It was just last fall when she accused pro-life protesters of "public bullying of women". Her op-ed in Telegraph Journal, designed to set the minds for a ban on protests near the Fredericton abortuary, pictured "large men, brandishing signs with bloody photos" that are "bussed in every week" to "intimidate women". None of those images had anything to do with reality. Peter Ryan, (unlike Petitpas-Taylor - a Fredericton resident,) denounced those lies in his article titled "Honesty Is Needed In Abortion Debate".
Now Petitpas-Taylor is up in arms against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Judging from her claims that bill C-484 "would grant a type of legal personhood to fetuses" and that "it will eventually create a category of behaviours that will be criminal for pregnant women", it seems like she didn't bother to read the bill, choosing to rely on some other sources of information. (Most likely - on pro-abort blogs and newsletters.) She then compares the proposed Act to fetal protection laws in some US states, repeating her allegations that once passed, bill C-484 will be used to persecute pregnant women.
Ken Epp dispels those myths in is article titled "Disinformation does women, babies no favours":
Unlike most of the U.S. laws, including those in South Carolina which Ms Petitpas-Taylor singles out, C-484 applies only when the pregnant woman herself is the victim of a crime.Nobody here has any intention to persecute pregnant women. And the whole claim about "type of personhood" is a complete nonsense - one is either a person or he's not. Bill C-484 won't grant personhood to the unborn, it will merely make it an object worthy of protection from violent attacks.
A mother endangering her unborn child through drug or alcohol abuse is not a victim of a crime, so C-484 cannot possibly apply. And as noted above, C-484 explicitly excludes actions by the pregnant woman, unlike the laws in South Carolina (and various other States) to which C-484 is being compared.
It's been confirmed by independent law experts that bill C-484 can't be used to criminalize abortions. What Petipas-Taylor & Co apparently fear is that recognizing the value of a wanted unborn baby will eventually bring a change of attitude towards abortion, so that there will be more women voluntarily rejecting it.
And it's sure sad to see that a Chairperson of the Status of Women NB cares more about maintaining public support for unrestricted abortions, than about protecting pregnant women and their babies from violence.