Victims Of Violence Act Stalled

Traditional Values Coalition ^ | TVC

[webber]

Unborn Victims Of Violence Act Stalled

Summary: On July 23, 2003, Senate Democrats refused to allow a vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019).

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) held a press conference on July 23, 2003 to urge passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019). Democrats successfully blocked a full Senate vote.

senator diane feinstein (d-ca) is planning on offering a list of amendments to S. 1019 next week that will effectively gut the effectiveness of this legislation.

Pro-abortionists are determined to make sure that no humanity is accorded the unborn child-not even if the unborn baby is a "wanted" child-and is killed during the commission of a federal crime.

Senator Frist considers this priority legislation: "It's critical that the Senate pass this legislation.

There have been numerous cases of attacks against pregnant women where both the mother and unborn child have lost their lives-including the recent tragic deaths of Laci and her unborn son Connor Peterson. But today, there is no federal law permitting prosecutors to charge suspects with taking the life of both mother and child."

According to Frist, S. 1019 will establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence, the perpetrator will be charged with two offenses. This would apply to 68 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence.

Twenty-seven states already have laws that provide for two charges against an assailant if an unborn child is killed or injured.

Mrs. Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson is lobbying for passage of this federal law. In a letter written to Members of Congress on June 16, 2003, Mrs. Rocha writes: "When a criminal attacks a woman who carries a child, he claims two victims. I lost a daughter, but I also lost a grandson."

Rocha opposes substitute legislation proposed by Democrats called the "single- victim law." Under Democrat proposals, there would be no two-victim charge against the criminal but only enhanced penalties should a crime disrupt a woman's pregnancy. According to Rocha, "The advocates of the single-victim amendment seem to think that the only thing that matters is how severe a sentence can be meted out-but they are wrong. It matters even more that the true nature of the crime be recognized, so that the punishment-which should indeed be severe-will fit the true nature of the crime."

Mrs. Tracy Marciniak lost her son Zachariah when she was terribly beaten by an assailant. As she was hospitalized for her injuries, she was informed that law enforcement authorities in her state were only going to charge the criminal with assault against her. No charges would be filed for killing her son.

Later, her state passed an unborn victim's law, but there was no justice for Zachariah. Marciniak argues in favor of S. 1019. To those lawmakers who refuse to recognize that her son died in the attack against her, she says: "I say, no surviving mother, father, or grandparent should ever again be told that their murdered loved one never even existed in the eyes of the law."

For detailed information on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act-and to read Tracy Marciniak's testimony before Congress, access the National Right to Life Committee web site.

TAKE ACTION: Urge your Senators to support passage of S. 1019, without changes advocated by pro-abortion Democrats.

---

This article comes from http://traditionalvalues.org

---

[dirtboy]

But today, there is no federal law permitting prosecutors to charge suspects with taking the life of both mother and child.

Uh, maybe because this is a state issue?

[1stFreedom]

This is not a State's right issue.

The right to life is a Federal issue. I know that libertarians cringe at that though.

[dirtboy]

The right to life is a Federal issue. I know that libertarians cringe at that though.

Most murder laws are at the state level. This ain't a libertarian issue, it's a federalist one. Get your terminology straight.

[JohnnyZ]

Uh, maybe because this is a state issue?

No murders have ever been tried in federal court, huh? Swift.

[wimpycat]

Once again, let me see if I can clarify this state/fed issue with respect to this bill.

This bill will have NO EFFECT ON STATE LAW!!!!

It's is ONLY APPLICABLE WHERE THERE IS FEDERAL JURISDICTION, such as a military base.

For example, if a man kicks his pregnant wife in the belly so hard that the baby is expelled from the uterus into the abdominal cavity, so that the near full-term baby suffocates, there is no provision in Federal law to charge him with anyone's death. Only assault.

This really happened at an Army or Air Force base several years ago. The baby was within a week of its due date. The husband was charged with assaulting his wife, but the baby's death? Nothing.

[wimpycat]

I meant to preface my example with "If, on a military base..."

[dirtboy]

No murders have ever been tried in federal court, huh? Swift.

What percentage of murders are tried in federal court? The feds typically only get standing if the crime involves crossing state lines. What percentage of murder laws are at the state level?

Try again. I agree with what the law is trying to do - but pursue it at the state level - because if you seek this power at the federal level, it can very easily be turned by the pro-abort forces a few years later.

[dirtboy]

But the examples from the article are state-level crimes. If this is being applied to only crimes that currently exist at the federal level, fine. But I imagine that is a very, very small number of such occurrences, if any, so this law would be more symbolic than anything.

[wimpycat]

I hope you read my earlier post. This is not a state's rights issue.

For example, if Scott Peterson was in the Marines and had killed his pregnant wife and unborn child at Camp Pendleton, there could be only one murder charge...not two.

[Dan from Michigan]

This should be a state issue unless on federal property.

That said all 50states should pass a similar law on their level.

[Dan from Michigan]

because if you seek this power at the federal level, it can very easily be turned by the pro-abort forces a few years later.

That's what scares me.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

For example, if Scott Peterson was in the Marines and had killed his pregnant wife and unborn child at Camp Pendleton, there could be only one murder charge...not two.

Not to go off on a tangent, but why would this matter? Its not like a person such as Peterson in such a case would be aquitted of the murder of his wife, but convicted of the murder of the unborn son.

[JohnnyZ]

Dan, what power are you scared of? The power of the feds to try federal crimes under federal law?

[Dan from Michigan]

Dan, what power are you scared of?

The feds usurping the states. Some activist judges also usurping state laws that cover the issue.

[JohnnyZ]

Not to go off on a tangent, but why would this matter?

Because it's the difference between killing one person and killing two people.

[wimpycat]

You are right, the examples given are state level examples, including the example I used earlier. I was thinking of Tracy Marciniak, but it turns out that didn't happen on a military base. In her testimony to the House, she acknowledges that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would have made no difference to her case.

Yeah, they are using state level examples, but in reality the bill will only affect federal law, not state law.

I don't know why they are trying to deliberately cloud the issue by mixing state with federal, because it causes confusion over jurisdiction, like it just did with you. Lindsey Graham, now in the Senate, was an original sponsor of this bill in the House (it has passed the House a couple of times, but gets stalled in the Senate), was the best explainer of the bill. He said that many states have a similar law, but there if you assault a woman and kill her unborn baby on a military base, in a post office, or wherever the feds have jurisdiction, there is absolutely no way to charge the assailant with a death. This bill would change that.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Well, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution names the crimes the Federal government has jurisdiction over. They only include:

"To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;"

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; "

The article mentions 68 Federal crimes of violence. That sounds like 67 too many conmsidering piracy is the only one the Feds were given power to punish for.

[wimpycat]

Not to go off on a tangent, but why would this matter? Its not like a person such as Peterson in such a case would be aquitted of the murder of his wife, but convicted of the murder of the unborn son.

It would matter if he had pushed her down the stairs, and she survived and the baby didn't. He would have killed somebody, but Federal law won't recognize the baby as being somebody.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Because it's the difference between killing one person and killing two people.

Can the accused be convicted of killing one, and not the other in a situation like the Scott/Laci Peterson case? No.