Senate Passes Fetus Protection Bill

[Siji]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _rights_14

Senate Passes Fetus Protection Bill

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Thursday to make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during commission of a violent federal crime, a victory for those seeking to expand the legal rights of the unborn.

The 61-38 vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act sends the legislation, after a five-year battle in Congress, to President Bush (news - web sites) for his signature, which he promised to provide.

"Pregnant women who have been harmed by violence, and their families, know that there are two victims — the mother and the unborn child — and both victims should be protected by federal law," the president said in a statement applauding congressional passage. The House passed the bill last month.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the bill was "powerful because this act is about simple humanity, about simple reality."

But abortion rights lawmakers contended that giving a fetus, from the point of conception, the same legal rights as its mother sets a precedent that could be used in future legal challenges to abortion rights.

It was the second big win for social conservatives, who last year pushed through protections for the unborn with enactment of the so-called partial birth abortion ban. That ban is now tied up in the courts.

The Senate cleared the way for passage with a 50-49 vote to defeat an amendment, backed by opponents of the bill, that would have increased penalties for harm to a pregnant woman but did not attempt to define when human life begins.

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., Bush's opponent this fall, interrupted his campaign schedule to vote yes on the amendment. He voted no on final passage.

The bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

"This bill recognizes that there are two victims," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor. Americans, he said, "intuitively know that there is a victim besides the mother."

The key obstacle was an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would have imposed the same tougher penalties for attacks on pregnant women as outlined in the DeWine bill but made no attempt to define the beginning of life.

Feinstein said that by defining when life begins, the bill was "the first step in removing a woman's right to choice, particularly in the early months of a pregnancy before viability." She said it could also chill embryonic stem cell research.

The Senate also defeated an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., that would require employers to give unpaid leave, and states to pay unemployment benefits, to women when they or family members are victims of domestic or sexual violence.

Supporters of the bill have named it after Laci Peterson (news - web sites) and her unborn child, Conner, victims in the highly publicized murder case in California. California, one of 29 states with an unborn victims law, is trying Peterson's husband, Scott, on double murder charges.

Laci Peterson's stepfather, Ron Grantski, said at a Capitol Hill news conference that he and Laci's mother had received several hundred thousand sympathy cards and "they all mourned our loss of Laci and Conner — not Laci and the fetus."

The Senate bill covers 68 federal crimes of violence, such as drug-related shootings, violence at an international airport, terrorist attacks, crimes on a military base and threats against a witness in a federal proceeding.

It would specifically exclude prosecution of legally performed abortions — a fact supporters cite in arguing that the bill would not undermine the 1973 Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

"The criminals who commit these crimes are not committing abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (news - web sites). "They are depriving these unborn children of the right to life. It's a separate issue related to the right to life."

Groups on both sides of the abortion issue lobbied hard on the legislation.

The Christian Coalition of America said votes for either the Murray or Feinstein amendments would be regarded as negative votes on its annual congressional scorecard of lawmakers.

On the other side, NARAL Pro-Choice America delivered more than 130,000 petitions to senators urging defeat of the bill.

"This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman," said NARAL president Kate Michelman. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade."
--------------------------

While at first thought, it seems like a great thing. But when considering the government we have, and especially the president we currently have, this scares the shit out of me - and it should scare the shit out of anyone else that values freedom of choice or your rights. This could have been done in a different way that just gave harsher punishments to crimes against pregnant women. There was no need to specifically assign rights to a fetus. The object of doing this is more than clear.

[Keverian FireCry]

The Christian Coalition of America said votes for either the Murray or Feinstein amendments would be regarded as negative votes on its annual congressional scorecard of lawmakers.

So basically they are threatening congress members that if they dont vote how they want, they will make sure that whoever runs against them in the upcoming elections will win. And The Christian Coalition is only one of many organizations that bully congress members into voting how they want.

