# Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003



## spatulagirl (Feb 21, 2002)

I just read that it passed on Friday...

I am not sure how I feel about this. On one level, it's a great thing.

From the National Right to Life
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/keypointsuvva.html

Quote:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. The exact charge would depend on which federal law is involved, the degree of harm done to the child, and other factors. The bill would apply this two-victim principle to 68 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These laws affect, for example, federal geographical jurisdictions, the military justice system, protection of federal officials, and specific acts defined by law as federal crimes (such as certain terrorist bombings).
I am just concerned because of what it could mean to abortion laws. Granted the site about the Act goes on and on about how it isn't aimed at abortion but they can say that until they are blue in the face and it still seems to me that the right of the unborn is taking precedent over the mother.

This is where I feel conflicted. I would definitely want someone convicted if they committed a crime against me that resulted in the loss of this baby. BUT by passing the Act and making it a law, doesn't that set some sort of legal precedent that takes away MY right to make decisions about my pregnancy? Could the mother commit a crime against her unborn child? Obviously so (I am thinking about the woman charged with murder for her stillborn child after refusing a c-section) but where do they draw the line?

From the Planned Parenthood site
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...n_victims.html

Quote:

Recent research shows that the number one cause of death for pregnant women in the U.S. is homicide. Between four percent and eight percent of all pregnant women in this country are battered by the men in their lives, with the highest rates of violence being experienced by pregnant adolescents. If members of Congress are serious about protecting women, they must fully fund federal programs that are crucial to thousands of battered women and their children across the nation.
I agree with this statement 10000%. Shouldn't we work at healing the root of this evil?

Anybody else conflicted with this soon to be law?


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I may be wrong about this but I beleive that if a pregnant woman is murdered it is considered the murder of two people. I have always been puzzled by this.

If the woman is murdered on her way to the abortion clinic does the murder suddenly become the murder of one because the woman didn't "want" the baby?

When it gets right down to it I think what most people want to do is to define a person in terms of wether they are "wanted".

"wanted child" equals person

"unwanted child" equals non--person
This way of defining personhood is problematic because the physical reality remains the same in both cases.

The physical reality of the uncorn child is unchanging wether it is wanted or not.
Why shouldn't their rights be?


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Am kind of mixed on this as well. If it wasn't careful to exclude abortion or any contemplated medical treatment or act of the mother, would be sadly against it.

Am thinking it's more to increase punishment against perpetrators than to get a foot in the door against abortion ... though in the public psyche, that is what it will do, too.

All very complicated.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

It's important to also consider the cases where the mother is not killed but the baby is killed. As a counselor in a pregnancy center, I have counseled several women who were reluctantly considering abortion because their sperm donors were threatening to punch them in the stomach, shoot them in the belly, etc. I think it is great that these men will now be charged with murder if they kill the baby but "only" hurt the mother.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

As far as undermining legal abortion, I think its value lies more in the way it will influence public opinion. If you have a fence-straddler on abortion who sees that Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc. are fighting this tooth and nail, that fence straddler might feel alienated from the pro-choice position. Kind of like the PBA ban. The pro-choicers are on the defensive, being pushed and pushed and made to look callous and radical.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I think the question is do we need a federal law on this? Because I know some states already have such laws. And they have managed it without effecting abortion rights.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I wonder what this will mean in the future. I don't know about it, but I have a bad feeling in my heart about it.

I think that yes, when a man kills a pregnant woman, he should face extra penalties. But I don't know how that translates.

This is a very confusing law. And I think it is confusing intentionally.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

If someone kills me and my baby - whether he is outside of my womb or in it - d*mn straight they should be held accountable for both deaths.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Never thought I'd say this but...I have to agree with paxetbonum.









(just kidding pax!







)

How does one consider "want" in this case? If a woman was planning an abortion and then her baby was killed how is that going to affect her case? If we say that "wanted-ness" isn't an issue, then I get very concerned about how this applies to women's right to choose.

I've also wondered the same thing about the reverse though (just to show this isn't just a pro-choice issue). If abortion were to be made illegal, if fetus's have the same rights as adults, can we prosecute a women who smokes during PG? What about a women who does drugs? Or heck, will I be hauled off to jail for assault if I have a glass of wine? Who will decided what is "healthy" and what is "unhealthy" for a woman to do during PG? Is this going to affect our birth and prenatal care choices?

None of this is an easy issue, I just hope that the makers of this law worded it in a way that left it very difficult to draw planned abortion into the fray.


----------



## CerridwenLorelei (Aug 28, 2002)

well not funny really Piglet
I don't have them off hand but have heard in passing on the radio and walking by tv's about people being charged or wanting to charge women who smoke or drink while pg...
anyone know if those have come about??


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

I would hate to see how this kind of law could be misused. A woman who doesn't follow the standard medical model of prenatal care and birth could be charged with a crime. For example someone who delivers unassisted where the baby dies, someone who refuses antibiotics etc. It's already like that in many cases.
Also, there could be cases were an attacker is unaware that a woman is pregnant and does not have the intent to kill. So should he be tried as a murderer?


