I am very concerned about the passage of the Unborn Victims..

[Maat]

of Violence Act. I'm a 45-year-old feminist, and I remember women dying as a result of trying to terminate pregnancies that they could ill-afford due to lives replete with abuse, abject poverty and intense social pressure. This Act, which is reprehensible, passed without a peep. It defines a fertilized egg as a murder victim. This could lead to someone being charged with murder because she took a birth control pill and the egg did not attach to the uterine wall. Although it makes an exception for legal abortion, it is leading us down a road on which even birth control will be forbidden. This shocks the conscience! Obviously, the authors have not had a rape victim cry on their shoulders as I did, when I was a social worker. Obviously, the proponents have not seen a child in agony from abuse ... because Mom abused the child (lost it a couple of times) ... because she had been coerced into continuing a pregnancy, for 9 agonizing months, due to social pressure, keeping the baby due to social pressure. Generations have now been raised taking contraception and the right to terminate a pregnancy for granted. Living in a theocracy in which women are property who have no control over their bodies will not be enjoyable. Also, it is a complete myth that there are enough adoptive parents out there for the children that result from unwanted pregnancies. Oh, sure, there are plenty around that want white babies that have not been exposed to either abuse or illegal street drugs, and who have been legally relinquished (avoiding a year-long wait to adopt); but there are not enough if there are any complications. This post is from the heart. So, even if you are against abortion personally, or you don't believe in late-term procedures, surely you cannot be serious about going back to a repressive society in which a Double Standard rules. I'm sorry, but I'm sad. I'm going to have to fight a won-battle all over again.

[Dookus]

1. don't worry

no legislation can overturn the basic protections found in Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut.

Both have been upheld repeatedly, and no simple law can undo that. They'd need to amend the constitution.

[Maat]

3. I hope not. Thanks.

Just another reason to get the current administration out in November 2004. It just amazes me that they are unrelenting in forcing their religious views on the rest of us. And that is what is happening -- Bush referred to a 'culture of life' when he signed the bill -- code phrase for imposing extreme religious right views on the rest of the country. Believe me, Resident Bush was no where around when I was trying to find quality homes for unwanted children. They are such hypocrites.

[question everything]

18. No, all they need to do is nominate one more Thomas

to the Supreme Court and then have the court take a "fresh" look at Roe vs. Wade. At least as a Federal law. Individual states will always have a right to choose, the way it was before 1973.

This is why it is so maddening when I read on these pages that some would vote for Nader, or some would not vote for Kerry, but would stay home since their candidate lost. The next president will nominate at least one, perhaps two supreme court justices. It is the right to privacy across the spectrum: from right to choose to the patriot act.

[jsw_81]

20. Don't be so sure

If Bush gets a second term, it's only a matter of time before he appoints enough Supreme Court justices who will almost certainly overturn Roe.

[Hekate]

23. It's almost a done deal by this time

The rabid arm of the right-to-lifers have managed to threaten, shame, stalk, coerce, and murder enough doctors and clinic staff AND THEIR FAMILIES that abortion is now UNAVAILABLE in at least 80% of counties in the US. They realized that doctors are the weak link in the chain, and set out to break them, and they have succeeded.

So folks, if abortion and morning-after pills and contraception are still legal but you can't find a provider within a hundred miles, where does that leave you?

I used to naively believe that if enough women and men were educated in contraception and it was widely available, then we might be able to make abortion very rare indeed. But when I see the extent to which the wingnut branch of the anti-choice movement goes to banish rational birth control methods and availability, then I begin to think that the actual goal is to exert absolute control over the behavior of women and to punish them for transgression.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act will not save the life of even one woman or baby. None. Like "3 Strikes" laws, it's solely about punishment after the fact.

However, it does manage to put into law the concept that a fetus is a separate person, and its language could be interpreted -- and assuredly will be interpreted -- to mean that an abortion provider can be once again charged with murder. It also is likely to be used to further persecute pregnant women whose lifestyle choices are less than optimal according to those who set themselves up to judge such things. It won't provide moms-to-be with prenatal exams, food, or vitamins however -- although under one lovely Republican bill the pregnant woman can take her fetus in for prenatal care under a children's medical provision.

Handmaid's Tale, anyone?

All that's needed is to get one, just one, Supreme Court Justice appointment to tip the balance and Roe vs. Wade will be gutted. I absolutely believe they can manage to do that.