Theyve done this for years, and its another reason people need to research and support clean elections. I truly beleive that clean elections would make some of the biggest and most positive changes for the US.

http://www.publiccampaign.org/

Basically, the whole idea is to even out the playing field, so each candidate would have equal ammount of campaign finance. This means that groups like the Christian Coalition and others will have no power in deciding elections. It takes away the power of these special interest groups, who really do run our country indirectly.

[Chmee]

The Christian Coalition of America said votes for either the Murray or Feinstein amendments would be regarded as negative votes on its annual congressional scorecard of lawmakers.

So basically they are threatening congress members that if they dont vote how they want, they will make sure that whoever runs against them in the upcoming elections will win. And The Christian Coalition is only one of many organizations that bully congress members into voting how they want.

I may not agree with their agenda, but I really don't see how a group of people saying that if congress members vote for things they don't approve of (or conversely not vote for things they do approve of) they won't vote for them, being a problem. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Theyve done this for years, and its another reason people need to research and support clean elections. I truly beleive that clean elections would make some of the biggest and most positive changes for the US.

http://www.publiccampaign.org/

Basically, the whole idea is to even out the playing field, so each candidate would have equal ammount of campaign finance. This means that groups like the Christian Coalition and others will have no power in deciding elections. It takes away the power of these special interest groups, who really do run our country indirectly.

Keep in mind that the limiting the amount of money in elections or saying the same amount must be spent by all candidates typically benefits the incumbent the most. They already get exposure because of their office. This probably doesn't hold for the presidential election, because fo the huge amount of media attention on both candidates. But for lower offices it certainly can have an impact.

[Aaeamdar]

Really hate the Christain Coalition and everyone like them. But I am having a really hard time getting a grasp on your complaint. They are doing exactly what I do. I look at issues that are important to me and take tht into account when deciding for whom I will vote. Sometimes there are single issues that I have to take a stand on, other times its a balancing. I would certainly hope that the Christain Coalition does actively campaign against people that break from their adjenda. I think that is pretty much the entire point of a representative government.

[Daerib Bittcroaker]

I really hate how convuluted our judicial system is...

Why if a doctor kills a fetus en-utero it is medicine, yet if it happens outside that arena it is murder?

I don't condone abortion nor do I support banning it... Ultimately is the choice of the pregnant woman to either go full term or abort the pregnancy.

I think the government is treading on thin ice when it defines the fetus at any stage of development as being "Alive"... I can see this only leading to a return to the abortion ban and it frightens me.

[masteen]

I think the government is treading on thin ice when it defines the fetus at any stage of development as being "Alive"... I can see this only leading to a return to the abortion ban and it frightens me.

I agree. This is a baby step down a VERY slippery slope, and the slope ends in the dirty, back-alley clinics our parents fought so hard to get rid of.

[kyoukan]

I really hate how convuluted our judicial system is...

Why if a doctor kills a fetus en-utero it is medicine, yet if it happens outside that arena it is murder?

I don't condone abortion nor do I support banning it... Ultimately is the choice of the pregnant woman to either go full term or abort the pregnancy.

I think the government is treading on thin ice when it defines the fetus at any stage of development as being "Alive"... I can see this only leading to a return to the abortion ban and it frightens me.

Uhh, that is the entire point of the bill. It's a political maneuver.

[Aaeamdar]

I could not disagree more. This law is completely consistant with the right to abortion and in fact should be welcomed by abortion right advocates. Abortion is not about the fetus, it is about the choice of the mother. Abortion advocates who try to put forth specious arguements about a fetus not being human, "alive" or whatever, are doing themselves and their cause, a great deal of harm.

The thing is, abortion is about the ability of a women to consent to the use of her body by another. It is about a woman's choices about to which, if any, medical procedures she wishes to consent. We, as a society, do not generally require our citizens to make sacrifices of their own liberty or health for the sake of another. That does not mean, however, that we place no value on those others in need of help.

In the case of a mother and her fetus, it would be a mistake to say that our society places no value on the fetus and his or her moral rights. The existance of abortion protections merely indicates our choice to value those "fetal" rights as subordinate to a mother's rights. Constituionally, this balance of rights is in flux and as a fetus becomes viable absent its mother, we permit States to regulate and restrict a woman's choices. So very clearly, even within a full support of Roe, it is not the case that the fetus has no value and has no rights.

Taking that into account, this new law (and several States have had enacted similar laws for many years) is completely resonate with a woman's right to choose. It places a value on the fetus and recognizes that when violence is done to a pregnant woman that results in the death or injury to her child, that is a seperate act worthy of independant punishment. Real damage has been done to the State and to the woman when a child is killed in the womb that is of greater scope than the same crime that results in injury only to the mother (or to a person that is not pregant).

A woman's right to choose an abortion is that - the right to a choice. Punishing and unauthorized assault on her person that results in the death of her unborn child is in a way punishing a criminal for removing that choice from her. This is completely consistant with protecting abortion. People who think otherwise has lost sight about what abortion rights are. The right to abortion, does to require, and in a just society should not create a perception that a fetus lacks all human qualities and is whole unworthy of our care.

[Siji]

By giving the same rights to a fetus that a self-sufficient living human being has, they're taking the first step to saying that a fetus has the right to live and the mother doesn't have the choice to deny those rights.

This will end badly in the long run.

[Aaeamdar]

This law gives no rights to a fetus. The fetus cannot sue. The fetus cannot demand a particular action be taken. The only thing this law does is recognize that a fetus is not valueless and it places additional punishment on a person who kills a fetus while commiting a violent crime against the mother.

Just because the reporter has an adjenda and likes to use phrases like "giving a fetus, from the point of conception, the same legal rights as its mother" and "a victory for those seeking to expand the legal rights of the unborn" does not mean you should buy into it. There is simply nothing in the law that could provide the basis for "rights" of a fetus.

It certainly does not give a fetus "the same rights as its mother." With or without this law, a mother can volunatily kill the fetus. After the passage of this law, the fetus cannot demand the terminiation of the mother's life. Some reporter that neither likes nor understands the bill has chosen to distort its meaning for his/her own adjenda.

Now, I am sure Right to Lifer's and other Rightwing Christian freaks will also try and color the law in that way. It is why they support it. They too think this has some relevance to abortion. But just because they support the bill does not mean it is a bad law. Focus on what is actually being done, not on what group or groups like it.

[Atokal]

Rightwing Christian freaks

The next time you are walking down the street and someone calls you a Fucking Faggot, or a Bum Blaster don't whine about the persecution or bigotry you suffer.

[Voronwë]

Chmee, i'd say the major economic advantage of being an incumbant president for campaign purposes, is travel expenses are not paid fully by the campaign.

for instance if Bush flies to Texas to do a fundraiser, his campaign funds only have to reimburse the cost of a first class plane ticket, hardly the operating expenses of a charter jet, let alone US-1. There is no way around this though, but it is a tangible financial advantage.

i think that there is some justification to having a legal protection to a fetus. i am strongly pro-choice, but think of it in this context: if my wife is pregnant and gets assaulted (pushed down 5 stairs) and the pregnancy is terminated, that is a more serious crime than if my wife simply suffers a sprained wrist and a head contusion.

[Chmee]

Chmee, i'd say the major economic advantage of being an incumbant president for campaign purposes, is travel expenses are not paid fully by the campaign.

for instance if Bush flies to Texas to do a fundraiser, his campaign funds only have to reimburse the cost of a first class plane ticket, hardly the operating expenses of a charter jet, let alone US-1. There is no way around this though, but it is a tangible financial advantage.

That is certainly an advantage, but a pretty minor one. As I said, I don't know if it necessarily is that signficant at the presidential level. I am not sure how signficant actual campaign spending effects things at the presidential level. It probably has some, but I am betting the number of times I see/hear/read an add by Bush or Kerry will be massively dwarfed by how much I see/hear/read about them from various media news and opinion sources between now and the election. For lower level offices though, even senator, house representative, I think its a lot more signifcant. They will typically have more name recognition from being in office for the last x years. Restricting how much both parties spends increases the value of this name recognition.