How can any reasonable person who claims to advocate for the choice of a woman call a law that would make it so that the choice was only hers “anti-choice”?
What is your true agenda? How can you put forth no effort to defend the choice of one woman when it is violated? Or the choice of all of the women who were murdered when they were carrying a child?
How can you conscionably tell people that to protect what a woman has chosen would take away their right to make a choice?
If it is not the choice of women that you defend, who’s choice exactly is it?
Are you even conscious of your contradiction?
Canada is waking up to your double talk.
Molly was Cassie’s choice and Molly matters.
Note: When ARCC acknowledges and corrects this contradiction, Molly Matters would be more than willing to offer any assistance and support in finding a way to protect and secure the choice of ALL women.
Click here for complete list of MP’s the ARCC is calling “anti-choice”:
Pertinent observations about those who bark loudest in opposition of unborn victims of violence law as documented by former MP Ken Epp:
-Claims that US “fetal homicide / “unborn victims of violence” laws target pregnant women: A Smoke-screen to attempt to discredit Bill C-484