By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

OTTAWA, ON, April 22, 2008 ( – A legal opinion presented to Conservative MP Ken Epp, who introduced the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill C-484, by Stephen Scott, professor emeritus at McGill University, argues that C-484 is constitutionally valid and could be adopted almost “as is” by the federal government, reports La Presse.

Bill C-484 seeks to make it a separate crime to kill or injure a unborn child in an attack on its mother.

In the opinion Michel Morin, a law professor at the University of Montreal maintains that allegations that the bill was intended to reopen government debate on abortion are unfounded. “The expression ‘unborn child’ used in the bill already appears three times in the Criminal Code. It is nothing new,” he says, referring to the concern expressed by abortion advocates that the proposed bill refers to the fetus as a “child” and not simply as a “fetus”.

Mr. Morin points out that “the bill in no way addresses the issue of legal abortion. Therefore, it is unlikely that the bill will be contested on that issue, much less make it to the Supreme Court.”

“The only thing that might possibly happen, is that a far-fetched legal suit might go forward,” he said. “But the likelihood of that happening is one in a million.”

Professor Scott told La Presse that while he thought the proposed legislation might be used by some to “advance their personal agendas,” he agrees with his colleague at the University of Montreal that the chances of success are slim. “It is too explicit,” Mr. Scott said.

Read previous coverage:

Canadian Unborn Victims of Violent Crime Bill Passes Second Reading

How the Liberals Voted on the Unborn Victims of Crime Act – Editorial
  Anti-Choice, pro-abortion extremist Liberal MPs revealed

  If Only Babies Were Pigeons: A Swiftian Vision