Posted on 07/24/2003 1:29:32 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
The Senate may be closer to considering the Unborn Victims of Violence Act if Senate leaders can agree on the terms of the debate.
Senate Majority Leader Bill First (R-TN) sought unanimous consent on Wednesday to bring up the pro-life bill (S 1019). However, Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid (D-NV), objected.
Reid told Frist he objected because pro-abortion Senators, led by Diane Feinstein (D-CA) wanted to offer a number of amendments to the bill. He said Democrats may be ready as early as Thursday to bring up the bill for consideration.
Pro-life advocates expect Feinstein will offer a competing bill in the form of an amendment.
The Feinstein measure would simply enhance the penalty against a criminal who assaults a pregnant woman, but would not recognize the unborn child as a victim of a violent crime. Prosecutors would then not be able to bring extra charges against criminals who kill or injure an unborn child as a result of an assault against a pregnant mother.
Cathy Cleaver, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told LifeNews.com that abortion advocates who oppose the Unborn Victims bill and attempt to water it down with pro-abortion amendments don't have the best interests of women in mind.
"It's ironic, to say the least, that some so-called women's groups are opposing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act," Cleaver said. "No woman must ever be told she lost nothing when she loses her child to a brutal attacker. Women deserve better than having their child killed by a criminal and their baby's death ignored by the justice system."
Pro-life Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) is the leading sponsor of the Unborn Victims bill in the Senate. The bill is Senate counterpart to House legislation, sponsored by pro-life Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA), that passed the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee last week.
Dewine said a "gap in the law leads to a glaring injustices because current law only recognizes one victim when a pregnant woman is attacked or murdered. Clearly, there are two victims in these crimes. We cannot let criminals escape penalty. We must close this loophole.”
More than sixty federal crimes are written into the criminal code. Examples of such federal crimes of violence would include kidnapping across state lines, drug-related drive-by shootings, or assault on federal property. If an unborn child is harmed during these crimes, current federal law does not allow charges relating to the harm done to the child.
The Senate has never voted on the legislation.
Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, has written senators urging them to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators and urge strong support for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. You can reach them at 202-224-3121 or find specific contact information for each Senator at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The bill does two things. It adds legal protections for pre-born child against ILLEGAL, acts of violence by persons other than the mother which injure or kill a pre-born human being. The bill also protects the current state legal standing of the mother as the ONLY person who can choose the death of her pre-born children.
Aardvark1,
We agree on the constitutionality of Unborn Victims Bill. We may differ on the "the problem". So, what's the problem?
Abortion should be apposed by members of the human race because we each have shared the same state of being as those aborted.
It is hypocrisy defined to kill other human beings exactly like us, in exchange for recreational procreation acts.
The problem is that too many are willfully blind to the human ethic violated by humanicide.
What Constitutional authority does congress have in determining what makes a crime and what doesn't unless the crime falls specifically within an area of federal authority as per the Constitution? Are the fed crimes referred to in the article really legitimate areas for the feds to meddle in? Some probably, but all? Not likely.
What bothers me is that conservatives seem to have no problem ignoring the Constitution when it suits our interest to do so but we whine like babies when liberals do the same thing.
The pro life part of me favors this bill. The Constitutionalist in me says it doesn't pass the smell test for legitimate federal interference.
Excuse the rant, but sometimes I think we need to be more cautious when it comes to our congress critters, even the ones that on the surface seem to be on our side.
We got to the Roe v. Wade "opinion" through clear judicial activism. Privacy, though not clearly defined in the constitution, is stated as the basis on which a mother's super legal right to kill her pre-born children is found. Any opinion that flatly denies rights to persons, can not stand the test of time or reason. Abortions are state sponcored medical intrutions into the early life and sole cause of death of millions of United States' citizens. The status quo in abortion sucks far to many human lives to be considered sane policy for a great many reasons.
The artificial reduction of our national birth rate causes demographic implications far beyond our understanding. For example: more old / less young, social security shortfall.
The moral lies makes possible the destruction of pre-born lives are state sponsored infanticide.
"The pro-life part of me favors this bill. The Constitutionalist in me says it doesn't pass the smell test for legitimate federal interference."
One clear Federal constitutional duty for Federal Executives is the protection of citizens of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. If a newly born baby is a U.S. citizen, then from conception through birth, the life developing in a mother's womb is at least partially human claiming at least partial constitutional protections afforded to human citizens.
We got to the Roe v. Wade "opinion" through clear judicial activism. Privacy, though not clearly defined in the constitution, is stated as the basis on which a mother's super legal right to kill her pre-born children is found. Any opinion that flatly denies rights to persons, can not stand the test of time or reason. Abortions are state sponcored medical intrutions into the early life and sole cause of death of millions of United States' citizens. The status quo in abortion sucks far to many human lives to be considered sane policy for a great many reasons.
The artificial reduction of our national birth rate causes demographic implications far beyond our understanding. For example: more old / less young, social security shortfall.
The moral lies makes possible the destruction of pre-born lives are state sponsored infanticide.
"The pro-life part of me favors this bill. The Constitutionalist in me says it doesn't pass the smell test for legitimate federal interference."
One clear Federal constitutional duty for Federal Executives is the protection of citizens of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. If a newly born baby is a U.S. citizen, then from conception through birth, the life developing in a mother's womb is at least partially human claiming at least partial constitutional protections afforded to human citizens.
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.