View Single Post
Old 02-26-2004, 03:46 PM   #1 (permalink)
txlovely
Insane
 
Location: ...We have a problem.
Unborn victims bill - Any thoughts?

Quote:
Feb. 26, 2004, 3:21PM

House approves unborn victims bill
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The House voted today to treat attacks on a pregnant woman as separate crimes aqainst both her and the fetus she is carrying. Critics say it would undermine abortion rights by giving fetuses new federal legal status.

Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was actively backed by the White House and President Bush's conservative supporters. Following enactment of the law banning "partial birth" abortions last year, the bill is this year's prime measure dealing with the unborn.

It passed 254-163 after the House rejected a Democratic-led alternative that would have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women in which the fetus is injured or killed without conferring new rights on fetuses.

Backers further highlighted the bill by naming it in honor of Laci and Conner Peterson, the pregnant woman who was murdered in December 2002, and her unborn child.

"There are two victims in these kinds of attacks," said Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa., chief sponsor of the legislation. "That is so clear from the Laci and Conner Peterson case."

Laci's husband Scott Peterson faces double murder charges under California's state unborn victims law. California is one of 29 states that have enacted such laws, and supporters said Congress needs to bring the federal government in line with state laws.

At a news conference after the vote, supporters showed a video in which Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, urges Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards, "and every other senator who has refused to support it, to reconsider."

The measure would be applicable only when federal crimes -- such as terrorism, drug trafficking or offenses on federal land or on military bases -- are committed.

The White House expressed strong support for the legislation and opposed any "one-victim" alternatives such as that offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Her substitute, backed by most Democrats, fell 229-186.

Supporters denied that the bill was about abortion, pointing to language in the bill that specifically protects those carrying out legal abortions from prosecution. But the abortion issue dominated the debate.

"You deny personhood, which is a legal concept, to the unborn," Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a strong opponent of abortion, said to critics of the bill. "Here's an opportunity to not restrict the liberty of a pregnant woman, but to enhance the sanctity of human life."

But Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. The bill "is not about shielding pregnant women," she said. "It is and has always been about undermining freedom of choice."

The House, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was "taking advantage of tragedy to promote the far-right agenda of trying to rob women of their right to choose."

The two sides also argued over language in the bill that defines "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Critics said that under this definition even a fertilized egg would have the same rights as the born, setting the stage for future challenges to abortion rights.

But those behind the bill noted that identical language was used in a 2000 bill that barred the execution of pregnant women. That bill passed the House 417-0 but didn't move in the Senate.

The House has also twice before, in 1999 and 2001, passed unborn victims bills, but in both those cases as well the Senate, where abortion rights lawmakers hold greater sway, did not take up the legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has pledged to bring up the bill soon, but it's uncertain whether he has the votes to pass it.

The bill also states that an offense does not require proof that the assailant had knowledge that the victim was pregnant. Hart noted that murder is a leading cause of death among pregnant women and in many cases the attack is made with the intention to kill the unborn child.
It will be interesting to see if the Senate approves, although I doubt they will. It certainly will be challenged by abortion rights causes...

What do you think?
__________________
Cruel words erode self-esteem like the ocean eats away the shore.
txlovely is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360