House passes bill to protect fetuses

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
2004: The year of Republicans pandering to their religious right and social conservative base. It's almost like they know it's their last chance to push through their agenda. :)

CNN.com

House passes bill to protect fetuses

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Thursday to subject assailants who injure or kill a pregnant woman and her fetus to two separate crimes. The bill would for the first time under federal law give victim's rights to a fetus.

The bill, championed by conservative groups, drew opposition from others concerned that conferring new rights on the fetus would undermine abortion rights.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was approved 254-163 after the House rejected a Democratic-led alternative that would have increased penalties for those attacking a pregnant woman but continue to regard the offense as perpetrated on one victim.

"That little unborn child is intrinsically precious and valuable and deserving of standing in the law and protection," argued Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Illinois.

The legislation now must be taken up by the Senate, where abortion rights forces are stronger and passage is more uncertain.

President Bush has promoted the bill, an election-year priority for his conservative base.

Supporters said Americans were solidly behind making an attack on a pregnant woman subject to two crimes.

Criminal law, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, "is an expression of society's values," and anything less than making a woman and the unborn child separate victims "does not resonate with society's sense of justice."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said Republicans were opting for an election-year abortion issue instead of backing a less controversial approach that would make attacks on pregnant women a single, but more serious crime. "Real people are suffering real harm while this House has played abortion politics instead of acting to punish truly barbaric crimes."

Backers said the measure was needed to bring federal law in line with 29 states where those who attack pregnant women can be charged with two crimes when the fetus is harmed, including murder.

One of those states is California, where Scott Peterson is on trial for the murder of his wife Laci and her unborn boy Conner. The bill has also been designated Laci and Conner's Law.

The Democratic-led opposition, however, says the real aim of the legislation is to undermine abortion rights by giving the unborn the same legal rights as the born. They charged that abortion politics was taking precedence over the need to protect abused women.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, said it would affect a woman's reproductive rights. It "is not about women and it is not about children. It's about politics."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, offered an alternative that would increase penalties for attacks leading to the interruption of a pregnancy but would not confer separate legal rights to the fetus. It was defeated, 229-186.

The White House, in a statement, said it opposed such an amendment but voiced strong support for the base bill.

The House passed similar bills in 1999 and 2001. The bill again faces an uphill fight in the Senate with its stronger abortion rights forces. The Senate did not take up the two previous House bills.

The legislation would apply only to attacks on women that qualify as federal offenses. Those would include such crimes as terrorist attacks, bank robberies, drug trafficking or assaults on federal land.

The sponsors of the bill, led by Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pennsylvania, said they were not out to undermine abortion rights and their bill specifically precludes from prosecution those who perform legal abortions.

"This bill is not about the debate over the sanctity of human life. This bill is just about justice," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana.

Groups on both sides of the abortion issue have weighed in heavily on the bill.

The National Right to Life Committee urged its supporters to lobby for the legislation and carried on its Web page a 2003 e-mail from Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry voicing opposition to a Senate version.

NARAL Pro-Choice America said Congress must do more to protect pregnant women from violence but said the unborn victims bill was a "deceptive attempt to erode Roe v. Wade," the Supreme Court decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

The legislation defines "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,513
578
126
Remember a woman decides whats life and whats not...so only women should get to vote for the law and only women judges should get to decide.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
I agree with the bill, if someone kills a pregnant woman, the murderer should be charged with 2 deaths not 1.
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
This law is ridiculous. Just like the Hate Crimes laws. It creates a stratification of worth for various members of society that should never occur.

Zephyr
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: maddogchen
I agree with the bill, if someone kills a pregnant woman, the murderer should be charged with 2 deaths not 1.

 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
I could have sworn the whackos in California are the ones that first charged Scott Petterson with killing his wife and "baby".

So its just the Republicans trying to push this agenda? Okay....
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
I could have sworn the whackos in California are the ones that first charged Scott Petterson with killing his wife and "baby".

So its just the Republicans trying to push this agenda? Okay....

There are Republicans in CA too. In fact, quite a few of them. Our governator is (R), remember? But yes, the house dominated by Republicans passed a Republican-sponsored bill promoted by Bush himself to protect fetuses (read: chip away at abortion rights). But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your little tangent . . .
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
I'm thinking the snickering liberals are either without children or without humanity. Probably both. Of course, they make a living defending those misunderstood criminals.

While I think the right of a women to choose should be retained in very early pregnancy, I certainly think that if someone slugged my pregnant wife in the stomach and killed the baby, murder charges should be filed. If they weren't filed against me first.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
I'm thinking the snickering liberals are either without children or without humanity.

Yeah...only conservatives like you have children and are humane. All those people that disagree with you are obviously cold, childless, and utterly lack any humanity.

rolleye.gif



Hey...can you see us all from up there?

rolleye.gif
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
<edited out mean comments. Must stay on my high tower of kindness and humanity>

The slippery slope argument gets old folks. OK fine, let's insert the "# of weeks that life becomes viable" clause then. Treat it as the same as abortion. I'd like to hear a liberal try to slide out of that one...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
What if the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant? Perhaps he just assumed she was fat. It could happen very easily. Do you have to prove intent a la hate crimes? So many questions so few answers. Bottom line is anyone who kills a pregnant woman is already facing serious criminal penalties, but now you're proposing we up the ante because suddenly her life is more valuable than mine or yours. It's not a slippery slope, it's a serious issue.

And yeah, your blanket statement about liberals was lame. As usual.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What if the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant? Perhaps he just assumed she was fat. It could happen very easily. Do you have to prove intent a la hate crimes? So many questions so few answers. Bottom line is anyone who kills a pregnant woman is already facing serious criminal penalties, but now you're proposing we up the ante because suddenly her life is more valuable than mine or yours. It's not a slippery slope, it's a serious issue.

