We will not protect Cassie’s choice because she belongs to a minority of women. We will continue to claim we are protecting the choice of all women, yet we will do nothing for the ones that are like Cassie.
If pressed on the issue, we will insist that their choice must be ignored for the safeguarding of the rights of “all” women, while specifically excluding Cassie and women like her. But we will not say it like that, and we will not address our contradiction.
We will simply maintain that to legally acknowledge Cassie’s choice in the charges against the one who killed her and her unborn baby will result in the undoing of every other woman’s legal option to have an abortion. We make no effort to actually protect “every” woman’s choice with any equability.
We will encourage other people to fear doing anything at all to address this specific issue.
Though this is not a logical conclusion, nor does it give equable consideration to both options of what makes up the very notion of “choice”, we will insist that our country’s laws continue only protecting one of those options, and treat murdering a pregnant woman as if it was a perfectly legal abortion.
We will take any and all mention of protecting the other option (and more common option) as a direct threat to the entirety of “choice”. We will infer that it is a trick designed by “pro-life” idealists.
We will not acknowledge it for what it truly is – a crime against “choice”.
We will dismiss it outright – even the suggested solutions that are very clearly shown by legal experts not to have any legal effect on the other option of choice – the option we are willing to protect and stand up for.
We will dismiss it outright – even in the face of thousands of petitions submitted by Canadian citizens who call on us to do otherwise – even when statistics and polls show that the majority of Canadians want us to protect both options – and even when the victims themselves have pleaded with us, again and again, to do something.
We will not stand up for the violation of Cassie’s rights as an individual.
We will offer no reasonable suggestion to address this very specific violation of rights that has befallen Cassie, Molly, their families, and hundreds of other families in Canada.
We will allude to a “holistic approach” which completely ignores the problem at hand – this egregious violation against what a woman has chosen. We suggest shelters as a solution because, after all, a woman like Cassie should have seen this coming.
The fact that Molly was Cassie’s choice doesn’t matter.
Instead of working towards a solution that all parties can agree upon that protects both options of a woman’s choice with equability; we will simply ignore this violation of women’s rights as it if it does not exist.
Cassie belongs to a minority and for that very reason this violation of her “choice” and “rights” can be ignored.