Posted on 01/28/2003 11:00:40 AM PST by LadyShallott
''Infanticide'' bill new tactic for abortion foes in House
RICHMOND -- The abortion debate in Virginia shifted course on Monday when a House panel passed a bill based on a strict definition of when a birth has occurred -- instead of when a life has begun.
The passage of HB1541 marks a strategic change for socially conservative legislators who are hoping to outlaw so-called ``partial-birth'' abortions. Those efforts have been frustrated by constitutionally protected rights to abortion.
The legislation -- unprecedented in Virginia -- never mentions the word ``abortion.'' Instead, it would establish that a child, in most cases, is born when the entire head is outside the body of the mother. It would make it a felony, punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, for anyone to deliberately take the life of the infant from that point on.
In the case of a breech baby, birth would occur when any part of the infant's trunk past the navel is outside the mother.
The legislation passed the House Courts of Justice Committee on an 18-4 vote and now advances to the full House. Similar legislation is being considered in the Senate.
The sponsor of the House legislation -- Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William -- said he believes the legislation can pass constitutional muster. It was endorsed by Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, a Republican who is expected to run for governor in 2005.
``This bill does not ban any abortion procedure,'' Marshall said. ``It prevents the killing of a partially born child -- it is an infanticide bill. It resolves the question of when abortion ends and infanticide begins.''
The bill was one of four approved Monday by the House panel that would restrict abortion rights in Virginia. The others were the following:
- HB1741, sponsored by Del. Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell, which would let pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions such as high doses of birth-control pills, which can be used to cause abortions, on the grounds of personal conscience.
- HB1580, sponsored by Del. Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania, which would exclude the mental health of the mother as grounds for allowing a late-term abortion.
- HB1402, sponsored by Del. Richard H. Black, R-Loudoun, which would require parental consent before a physician could perform an abortion on a minor.
The votes seemed to point to a breakthrough year for abortion opponents, who increased their ranks during special elections last year and now may have a veto-proof majority in the General Assembly.
Abortion-rights advocates were dismayed.
``This was really a dark day for women,'' said Bennet Greenberg of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia.
``I think what's being done here is to establish a new category of life,'' said Marjorie Signer of the Virginia National Organization for Women. ``The real purpose is to shut down all clinics that provide abortion.''
Marshall said his bill changes the definition of birth from the ``complete expulsion or extraction'' from the mother of a product of human conception, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, to include the ``partial expulsion or extraction.''
Del. Brian J. Moran, D-Alexandria, a member of the committee, asked Marshall how his bill differs from a partial-birth abortion bill debated last year. The bill was approved by the House and Senate but vetoed by Gov. Mark Warner.
``That was an abortion bill; this is an infanticide bill,'' Marshall said.
Bernard L. McNamee, chief counsel to the attorney general's office, said the proposed law takes a very different tack from cases dealing with a woman's right to choose.
While most abortion-related discussions start from the perspective of the woman ``from the inside out,'' Marshall's bill ``looks at this child from the outside in,'' McNamee said.
He said it was the attorney general's position that the legislation is constitutional.
Greenberg said the most recent statistics available from state health officials -- for 2001 -- show that there were only four third-trimester abortions performed in Virginia that year.
He said no evidence was presented that late-term abortions in the state are common and that a law is needed to prevent them.
``In this General Assembly session, you don't have to have a need to pass legislation; you just need to have an ideology,'' Greenberg said.
Signer said the abortion bills passed by the House panel Monday are important.
``They're all bills intended to chip away,'' she said. ``It's all a smoke screen.''
Just think of all the dark days that these BABIES face because of their mothers. Its mind blowing.......
Do you agree with the new ''infanticide'' bill passed in the House?
Yes
47.48%
No
48.26%
Undecided
4.26%
Their "logic" will eventually be put to use against them. I wonder if they'll appreciate the irony?
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
So, to the planned parenthood ghouls, taking away the rite of infanticide is 'a dark day for women.' It is astonish that the American people have been so numbed to the reality of child slaughter that these juxtaposed passages will not awaken such a large percentage of US.
At least no one is sticking a scissors in their heads...
And the election of Abe Lincoln was a "dark day for economy of the South." However, at the time slavery was protected by the US Constitution and was perfectly legal, yet it was immoral and unjust from any religious or ethical perspective.
The pro-aborts are disintegrating and I don't let the idiots and murderers from Planned Parenthood get my dander up anymore. But I think our nation is headed toward another denoument about abortion that will be as equally gut-wrenching as the battle over slavery was. I can't imagine another Civil War but I can envision widespread violence and bloodshed.
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.