And yeah, your blanket statement about liberals was lame. As usual.
Intent doesn't change anything. If you shot somebody, and the bullet passed through them, killed the person behind them, it is still 2 counts murder. Shoots down your first premise.

Her life is not valuable than yours or mine, because there were 2 lives taken. Care to try and address the # of weeks question? Or are you going to argue that abortions should be legal up to the moment of delivery next?

 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,513
578
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What if the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant? Perhaps he just assumed she was fat. It could happen very easily. Do you have to prove intent a la hate crimes? So many questions so few answers. Bottom line is anyone who kills a pregnant woman is already facing serious criminal penalties, but now you're proposing we up the ante because suddenly her life is more valuable than mine or yours. It's not a slippery slope, it's a serious issue.

And yeah, your blanket statement about liberals was lame. As usual.

If that were possible, you could charge killing the woman - murder, killing the unborn child - manslaughter

Remember with todays medical technology, children can be viable in as little as 5 1/2 to 6 months

I work with a woman whose daughter is a living miracle

 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What if the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant? Perhaps he just assumed she was fat. It could happen very easily. Do you have to prove intent a la hate crimes? So many questions so few answers. Bottom line is anyone who kills a pregnant woman is already facing serious criminal penalties, but now you're proposing we up the ante because suddenly her life is more valuable than mine or yours. It's not a slippery slope, it's a serious issue.

And yeah, your blanket statement about liberals was lame. As usual.

There are many answers, you just gotta look for them

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.
link

And yes we should increase the stakes if someone attacks a pregnant woman. It is harder for a pregnant woman to defend herself that it is for you or me.

Also What happens if someone attacks your pregnant wife, but your pregnant wife survives but the unborn child doesn't. Without this bill, you cannot charge the person for murder, so your unborn baby's life isn't worth anything. Thats why I agree with the bill, if your unborn child dies, that should count as a murder. If the attacker kills both your pregnant wife and the unborn child, that should count as two murders. Two murders means he's less likely to get out of jail in 10-15 years.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
anyone who can't see the difference between a woman choosing abortion and someone aborting her fetus/child/whatever for her, without her consent, should try to think a little more.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: maddogchen

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.
link

And yes we should increase the stakes if someone attacks a pregnant woman. It is harder for a pregnant woman to defend herself that it is for you or me.

Also What happens if someone attacks your pregnant wife, but your pregnant wife survives but the unborn child doesn't. Without this bill, you cannot charge the person for murder, so your unborn baby's life isn't worth anything. Thats why I agree with the bill, if your unborn child dies, that should count as a murder. If the attacker kills both your pregnant wife and the unborn child, that should count as two murders. Two murders means he's less likely to get out of jail in 10-15 years.

that statement about many attacks made with the intention to kill the fetus/child/whatever is interesting. i would venture a guess that it may be the guy who impregnated the woman who is doing the attacking, in order to avoid being a father. very rarely are people murdered or attacked completely at random.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: digitalsm
I could have sworn the whackos in California are the ones that first charged Scott Petterson with killing his wife and "baby".

So its just the Republicans trying to push this agenda? Okay....

There are Republicans in CA too. In fact, quite a few of them. Our governator is (R), remember? But yes, the house dominated by Republicans passed a Republican-sponsored bill promoted by Bush himself to protect fetuses (read: chip away at abortion rights). But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your little tangent . . .

Last I checked California Republicans were like Southern Democrats. Moderates.
Last I checked California has had a majority of democrats serving in their state house and senate. IE: they run the show.
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Im afraid I must agree with the liberals, pro-choicers, most democrats on this forum......... with respect to this measure.

Its obviously not fair that only the mother, with the assistance of a physician (if she so chooses) are the only ones allowed to get away with murdering the child.

No, wait just a minute......

Talked myself out of my own argument, you can throw away your own possessions if you want but that does not mean its ok for someone to steal them. So strangers can't get away with murdering you children only you can.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyone who can't see the difference between a woman choosing abortion and someone aborting her fetus/child/whatever for her, without her consent, should try to think a little more.

I have thought about this for a long time.

If you are for abortion you cannot logically be in support if this bill.

If you are against it, then you must be for it if you wish to remain consistent.


The fetus is either human or it is not. It cannot be a baby if you want it, but not one if you do not. A thing is or isn't.

When did a woman choosing to have a child have the divine power to make a fetus a baby or not IN FACT.


This isn't Schroedinger's cat.
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyone who can't see the difference between a woman choosing abortion and someone aborting her fetus/child/whatever for her, without her consent, should try to think a little more.

I have thought about this for a long time.

If you are for abortion you cannot logically be in support if this bill.

If you are against it, then you must be for it if you wish to remain consistent.


The fetus is either human or it is not. It cannot be a baby if you want it, but not one if you do not. A thing is or isn't.

When did a woman choosing to have a child have the divine power to make a fetus a baby or not IN FACT.


This isn't Schroedinger's cat.

I don't know, upon further investigation this whole thing may work out after all.

Pass the bill, only the women should be allowed to murder her child. I mean really think about, I would be really pissed if someone besides me killed my kid.



 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Well Winston, I'm trying to be consistant then. :) I'm for abortion and I'm against this bill. I don't care to draw lines in the sand about when a fetus is a person. IMO, it doesn't have rights until it's born and can survive w/o being hooked up to a room full of equipment.

It's not that I don't feel for the mother or that I'm "soft" on crime, rather I feel it's yet another effort to chip away at abortion rights. It's obvious that's the intent, all you have to do is look at who supported this piece of crap.

That said, there are already plenty of states that have already taken liberties to charge criminals with two homicides. Yes, CA and the Scott Peterson case is one, but there are others. Therefore, this bill is nothing more than political grandstanding by Republicans.