----------



## CerridwenLorelei (Aug 28, 2002)

Arduinna do you have a list of those states??


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Another linkprenatal politics

Quote:

Sen. Diane Feinstein(D-CA) proposed a substitute amendment that had the same structure and similiar penalties as the bill that passed, but did not undermine Row v. Wade by recognizing an embryo or fetus as a seperate legal "person" This amendment failed by a very close vote of 50-49.

Quote:

Leading organizations commited to ending violence against women testified that the "Unborn Victims Violence Act" is not designed to protect women and does not help victims of domestic abuse. Domestic violence groups urge a response to the problem that include early intervention and prevention of violence against women.
Shouldn't this be the goal-to stop the violence??

This is another way to erode abortion rights. Even Samuel Casey an anti-abortion leader said in the article "In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person... That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection-even protection that would trump a woman's interst in terminating a pregnancy."

This should b about violence commited against a pregnant woman, not about abortion!!! I think this makes pro-life leaders look radical and sneaky!

I have no problem with punishing a person for harming or killing a woman and/or her unborn, but I do have a problem when some people and groups use this suffering for political gain and their agenda.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

I don't know all states, but I know california has a law.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I don't know; I think (and I'm saying this being a pro-choicer myself) that the whole slippery slope argument is very extremist. If a man is sick enough to attack a woman.... whether it is his intent to kill or not.... and he kills a baby in the process, well, too bad for him! What in the heck was he doing abusing - or trying to kill - a woman in the first place?????

Yes, a baby inside a mother's womb has rights. Who cares if she is on her way to get an abortion when she and her baby get killed? It is her choice to abort, NOT the attacker's!

I am really confused by slippery slope arguments. They seem extremist and don't do much good for the pro-choice cause.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*
I am really confused by slippery slope arguments. They seem extremist and don't do much good for the pro-choice cause.*
The fact that proposing this law so quickly becomes a choice debate is exactly the point. It shouldn't be about being pro-choice at all, really. An example of what I touched on earlier is the rather frequent situation of a drunk driver who causes an accident in which innocents are killed. The perpetrators are often severly charged, with manslaughter and the like. What if such an accident caused no deaths or serious injury, but only a miscarriage? It's irresponsible and tragic, but is it murder? The fact is, it's slippery, and you can't make these things black and white. Personally, I think the real criminals are those that poison the unborn, as well as the born, with toxic industrial by-products such as the very common methylmercury (coal power), blithely and unfettered by any laws.
But maybe that's just me...


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:

What if such an accident caused no deaths or serious injury, but only a miscarriage? It's irresponsible and tragic, but is it murder?
Absolutely.

Think of it this way.......... a drunk driver hits a woman who is 40 weeks pregnant, on her way to the hospital to give birth. The baby dies. Is it murder?

The woman is giving birth in her car. She won't make it to the hospital in time. Her car gets hit and the baby gets killed. Is it murder?

Where do we draw the line? We can't. Only the mothers of those babies can. If someone is acting wrecklessly or violently and they kill a woman's child in the process, it is murder. It really is quite simple.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

The example of a woman who is about to give birth is, in my mind, far more grave than a woman only three months pregnant, who would have gone on to give birth six months down the line had she not been in the accident. But really, who is to say one is worse than the other? It seems worse to me. It would seem worse to a jury, too. What troubles me is the idea that someone is going to be locked up as a murderer who actually isn't one. They screwed up, but the punishment is extreme. For heaven's sake, the premier of BC was arrested for drunk driving in Hawaii awhile ago. He was really quite drunk. He could have killed someone...but didn't...so runs the province instead of spending his entire life behind bars. That's just weird. It's luck, not murder.
That is why we don't have computers doling out justice. Punch in the crime, dole out a sentance. No thinking needed. Juries and judges think. Every circumstance is different. Sometimes it would be murder and sometimes not depending on intent. That's how it works anyway.


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

Hi everyone,

What we have here is two discussions, sort of, at once. There is the whole issue of whether ending the life of a fetus is murder and the person responsible should charged with murder or not.

Then there is the issue of the political reasons for this bill. I am a pro-choicer although I do believe that someone killing or injuring a pregnant woman should be responsible for the death of her fetus.

HOWEVER

The issue behind this bill is one to lead to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This administration has a large body of anti-abortionists that it has promised a reversal of this law to. It must do everything it can do to so, and this bill is one of the stages in making it possible.

We must take this into account. Someone else could write a very similar bill that would take such perps to account without eroding a woman's right to choose. But not the people sponsoring this bill.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

PikkuMyy,
I completely agree. Must keep that in perspective!


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

What about cases where women are forced physically into abortions. . . These happen too.

Should that constitute murder?

Anyway you look at it if you make the argument that the rights of the fetus are contingent on the wishes of the mother than there HAVE to be circumstances where the killing of the unborn baby is murder.

Unfortunatly, if people admit this then they are made uncomfortable because there are simply no other instances legally, where someone's personhood is dependent upon circumstance.

And that should make us feel uncomfortable. . . because personhood and the dignity and rights of the individual shouldn't be dependant on wether we are wanted or wether we physically depend on others for our life.