Hekate

[WillParkinson]

2. I believe in the right to choose...

But in cases where a pregnant woman is assaulted and the life inside her is terminated against her will I don't have a problem with charging the person who commits the act with additional penalties.

HOWEVER...

I do have a problem with trying to extend that to curtailing abortion or those who provide it.

[Maat]

4. I am scared, Will, that they will try to extend and extend it.

Of course, I don't have a problem with providing additional penalties for a heinous crime. But the fact that they rejected a proposal to provide for additional penalties for the unlawful and unwanted termination of a pregnancy tells me what this is really about -- it is an attempt to weaken Roe v. Wade.

[Maat]

5. Back-alley abortions forced upon women by their 'lovers.'

A close relative was involved with a prominent right-winger. He threatened her if she did not get an illegal abortion pre-Roe. He pressured her into terminating the pregnancy at the same time he was speaking out against a woman's right to choose. That is the unconscionable hypocrisy that goes on when we do not have a constitutionally-protected right to choose.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

21. Bloody oath

But in cases where a pregnant woman is assaulted and the life inside her is terminated against her will I don't have a problem with charging the person who commits the act with additional penalties.

A friend of mine at high school once said that if his girlfriend became pregnant and wouldn't have an abortion he would "accidently" knee her in the abdomen. He ceased to be my friend with that comment.

Don't know what the law is regarding that in my country, but I think in and of itself that law is a good idea. I hope your fundamentalists lose power before they can misuse it.

[nostamj]

6. dig this... from Randi Rhodes today....

this law only applies to FEDERAL crimes.

it would NOT affect Scott Peterson or any of the hideous shit that the repubs displayed on the Senate floor.

FEDERAL crimes.

as Randi pointed out... that means DRUG crimes.

women who kill there unborn children with DRUGS is the target.

but, of course, the subtext is the FEDERAL legitimization of the zygote as citizen with rights...

[Maat]

9. Nostamj...thanks. Notice that...

no one is attempting to prosecute Rush for damaging his sperm DNA if he abuses drugs. I know it was a tragedy that a twin died because that one poor mentally-ill woman would not have a C-section at the right time. But who controls my body -- me or my male doctor? As an ex-social-worker, I am very against prosecutions of women for murder for what they did when they were pregnant. What a slippery slope! People judging drug addicts when they have no idea how hard it is to quit and create this magical little middle class life after growing up with your father raping you. How long before a woman is prosecuted for not drinking enough orange juice or something and having a miscarriage? These people are judgmental hypocrites that want to feel superior to the poor and abused -- while they enjoy their filet mignon at night! Unbelievable!

[nostamj]

11. this POS legislation

made the slope a LOT more slippery!

the subtext is the FEDERAL legitimization of the zygote as citizen with rights...

[lastknowngood]

7. You are 100% right to be worried. There will be a case before

the election where some right wing prosecutor will use this to go after a woman who has a abortion. I would bet big money on it. It's a great way to fire up the anti-christen sons a bitches and it won't get thrown out of court until next year, however if the shrub gets reselected then the court will overturn roe=v-wade. The supremes have already decided to do so but did not do it this year because of the selection. If you do a goggle search you might find the statement by them. It's all over but the dieing in the streets. Your now living in a Handmaids tale.

[Maat]

10. I fear that you are quite correct, lastknowngood.

n/t.

[truebrit71]

8. On it's face the bill makes sense..

..afterall why shouldn't it be a crime to deliberately harm an unborn child?

Now, before everyone launches into me about where this road can lead, I would like to stress that I am FIERCELY pro-choice, and find it disgusting that a bunch of old white men see themselves as being superior enough to tell my wife and my daughter what they may, or may not do with their bodies. (That's MY job...;-)) But as it is written the law is a paper tiger. It is a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of a FEDERAL crime, and as long as Roe V Wade is the law of the land, abortion is NOT a FEDERAL crime, therefore this law will have no impact on the legality of abortions...Sure, I'm sure that there will be some nutcase somewhere that will try to stretch this law, but I think that it is fairly obvious that this is a case of the Republican Taliban Politicians trying to appeal to their rabid religious fanatic base...

[Malva Zebrina]

12. Because it is an unborn fetus and not an unborn child

why is it unborn? When you get in the potentiality of life, it becomes a slippery slope. It is simply not sustainable as an argument

why is it an unborn child? Why on earth should we assume it will be a born child. An unborn child could also be a zygote, can it not?

There are thousands of them in cryogenic tubes.

