Bill Information: Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[rightcoast]

I'm not a expert on law. I'm very, very far from it. I'm just an average Freeper who tries to keep on top of Congress and proposed legislation.

Sometimes it's hard to decipher the real "nuts and bolts" of a bill, and to get past the spin and rhetoric you're likely to read about in the newspaper or to watch on TV. Here's a small attempt to bring some clarity and definition to a bill making its way through Congress.

108th Congress, U.S. House
108 H.R. 1997
UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT of 2004 (a.k.a. Laci and Connor's Law)

"To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes."

This bill would make it a federal crime to "cause the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero" at the time, and this crime would be a seperate offense under federal law. "Unborn child" and "In utero" in this act are defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." There is no limit on stage of development, and the punishment under federal law would be the same as if the murder or bodily injury were inflicted on the mother herself (which remains a seperate federal offense).

This proposed law is for purposes of federal prosecution. It does not override state law in terms of the prosecution of state crimes. Many states have their own laws establishing the murder or harm of an unborn child as a separate crime; this legislation does not address those state laws. It simply enacts similar legislation on the federal level for federal crimes.

There are claims that this legislation will lay the foundation for the outlaw of abortion, by assigning rights under federal law to an unborn fetus, and for the murder of an unborn fetus. This bill, though, provides a clear and distinct exception for abortion, and explicitly disallows application of this act's provisions in the case of an abortion.

The bill does NOT permit prosecution in the following circumstances:

"Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law."

"Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child."

"Any woman with respect to her unborn child."

Therefore, this act (as I understand it), states an explicit exception for an abortion that a woman has consented to, an abortion that has been legally authorized on her behalf, or an abortion which under law the consent is implied. This specifically exempts the performer or recipient of any such abortion from this legislation.

Further, the bill denies prosecution of "any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child."

This gives further protection to any medical personnel performing on a pregnant woman.

Finally, the law denies prosecution of "any woman with respect to her unborn child." As I read this part of the legislation, not only does it completely absolve any woman of prosecution for having an abortion -- it could also be interpreted to immunity from prosecution (under this legislation) for either the unintentional harm of the unborn child, or even the intentional murder or infliction of bodily injury to her own unborn child.

Therefore, I cannot see any logical or legally based reasoning why a self-proclaimed "pro-choice", woman's rights advocate would be against this proposed legislation.

[farmfriend]

ping

[tbird5]

"I cannot see any logical or legally based reasoning why a self-proclaimed "pro-choice", woman's rights advocate would be against this"

Since when do women's rights group use logic or reason? They are liberals, and don't need reason.