Strangling Newborn Baby Okay Because It’s Like An Abortion, Rules Canadian Judge (For The Record, Obama Agrees)

It’s a woman’s right to choose.  To murder her own child in a manner I wouldn’t do to a rat.  And if you decide to murder your own child after your own child has already been born, well, that’s okay too.  Because it’s basically just a retroactive abortion, isn’t it?

Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge
by Patrick B. Craine
Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:45 EST

Katrina Effert covers herself with a jacket as she leaves the Edmonton courthouse on Friday.

EDMONTON, Alberta, September 12, 2011 ( – An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.

“We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.

Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents’ downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence. She was 19 at the time.

She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court. In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide.

On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates 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.”

“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,” she added.

Under Canada’s Criminal Code, a woman who has not “fully recovered” from the effects of birth can be found guilty of the lesser charge of infanticide. To bring forward the infanticide defense, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, there must be evidence that the woman’s mind was disturbed.

According to the Crown, the evidence showed Effert was not suffering mental disturbance. They highlighted the fact that she planned for the birth by getting scissors to cut the umbilical cord and towels, and then hiding in the bathroom in her parents’ basement. They suggested that she had tried to miscarry the child during pregnancy by smoking and drinking. She lied during initial police questioning, claiming she was a virgin.

But Justice Veit agreed with defense lawyer Peter Royal, saying that this was “a classic infanticide case — the killing of a newborn after a hidden pregnancy by a mother who was alone and unsupported.”

Pro-life advocates have warned for years that widespread acceptance of abortion will open the door to greater societal acceptance of infanticide, beginning with the euthanizing of disabled newborns. Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, “there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”

Though he once was considered to be on the radical fringe, Singer’s views are becoming more mainstream. For example, the world’s most prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, published in 2008 an enthusiastic defense of the Netherlands’ practice of euthanizing newborns.

Where will it end: a one month old child whose parent has decided is not worthy of life, a six month old child, a two year old child, a special needs child or how about a teenager?” asked Hughes.

“It is time that Parliament, whose duty it is to protect and legislate regarding the Constitution, examine its duty with regard to the first constitutional right – ‘the right to life’ and enact legislation which recognizes that life begins at conception and must be protected from that time until natural death,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC. “The mother’s stress cannot equate to the loss of a lifetime for the child.”

Oh, and by the way; the president some of you voted for completely agrees with this Canadian judge (as vile as he is):

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

Watch this five minute video:

I pointed out in one of the articles above:

I’ve provided analysis of Barack Obama’s hypocrisy and lies regarding his abortion stand. I’ve provided Jill Stanek’s documentation of ten different reasons Obama has given for refusing to support a bill that would stop babies from literally being left on a table to die. But a picture is worth a thousand words, and a video even more.

The fact is that Barack Obama’s 100% NARAL-approved abortion position is so bizarre, so vile, and so extreme that he opposed a human life bill whose identical version passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate, with Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy supporting.

In other words, even by the standard of the most ardent abortion-rights supporters, Barack Obama’s stand is vile.

Barack Obama’s voting record clearly reveals that he is a baby killer. That is a documented fact. And I frankly don’t give a damn how “thoughtful” or “nuanced” his dissembling, self-righteous lies are.

It’s a good sign for Obama.  Because when he’s driven out of office in abject disgrace for the ruin that he left America in, he’ll have a nice career as a Canadian judge.  If you have the soul of a cockroach, a seat on a judicial bench is a very possible and very attractive career move for you.

But one day Justice Joanne Veit, Barack Obama, and every single one of you who supports abortion will face a just and holy God who will demand vengeance for the murders of all of these tens of millions of innocent children.

Do you want to know why life in America sucks so much these days?  Because this is God damn America, that’s why.

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “Strangling Newborn Baby Okay Because It’s Like An Abortion, Rules Canadian Judge (For The Record, Obama Agrees)”

  1. Stephen Says:

    Why is everyone so surprised? Canadians are already killing 300 pre-born children a day by abortion.

    Sadly, this is natural progression. Canada has no abortion laws and if you can legally kill your child on your due date, it is not a far reach to legally kill your child after delivery.

    Personally, I am disgusted that our country views children as less than human. This has to stop.

    If you live in the Calgary area, check out, a great conference coming up this October address these issues head on. Instead of just complaining, we need to put pressure on the legal system to stop downplaying murder.

    See you in Calgary.

  2. Michael Eden Says:


    D. James Kennedy put it this way: “Watch out, Grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

    Euthenasia is merely retroactive abortion.

    Human life is either sacred or it is profane. And the only human beings whose lives should be taken are those who have taken human lives (although, amazingly, many people who oppose the death penalty for murderers and who would SCREAM if a baby seal were killed cheer the abortion of human babies).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: