The Crown in that case did not claim the baby died during birth, arguing the legislation protects a vulnerable segment of society and prevents investigations into suspicious child deaths from being frustrated."
Levkovic's lawyer argued a fetus has no rights, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects abortion and a woman's control over her body.
It's ridiculous to say that one group can't have rights in order to protect the rights of others.
That's not how you argue rights. A right exists or it doesn't. There's no such thing as a right NOT existing in order for someone else to have a right.
It's a power thing see. Feminists are saying that they NEED the right to kill their unborn, so for that reason, the unborn must not have rights.
A fetus may not have rights, but there are very good reasons to prosecute concealing a child's body, namely that it constitutes an improper disposal of a human body which can have effects on public hygiene.
As I understand it, the law only applies to fetuses past 20 weeks.
Note that the idea of an "unborn child" was never problematic before the age of widespread abortion. It's only when feminists decided that killing unborn children is the key to emancipation did the phrase become contested. That's why a law covering the "hiding the body of a child" (re: fetus) seems archaic in this day and age. It never was when it was passed. It's just that feminists and their followers got into the habit of redefining inconvenient terms like "human being" so that their power could not threatened.