This cannot stand logically. A potential born child is not a child while it is unborn.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

14. As an expectant father I understand wanting to protect the fetus

from people other than its mother. And a cultural imperative to nurture expectant mothers and children is not just a slippery slope legalism. It is genuinely helpful both to them and society at large.

But that should also include healthcare, a clean environment, jobs, peace, childcare, robust schools, sustainable growth-all the progressive qualities of life that the White House neocons and the GOP corporateers are denying us.

(I imagine indicting the current administration for causing harm to American children because of it's destructive and impoverishing domestic policies. Now that would be justice I'd like to see.)

So the legal key to safe guarding abortion is THE MOTHER'S CONSENT being the sole basis for whether or not harm to the fetus is criminal.

That's all that is required to protect a women's right to control her own body.

My wife is the one carrying our child and even though I'm involved and she includes me in considerations of her/our pregnancy, I've told her that I consider her the ultimate authority on whether or not she gives birth. It is her body, not mine, her choice whether to endanger her own life by giving birth.

But if someone else were to negligently or maliciously harm her and 'our' fetus in her body, I would rationally expect there to be consequences for harming more than my wife even though a fetus is still only a potentially viable independent (of the womb) human being, not an independent entity.

In sum:

1)There is a responsibility of the community at large not to harm a fetus against the wishes of a women who wishes to give birth, whether sanctions for that liability are codified or not because there is a clear lineation between the community and the fetus.
That is, you can clearly distinguish the separate parties.

2) The woman should not be held legally liable for harm to her fetus because of the lack of a clear lineation between her and the fetus.
That is, you cannot clearly distinguish the separate parties occupying one human body.

[Maat]

15. You're a good human being. Congradulations!

I hope we'll be the first to know on the Happy Birthday!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

17. I learned my feminist mother's first rule: Mother Knows Best. hee hee n/t

[Nikia]

13. This could be a real witch hunt

Many women tragically lose their wanted pregnancies. If this law goes to its full extent, such women will be investigated and possibly prosecuted for doing something that may have caused its death. How sensitive is that? A woman is feeling bad about miscarrying and she is being asked about her diet, doctor's visits, activities, ect. Her neighbor who might not like her might go to the police alleging that she saw this woman drinking a glass of wine or doing heavy lifting. If a person assults a pregnant woman, there could be some added penalty. No penalty or accusations against a woman for living her life pregnant.

[Maat]

16. Point well-taken, Nikia.

[question everything]

19. Agree. I think that this can be used as an excuse by at least some

prosecutors and courts.

The other day I heard the summary of the vote on CNN and what tilted the balance was the mother of Lacy Peterson screaming that Lacy's fetus was a victim of crime and that, added the reporter, was not going to be anything that any one wanted to take to the voters.

And I am really furious at the mother of Lacy Peterson who is using the memory of her dead daughter and fetus to promote he political agenda. After all Scott Peterson can be executed only once. (I am against the death penalty, too, I think that life without parole in prison is worse than death but then, again..)

I hope that we, who are pro-choice, who do object to a bunch of men sticking their heads between a woman's legs, who know that we have to be alert - will see the Lacy's mother demands for that they really are - demagogy and promotion whatever agenda she has.

Yes, I was mad when I heard that.

[chikin]

22. Use the law against its authors!

This might be a stretch, given that the title of the law is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, but I can think of a way it could potentially be used against the Repugs and their funders (i.e. big business).

Imagine for a minute a pregnant woman working at a factory. She is constantly exposed to a high level of toxins and as a result miscarries. Now let's say that the factory is violating federal law in that the level of toxins that the woman has been exposed to is more than the federally prescribed maximum. I'd love to see a bold prosecutor turn the law on its head by charging the officers of the company under the UVVA for harming the foetus due to the high levels of toxins. Perhaps this wouldn't work, due to mens rea and all that legal stuff that I vaguely remember from high school. At any rate, I doubt the prosecution of big business under this law would go down well with the Repugs who supported this awful law.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, it is called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 'violence' being key, but perhaps a clever prosecutor could argue for the fact that the gross negligence of the company was criminal under the UVVA.

Meh, what do I know? I'm just a software engineer. :-)

[Hekate]

24. I'd love to see that, but since we are returning to the old days...

...all that's likely to happen is that once again women will be fired for becoming pregnant. To protect them, you know. That, or simply redefine what's toxic and act surprised that so many babies are born sick.

Ah, the good old days.

Hekate