Assaulted Mother: 'Don't Tell Me My Son Was Not a Victim'

CNSNews.com ^ | 7/09/03 | Jeff Johnson

[kattracks]

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Tracy Marciniak survived a Feb. 8, 1992, assault for which her then-husband was later convicted. Her unborn son Zachariah did not survive the attack. She has since become an advocate for legislation to punish unborn victims of violence and told members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution about her experience Tuesday.

"The first time I ever held him in my arms, he was already dead," Marciniak said, pointing to a photo of herself holding Zachariah's body at the child's funeral.

"I know that some lawmakers and some groups insist that there is no such thing as an unborn victim and that crimes like this only have a single victim, but that is callous, and it is wrong," she said. "Please don't tell me that my son was not a real victim of a real crime. We were both victims, but only I survived."

Under Wisconsin law at the time of the incident, the ex-husband could not be prosecuted for the unborn child's death, even though the murder occurred just five days before the baby's scheduled delivery date. That state and 28 others now have so-called "fetal homicide" laws on the books, but current federal law still does not allow prosecutions of attackers for murder, even if they knowingly and admittedly assault a pregnant woman with the intent to end the life of her unborn child.

"A remedy to this deficiency is desperately needed now more than ever," said subcommittee Chairman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio).

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997), sponsored by Pennsylvania Republican Melissa Hart, would make it a federal crime, punishable by up to life in prison, to take the life of an unborn child.

"When a woman chooses to have a child, and then someone violently takes that child away from her, I believe there must be accountability," Hart said. "This is especially important because that unborn child is often the motivating factor behind the attack on that pregnant woman."

Nadler says bill is backdoor attempt at rights for 'fetuses'

Homicide has become the leading cause of death among pregnant women, according to recent studies in the states of Maryland, North Carolina and Illinois and in New York City. But New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler opposes the bill.

"We should have no illusions about the purpose of this bill," Nadler argued. "It is...yet another battle in the war of symbols in the abortion debate, in which opponents of [abortion] attempt to establish that fetuses, from the earliest moments of conception, are persons with the same rights as the adult women who are carrying them."

Not so, said Chabot.

"Contrary to allegations made by opponents of the bill, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has nothing to do with abortion," Chabot explained. "In fact, 28 states have had fetal homicide laws on the books, some for over 30 years now, and those challenged have been upheld as constitutional, co-existing with current abortion laws."

Nadler continued to dispute the intent of the legislation.

"The question...is not recognition of a separate crime," Nadler argued, "the question is the rather different question of the recognition of a second victim, or a separate person, of the fetus as a person. That's the real debate here."

Marciniak answered Nadler directly during her testimony.

"Some lawmakers say that criminals who attack a pregnant woman should be punished more severely, but that the law must never recognize someone's unborn child as a legal victim," she said, referring to the so-called "Motherhood Protection Act" (H.R. 2247).

That legislation, sponsored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), would enhance penalties for assaults committed on pregnant women under federal jurisdiction if the assault results in "an interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy." The proposal would not penalize an attacker for the death of an unborn child separately from the assault on the mother.

"There is only one victim in that bill, the pregnant woman," Marciniak told lawmakers. "So, if you vote for that bill, you are really saying all over again to me: 'We're sorry, but nobody really died that night. There is no dead baby in that picture. You were the only victim.'"

Mother urges lawmakers: 'Please remember Zachariah's name and face'

Closing her testimony, Marciniak challenged the members to vote as their consciences dictated - but to consider what they had seen at the hearing.

"If you really think that nobody died that night, if you really think there is no dead baby in that picture, then vote for the Lofgren bill," she concluded. "But please remember Zachariah's name and face when you do so."

In a Newsweek/Princeton Research survey conducted May 29 and 30, 2003, researchers asked: "When, if ever, do you think prosecutors should be able to bring separate murder charges against someone who kills a fetus still in the womb? In other words, try them for two murders instead of one. Do you think this should be done in all cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, only in cases when the fetus is viable - that is able to survive outside the womb - or not at all?"

Of the 1,009 adult respondents, 84 percent believed attackers should be prosecuted for two murders, 56 percent in all cases and an additional 28 percent only when the fetus is viable. Only 9 percent responded that attackers should never be prosecuted for the murder of an unborn child.

The subcommittee is expected to hold a second hearing to consider amendments to the bill, after which it is expected to pass to both the full committee and the House on party-line votes.

E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

 

[johniegrad]

Nadler is a sick man. He is using this issue for promoting his own pro-abortion views.

[Support Free Republic]

Keep Free Republic Rockin' 'Round The Clock!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[tdadams]

She has since become an advocate for legislation to punish unborn victims of violence

Why would anyone want to punish victims?

Someone needs an editor!

[Jim Noble]

"When a woman chooses to have a child, and then someone violently takes that child away from her, I believe there must be accountability," Hart said

This is well motivated, but a terrible mistake nonetheless.

It grants the major premise of the abortion culture-the right to life, indeed the actual existence, of a preborn child is a matter of the pregnant woman's mental state.

If she wants it, it's real.

If she doesn't, it's a lump of tissue.

The locution, "When a woman chooses to have a child" is meaningless in this context. A human being must be defended, or not. Whether that human being's mother has "chosen" it or not acknowledges that said mother has assumed G-dlike power over life and death.

Passing laws like this will actually reinforce the murderous right of "choice".

[John O]

Passing laws like this will actually reinforce the murderous right of "choice".

I disagree Jim.

This law gives the unborn protection and recognition as being alive. This is the first crack in the wall of abortion.

How will future abortionists be able to justify killing someone that is alive? As we continually explain to our children and everyone else we meet that life starts at conception and that that "lump of flesh" is a real live baby, we will win the battle for the mind of the people. Abortion is already losing, this will accelerate that loss.

Anything that forces people to recognize that an unborn baby is still a baby is a good thing. We lost a lot in this country incrementally, we'll regain it incrementally. Be patient.

[Jim Noble]

This law gives the unborn protection and recognition as being alive

Only if their mother wants them.

You are writing the maternal desire standard of personhood into law, and I think it's a big mistake.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[wideawake]

Nadler says bill is backdoor attempt at rights for 'fetuses'

Nadler's concerned that rights for fetuses might undermine his work toward rights for fatasses.