By Malin Jordan
The B.C. Catholic

A newborn baby was murdered in Alberta in April 2005. Mother Katrina Effert, after recently giving birth, used her own underwear to choke her baby to death and then tossed the dead body into her neighbour's yard.

Nine months, three trimesters, through a pregnancy, the 19-year-old delivered a baby and then killed it. In Canada, she could have had a legal abortion the day before.

Now she's been convicted of infanticide and given a three-year suspended sentence.
Columnist Mark Steyn called the lack of punishment a "fourth-trimester abortion," and wondered at what age the justice system would step in. "How about six months in? The terrible twos?" he asked.

But I think the most insidious aspect of the crime and resulting ruling is the cheap excuse that comes with the ease of blaming the "onerous demands of pregnancy," as the judge in the case ruled - just one more apology for abhorrent behaviour.

The judge, Joanne Veit, based her ruling on a flawed logic, and she should be ashamed of her decision. She ruled, "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."

Abortion as a "less than ideal solution?" I can think of many less than ideal solutions concerning an unwanted pregnancy that fall short of murder. How about giving the child up for adoption?

"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," Veit said, insinuating that if Canadians don't care enough to have laws governing abortion, then they won't mind a little infanticide either.

But besides the lack of a just punishment, an obvious question screams out: "If she didn't want the baby, why not give it up for adoption?"

Some will argue she was suffering from a mental illness, or stress, or (add whatever excuse you want here), and she couldn't make logical decisions.

But the cheap excuse Veit offered is that of the "onerous demands of pregnancy," which holds water only when considered in the context of a selfish, godless society that promotes self interest over selflessness.

If she had given a thought for the baby, or for the father, or for a childless family awaiting an opportunity to extend their love, that little boy would be alive.

In all the sweeping "me-first mania" that's enveloped our culture, Veit gave the woman a free pass.

Maybe Effert is a victim here. If she is, she's a victim of an education and upbringing that taught her to think of herself, to the detriment of anyone else; maybe she's a victim of a society that reinforced that at every turn; maybe she's a victim of a society that not only encourages abortion, but holds it up as the only solution to unwanted pregnancy.

The militancy of abortion rights may have taken another victim, this time one outside the womb. In an ever-present blitz to force abortion into every corner of society, pro-choice militancy seems to have inculcated a one-thought solution to an unwanted pregnancy: death.

It's time Canadians started thinking of adoption as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy - and spreading the idea around. Maybe then vulnerable women like Effert will have opportunities to understand that positive actions, no matter how "onerous" or "demanding," outweigh the negative callousness of murder.