawyer, Peter Royal, asked the court to do away with the penalty or allow her to serve the time on weekends. It was ‘unjust’ and ‘almost mean to incarcerate her’ at this point, he argued.”
Royal’s logic is impeccable. You off your kid and the only penalty the judge gives is the requirement that Effert must “abide by [unspecified in the story] conditions for the next three years.” Surely in light of this, to serve 16 days for tossing the baby’s body over the fence like so much garbage is cruel and unusual punishment.
Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha