STANEK: Unborn Victims Act helps aborted victims


	Photo of Tracy Marciniak of Wisconsin holding her dead son, Zachariah, at his funeral. Zachariah was killed by his father when he punched Tracy in the stomach during her ninth month of pregnancy. He was convicted for injuring Tracy but not for killing Zachariah. (Photo courtesy of National Right to Life)

OPINION -- In a statement released after last week’s passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by the U.S. Senate, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy warned, "Giving a fetus at any stage of development [emphasis hers] the same legal rights as the pregnant woman will undermine the right to abortion as guaranteed under Roe v. Wade."

Ah, Kim, out of the mouths of babe killers. You’re so right.

After President Bush signed UVVA today, it became a criminal offense to harm a preborn baby during the commission of a federal crime. In that case, the baby will be considered a human victim in her own right. And yes, Kim, this will make it ever more difficult to rationalize the legality of permitting that same baby to be killed if the perpetrator is her own mother.

Slowly, methodically, pro-lifers are dismembering Roe v. Wade. (They learned this technique from pro-aborts.)

Note that every pro-life advance made over the past few years has had the American public's approval. When the Supreme Court is eventually forced to revisit Roe v. Wade, Americans will be primed to accept it as constitutionally dead.

The 1973 Roe v Wade decision was couched on two shaky premises, both now toppled by scientific, legislative, and regulatory advances.

When the Supreme Court made abortion legal, part of Justice Harry Blackmun's rationale, as he wrote in the majority opinion, was: 1) the Court could not determine whether a fetus was a person protected by the 14th Amendment; and 2) the Court was not required to establish when life begins.

Blackmun feigned ignorance, but he interestingly left the door open for future debate. Specifically, he wrote (emphasis mine):

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment…. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. n51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument n52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

and

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

But in the last 30 years, there have been significant scientific and medical advances that specifically address when life begins and the personhood of fetuses:

In October 2002 the Department of Health and Human Services enacted a regulation giving preborn children welfare benefits. To qualify for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a child is defined as existing "from conception through birth up to age nineteen."
Here we have a federal agency defining "child" to include preborn infants, giving benefits to these distinct human entities. DHHS recognized that from the earliest point of a child’s existence, proper care of the mother results in proper benefit to the child. Illinois participates in SCHIPS with KidCare, which covers "pregnant women and their babies."
This regulation frightens pro-aborts, who pitched a fit when it was passed, because it clearly poses a danger to Roe v. Wade. But they never filed a lawsuit against it, because they did not have a cause of action. They could not produce a plaintiff who is harmed by this regulation. Who is harmed when the government provides benefits to unborn children?
In vitro fertilization was introduced to the public in 1978 with the birth of the first "test tube" baby. IVF dispels the notion that the unborn child is an "appendage" of his mother. A human egg is fertilized with human sperm in a petri dish and placed inside the mother to grow. IVF demonstrates embryos are distinctly separate human entities.
The raging debate over human embryonic stem cells - which scientists named, not I - is because we know that uniting a human egg with a human sperm results in the creation of a human embryo. The debate is not whether these are walrus embryos. The debate is whether experimentation of human embryos is morally acceptable. And, by the way, their exact moment of creation can now be pinpointed by microscope.
Recently the South Dakota legislature undertook to define the existence of the person in the uterus by statute. Although that effort failed, the door is now open for states to define prenatal personhood.
Another important law recently passed is, of course, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the first federal law limiting abortion. The ban was as expected enjoined, but the case is currently being heard in three parts of the country, increasing the likelihood of further education of Americans on the horror of abortion.

The cumulative result of these and other advances is that in 2004 we recognize that preborn children are entitled to statutory identification, health benefits, protection against criminal conduct, and are pinpointed to exist as separate human entities from the single cell stage.

These are waiting to be used as evidence for what Blackmun rhetorically supposed would cause the “collapse” of the Roe v. Wade decision.

The 1973 Supreme Court interestingly addressed but ignored two critical questions: Is the fetus a person? Can there be a consensus drawn as to when life begins? They knew the plaintiff’s case failed if either could be answered in the affirmative, because the 14th Amendment would then apply.

We have the answers. We are now simply awaiting the opportunity for the Supreme Court to ask itself its own questions again.

Thanks to attorney Ed Zielinsky for his help preparing this column.
_________

What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this commentary? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com, and include your name and town.

Jill Stanek became a leader in the Illinois conservative movement when she fought to stop "live birth abortion" after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn. In August 2002, President Bush asked Jill to his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. In November 2003, the White House invited Jill to President Bush's signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Jill continues to press for Illinois to become a state where unborn and newly born babies are safe. Jill is also pro-life coordinator for Concerned Women for America of Illinois and a public speaker around the country.

Thank you for those comments. A ping for pro-lifers to this important piece.
Also, here's a letter to editor of The Leader, to back it up:

Submitted for consideration

Thank you, to The Leader, Jill Stanek, and Ed Zielinsky for your analysis regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Credit goes to President George W. Bush and to the people of conscience (and a bit of courage) in our Congress, for this pivotal Act. Does anyone wonder what it means, to vote for "compassionate conservatives?" Does it make any difference, whether we recruit, support, and elect (actual) Republicans and others who have a respect for the U.S. Constitution?

Here's an answer: It makes a difference, if enough of us become active in the sacred responsibility of electoral campaigning. The forces for killing children know this, from NOW, NARAL, Emily's List, and Planned "Parenthood," to Terry Cosgrove's Personal PAC in our state --and to many of the power and money brokers of both political parties here.

In order to keep denying our Right to Life, we deny our Declaration of Independence and thus our very grounds for being a nation. If we deny our responsibility, we deny our rights. This is a struggle for America and if we are not actively and wisely applying ourselves in it, the denial is ours -- we the People our nation depends upon, you and I, who must give an account for what we have done about it. "Does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" Nothing prevents us from spending our resources together. In one end or another, that will be shown, too.

Our choices are clear here in Illinois this year. Either we get behind not only George W. Bush and Jack Ryan, but take the time to find out now, where our efforts make a difference for legislative and local candidates, or we will find even our critical legislation, such as this very Act of Congress, overturned by the groundless fiat of dictatorial "justices" in funeral black robes.

Arlen Williams
La Grange Park, IL

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.