March 15, 2004
Laci and Conner's Bill
U.S. Senate Will Vote on Unborn Victims Bill With No FilibusterWashington, DC (LifeNews.com) Members of the U.S. Senate
have agreed to have a debate and vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act as early as the week of March 22. The Senate has never before voted
on this legislation, that would allow prosecutors to hold
criminals accountable when they kill or injure an unborn child as a
result of an attack on a pregnant woman. One of the biggest hurdles the
bill has faced has been the threat of a filibuster by certain Democratic
senators, which would force supporters to find 60 votes to pass
the legislation. Without the filibuster concern, a simply majority can
pass the bill, turn back a substitute bill and send the
legislation to President Bush, who has been pressuring Congress for
years to send this bill to him.
This isn't a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue in my mind. If a woman wants her baby and a criminal harms her and causes damage/death to the unborn baby he deserves to be punished for two crimes.
In a lot of cases, the offending party is a significant other who wants to force the woman to get an abortion. Even if you're pro-choice, you should want the woman to actually have a choice and not be forced into having an abortion.
This bill will not infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Roe v. Wade court case. Abortionists cannot be charged under this law.
Posted by JasonTromm at March 15, 2004 02:16 PMIt does however set legal precedent for the argument that an in utero fetus is entitled to the same legal protections under the law as any citizen in the U.S.
How this precedent will be used and to what extent remains to be seen. However, it is not accurate that this bill has no bearing on the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice issue or implications for Roe V. Wade. It certainly does have bearing with regard to legal precedent and may very well have repercussions and negative impact upon Roe v. Wade in the not so distant future depending on appointments of retiring S.Court Justices.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 15, 2004 05:29 PM“It does however set legal precedent for the argument that an in utero fetus is entitled to the same legal protections under the law as any citizen in the U.S.”
So does Roe v. Wade regarding the third trimester. But we have been ignoring that for years too. I wouldn’t worry too much about that.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at March 15, 2004 07:46 PMThis isn’t a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue in my mind. If a woman wants her baby and a criminal harms her and causes damage/death to the unborn baby he deserves to be punished for two crimes.
As a strong pro-choicer, that is my position as well. I believe there’s an important distinction between a wanted and an unwanted baby.
Posted by: ceejayoz at March 15, 2004 07:50 PM“As a strong pro-choicer, that is my position as well. I believe there’s an important distinction between a wanted and an unwanted baby.”
So whether an unborn child has a right to be killed is dependant upon if they are “wanted”? you do not find something disturbing in believing that someone’s right to life depends not upon their human rights but upon if another person desires them to be alive?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 15, 2004 09:39 PMDoes an unborn child’s value depend on whether the mother wants to keep the child instead of the child’s intrinsic worth?
Posted by: Clayton W. Smith at March 17, 2004 04:30 PM
