Another Legislative Trojan Horse...

[khaosworks]

...Another Paving Stone On The Road To Heck By Mr. Terence Chua, Who Has Been Kicked In The Balls Enough To Respect Women's Rights To What Happens To Their Own Body

House passes bill to protect fetuses

WASHINGTON (AP) --The House voted Thursday to subject assailants who injure or kill a pregnant woman and her fetus to two separate crimes. The bill would for the first time under federal law give victim's rights to a fetus.

The bill, championed by conservative groups, drew opposition from others concerned that conferring new rights on the fetus would undermine abortion rights.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was approved 254-163 after the House rejected a Democratic-led alternative that would have increased penalties for those attacking a pregnant woman but continue to regard the offense as perpetrated on one victim.

"That little unborn child is intrinsically precious and valuable and deserving of standing in the law and protection," argued Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Illinois.

The legislation now must be taken up by the Senate, where abortion rights forces are stronger and passage is more uncertain.

President Bush has promoted the bill, an election-year priority for his conservative base.

Consider that if indeed you want to punish a person for being responsible for injuring a pregnant woman and her fetus, it is simple enough to simply add a rider that if the woman is pregnant, it is an aggravating circumstance that demands a greater sentence. There is no real need to provide for two separate crimes - it needlessly complicates the evidence, because you now have two separate sets of elements of the crime to prove.

I suspect, like many others, that real purpose of the legislation is to attempt to establish the legal precedent of defining the fetus as a separate entity from the mother, and thereby laying the groundwork for a future argument that, since assaulting a fetus is considered a separate crime, then so is abortion.

The bill, S. 1019, in fact, uses the term "unborn child" when referring to the fetus - another possible link to children's legislation. The term "child in utero" or "unborn child" in the act is defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." I'm no biologist, but that sounds like it means anything from a zygote on up is covered, eliminating any kind of definition based on trimesters or the possibility of the survival of the fetus away from the body - the latter which is used as a definition for when the child becomes a separate entity in some legal jurisdictions.

While it is indeed true that an exception to prosecution is made for an abortion carried out with the woman's express consent (or implied by law in the case of a medical emergency), this doesn't necessarily assuage future concerns. A future bill could easily remove the woman's ability to consent to an abortion regardless, or that consent cannot be implied by law, rendering the exception moot.

Like I said, I'm suspicious of slippery slope arguments, so I'm not saying that this will inevitably follow. However, I'm looking at the legislation and thinking to myself that this sets an uncomfortable precedent, not mention that it's a response that goes beyond the needs for which the act claims it is addressing.

Time to write your Senators, methinks.

Comments

[kitanzi.livejournal.com]

By Mr. Terence Chua, Who Has Been Kicked In The Balls Enough To Respect Women's Rights To What Happens To Their Own Body

Ah, is THAT what it takes? I think we need to organize a road trip to DC.... *evil grin*

[mihrimah.livejournal.com]

I lived in DC for about twenty years, fifteen of which I remember. Sadly, most of the politicians I remember meeting didn't have any balls.

[kitanzi.livejournal.com]

Oh well, so much for that plan.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I'm suspicious of slippery slope arguments, so I'm not saying that this will inevitably follow.

There's a difference between a slippery slope argument that states because A, B will inevitably occur and one that says A is being enacted intentionally as a prelude to B. In this case, it seems to a great many people that there is future intent involved, as you yourself seem to perceive. We might all be wrong, but the evidence suggests that it's a valid concern.

Senators and Congresscritters have been written, on this and several other issues of the past few days.