Also doesn't anyone else find it a bit chilling that the hateful men who abuse women like this have more rights in our legal system than the unborn child?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I have to say that, while I am very pro-choice and very suspicious of the Bush administration having put this bill through (ITA with PikkuMyy)...I have to agree with whoever said that if it were ME and they killed MY unborn child, I would most definitely consider it murder.

Mind you, after you've lost your child, really what difference does it make what they call the crime? Your child is gone and that is that. Nothing will bring it back. I don't think any violent criminal takes into consideration the punishment - so really what does it matter if he gets jailed for murder or something less severe? Another reason I question this bill's intent.

It's definitely a sticky issue!


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

Piglet68, you're probably right about violent criminals, and so maybe this wouldn't affect _random violence_, but I think it will be very helpful in curbing the abuse of pregnant women by their sperm donors. Men who do not want to take responsibility for the children they have sired basically take it upon themselves to appropriate the "right to choose." Do you remember the case of Rae Carruthers, the football player who had his pregnant girlfriend shot a couple of years ago b/c he didn't want to have to pay her and money for the baby? I followed that case closely b/c the murder happened about 5 minutes from my parents' home. Well, he tried to excuse himself, saying, _I never meant to kill her, I just wanted to end the pregancy._ He didn't want to see himself as a murderer. In his mind, if his hitman had succeeded in just killing the baby but not her, there would have been no murder. Getting it into these scumbags' heads that killing the baby _is_ murder is, I believe, going to make them think twice about trying to "get rid of the problem."


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Also, there could be cases were an attacker is unaware that a woman is pregnant and does not have the intent to kill. So should he be tried as a murderer?
Yes, he should be tried for manslaughter, which I believe is what the court calls it when you accidently kill someone. Intent isn't the whole issue when you kill someone. The issue is that you killed. Intent factors into what exactly you end up getting charged with.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by phathui5_
*Yes, he should be tried for manslaughter, which I believe is what the court calls it when you accidently kill someone. Intent isn't the whole issue when you kill someone. The issue is that you killed. Intent factors into what exactly you end up getting charged with.*
That makes sense to me.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

I do think that they should be charged with murder. But, i don't think it should be a political tool for anti-abortion groups. I think that we as a nation need to stop domestic abuuse!! Where is the legislation for that! That is why domestic abuse groups testified in this bill. They want to stop the abuse before it happens, not turn it into trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. Which many groups are trying to do.


----------



## indie (Jun 16, 2003)

When I was 7 or 8 months pregnant with my dd and waiting to ride the subway to work I picked up a newspaper. The lead story was about a shooting that had happened the previous day on the very subway that I was about to ride. A woman who was 8.5 months preganant got caught in the crossfire of a shotting and her unborn son was killed. In Massachusetts they have a law that the killing is considered a separate crime if the baby would have been viable.

I cannot tell you how much that event impacted me. Everyone keeps talking about how this might erode a woman's right to choose to abort her fetus. But what about a woman's right to NOT abort her fetus? Anyone who advocates for the former but not the latter is a hypocrite.

Please read this excellent article which explains much better than I can why killing a fetus should be considered murder even though abortion is not.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

This makes sense.....

Quote:

Pro-life members of the class are understandably upset with the ruling. And pro-choice students point out that the choice of abortion belongs to the mother, and that taking away that choice by killing her fetus without her consent does as much -- or more -- violence to reproductive freedom as a prohibition against abortion would.
But reading about the Keeler case was a bit much for me....being six months pregnant and all....


----------



## mocha09 (Jul 6, 2003)

This really is a touchy issue. I think the key that makes it scary for abortion-rights activists is that it specifically defines a fetus as (I don't remember the exact words they use) as ANY stage of the pregnancy. This could lead to an expansion of the partial-birth abortion laws to all abortion laws.

I very much agree with this:
Pro-life members of the class are understandably upset with the ruling. And pro-choice students point out that the choice of abortion belongs to the mother, and that taking away that choice by killing her fetus without her consent does as much -- or more -- violence to reproductive freedom as a prohibition against abortion would.

On the other hand, when I was teaching in Cleveland, one of our techers was attacked by a 7th grade girl, and she lost her baby. She was 6 1/2 months pregnant. The girl was not charged with any crime to the baby; only assault on the teacher.

When I was 11 weeks pregnant, I was assaulted inlcluding getting kicked in the abdomen. I bled a little bit and was so scared I was going to lose my baby. (I didn't.) I wondered if I did, if the person who did it could be charged. All throughout the rest of my pregnancy I felt very vulnerable and scared that someone was gonig to harm or kill my baby before she was born, and wondered how that would play out legally.

I believe in abortion rights, but I also believe that when someone takes away a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, that is an extreme form of violence, even murder. It makes it murky. It challenges my thinking. That means that I believe that if the woman wants the baby, it is murder. If the woman ends the pregnancy on her own will, it is not. Pretty messed up.







:


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

Domestic violence? Rape? Abortion?

They all seem to me like symptoms of the same problem.


----------

