|
Do these guys look happy |
Help keep "Wonder Vermin" |
|
|
Or mail checks to or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com |
|
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC |
|
Posted on 04/01/2004 4:17:15 PM PST by B-bone
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday signed into law an act that would make it a separate federal crime to harm a pregnant woman's fetus, in a move likely to bolster his support with conservatives in an election-year.
Bush gave his approval at a White House signing ceremony to the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" which was passed by the U.S. Senate a week ago by a vote of 61-38.
The measure has stirred controversy because abortion-rights supporters say it may open the door to an erosion of reproductive rights by assigning a separate legal status to an "unborn child." The bill covers crimes against fetuses from the time of conception.
But congressional supporters of the bill, the majority of whom were Republicans, had insisted that its language steered clear of the contentious issue of abortion.
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), in a statement, called the measure "the latest addition to an ongoing assault on reproductive freedom."
With Bush at the signing ceremony were the mother and stepfather of Laci Peterson (news - web sites), the woman at the center of a high-profile murder case in California. Peterson's husband has been charged with his wife's murder and that of their unborn child, who was to be named Conner.
"All who knew Laci Peterson have mourned two deaths," Bush said, referring to the act as "Laci and Conner's law."
"As of today, the law of our nation will acknowledge the plain fact that crimes of violence against a pregnant woman often have two victims and therefore, in those cases, there are two offenses to be punished," Bush said.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the anti-abortion group National Right to Life Committee (news - web sites) praised Bush for supporting the act.
"If Kerry were president, today would be a veto ceremony, not a signing ceremony," Johnson said, referring to Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), who is challenging Bush for the presidency in the November election.
Kerry voted against the bill but he supported an alternative proposal offered by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
The Feinstein proposal, defeated by a vote of 50-49, would have punished violence against pregnant women without treating an unborn child as a separate person.
Feinstein sent a letter to Bush asking him to make it clear during the signing ceremony that the law was a criminal justice measure and "not a potentially divisive statement on the abortion issue."
Bush did not mention the word abortion in his remarks.
|
Do these guys look happy |
Help keep "Wonder Vermin" |
|
|
Or mail checks to or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com |
|
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC |
|
BABY. An innocent, precious BABY.
It would have been nice if he had started earlier.
He ain't Kerry, but he's another spoiled rich kid. A decent one, but not much better.
Worth repeating
Twenty nine states have passed unborn victims of violence laws. My state, SC, is currently debating one in the senate. Little by little, unborn babies are getting the legal protection they are entitled to.
Bush is showing himself to be the pro-life President.
Glory to God.
>
While I agree with the underlying principle at work here (the protection of an unborn child), this is simply the latest in a long line of laws passed as an emotional, reflexive reaction to this feeling that the Federal government must "do something" about one issue or another.
Pick up the U.S. Constitution and try to find any reference that might remotely suggest that assault and battery should be considered a Federal offense. As it stands now with this law in place, we have a bizarre situation in which someone who assaults a pregnant woman will be tried once in a state criminal court (for assaulting the mother) and a second time in Federal court (for assaulting the child).
In addition, I would make the case that this law should be overturned as a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution -- for we now have an utterly irrational situation in which one person who kills an unborn child (an assailant) is prosecuted under Federal law while another person who kills an unborn child (the mother) is permitted to do so with the full protection of any number of Federal statutes.
Logic ought to dictate that Congress only had two choices in this matter -- either codify the full protection of the unborn child under the Fourteenth Amendment, or eliminate any legal protection the child may have had under state statutes. Anything in between is irrational nonsense.
Take a deep breath.
I agree that abortion is murder when done for convince.
Murder is the realm of the STATES, not the Feds. When all State laws are made in DC, the Constitution will be gone.
It may well be. But Roe v Wade irrational nonsense started it. Plunged us all the way down the Rabbit Hole.
How to get out?
This is a start.
Everyday laws such as murder were reserved to the States. It is all about division of power and responsibility among the different governments. The States retained certain responsibilities while ceding other responsibilities to the Federal government. This started when the thirteen original states created the Federal government. When the Federal government takes over State responsibilities the divisions agreed to in the constitution become a meaningless joke.
States passing laws outlawing abortions of convince is just fine by me.
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.
