Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Passes Unborn Victims Bill, heads to President Bush
03.25.03

Posted on 03/25/2004 3:57:58 PM PST by Coleus

Senate Passes Unborn Victims Bill

WASHINGTON, March 25, 2004



 (Photo: AP)



"This bill recognizes that there are two victims. It's as simple as that."
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio



(AP) 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 for his signature. The White House said in a statement that it "strongly supports protection for unborn children." 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 pushing protections for the unborn following enactment of the so-called partial birth abortion ban last year. 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 but maintained that an attack on a pregnant woman was a single-victim crime.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., President Bush's opponent this fall, interrupted his campaign schedule to vote yes on the one-victim 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 outlined in the DeWine bill but classified any attack on a pregnant woman as a single-victim crime, avoiding the issue of fetal rights and the question of when a person attains personhood.

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 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 or 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 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. "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. Johnson's group noted that family members — including Laci Peterson's mother — who had lost loved ones in attacks on pregnant women were in Washington to urge senators to pass the bill.

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 because the group said it would allow judges to rule that humans at any stage of development deserve protection, even when that protection trumps a woman's interest in ending a pregnancy.

"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."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlist; catholiclist; christianlist; connerslaw; connorpeterson; fetus; infanticide; kerry; laciandconnorlaw; murder; pregnant; prolife; senate; shamsubstitute; unbornvictims; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: Coleus
Wow...it passed!
61 posted on 03/25/2004 8:29:03 PM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
Don't Know, cold feet, out of town, sick?, call his office tomorrow if you can and please let us know.

He is pro life.

62 posted on 03/25/2004 9:22:09 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
excellent analysis!
63 posted on 03/25/2004 9:33:16 PM PST by votelife (Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Super Bump!

p.s.
209.157.64.200, these is an IP never to forget!
64 posted on 03/25/2004 10:04:27 PM PST by miltonim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miltonim
these this
65 posted on 03/25/2004 10:05:01 PM PST by miltonim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
The NOW NAGs lost a vote in a Senate dominated by Democrats and pro-choice RINOs. It matters not it was only by a single vote. They still lost.
66 posted on 03/25/2004 11:10:00 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boxerblues
I betcha you're right. He'll say I'm for punishing the killers of unborn babies and I'm also for preserving choice in an abortion.
67 posted on 03/25/2004 11:11:24 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer; dansangel
A wonderful day for life.
68 posted on 03/26/2004 1:00:06 AM PST by .45MAN (The New Testiment is consealed in the Old and the Old Testiment is revealed in the New)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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."

Thanks for the ping! Looks like this is the first step toward justice for Laci and Connor.

69 posted on 03/26/2004 4:36:02 AM PST by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: deport
Olympia Snowe and Chaffee.
How special.
70 posted on 03/26/2004 4:40:32 AM PST by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
thanks Howlin. I just figured out after several attempts yesterday to log on FR, but go that blank webpage ;o(... Freerepublic is having DNS issues.. Be more online later when fully functioning...
71 posted on 03/26/2004 5:10:21 AM PST by runningbear (Lurkers beware, Freeping is public opinions based on facts, theories, and news online.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
Anyone know why Judd Gregg (R-NH) didn't vote?


No idea..... It maybe listed in the daily journal if he had an excused absence.
72 posted on 03/26/2004 5:59:49 AM PST by deport (("These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I have ever seen. It's scary," Kerry said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
This is a disaster.

It is now recognized in law that your life is dependent on the subjectivity of your mother.

Somebody else kills you-bad.

Your mother kills you-good.

73 posted on 03/26/2004 6:01:54 AM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watchin
It sickens me to see all the the pro-abortion fanatics who are only concerned that this might lead to fewer dead babies, and therefore fewer dollars

They don't do it for the money.

74 posted on 03/26/2004 6:03:03 AM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
Why is this a Federal Government issue?

It isn't, but the bill is will be found unconstitutional on other grounds.

75 posted on 03/26/2004 6:05:37 AM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
The White House said in a statement that it "strongly supports protection for unborn children."

There are two valid, constitutional ways to protect unborn children.

1) Amend the constitution to ban abortion, or to confer personhood on the unborn (better, because it would allow genuine lifesaving abortions).

2) Pass a Federal law outlawing abortions, and exempt it from review by any Article III court.

This stupid law is just posturing by Senators who would sh*t in their pants if their girlfriends were ever really to be prevented from getting abortions.

It will be found unconstitutional by the USSC in about three seconds.

People who "strongly support protection for unborn children" should endorse and work for a legitimate, constitutional alternative.

76 posted on 03/26/2004 6:13:14 AM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Is it the humanizing,real unborn baby suggestion that scares them?

Yes, obviously.

they understand wht you (apparantly) do not - the law of homicide cannot be "You cannot be killed, except if your mother wants you dead".

77 posted on 03/26/2004 6:15:00 AM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo; Coleus; deport
"Anyone know why Judd Gregg (R-NH) didn't vote?"


He didn't vote on the final passage, which was a foregone conclusion, but he cast the deciding vote in the defeat of Feinstein's sham substitute amendment that would have derailed the bill (the amendment was defeated by a 50-49 vote; see my post #45 for more information). So Gregg's absence from the final vote should not be held against him, since on the vote that mattered he voted pro-life, like he always does. (I would not be surprised if Gregg was busy with something important but dropped what he was doing to go to the Capitol and vote to defeat Feinstein's sham substitute amendment and left after it was clear that Laci and Conner's Law would pass.) New Hampshire is lucky to have two pro-life Senators in Sununu and Gregg; I wish its House delegation shared the same views.
78 posted on 03/26/2004 6:15:02 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; kalt
"2) Pass a Federal law outlawing abortions, and exempt it from review by any Article III court."


Unfortunately, Congress does not have that power. While Congress may remove the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in certain types of cases, it would not be able to remove jurisdiction from federal courts generally, since it would be a case arising under the laws of the Unired States. The best Congress could do (and I'm not even sure they could get away with it) is remove the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction on abortion cases and establish an Article III Federal Abortion Court that would hear all appeals on abortion cases from federal district or circuit courts and from state supreme courts. Since it would be a new court, President Bush could nominate all 9 members and the Republican Senate would get to confirm them to life tenure (of course, the RATs would try to filibuster, so the Senate would first need to change the cloture rules so that a filibuster can only delay approval, not forestall it forever).

Another thing Congress could do is to use its powers under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to define "person" as including all human beings from the moment of conception. The Courts may try to stop Congress from doing so, but I can see no reason why Congress's power "to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the 14th Amendment cannot be used to extend due process protection to human beings who have been discriminated against for decades merely because they live inside their mother's womb.

As for a federal constitutional amendment to protect the unborn, obviously that would be the optimal route, but getting 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote in favor will not happen in the foreseeable future. But, God willing, we will make it someday.
79 posted on 03/26/2004 6:33:52 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
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.

Let's hope so!!!!

80 posted on 03/26/2004 8:33:34 AM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson