0
   

Unborn Child Law

 
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:34 am
What is everyones thought on this..

The new Unborn Child law, making it a federal crime to injure or kill a fetus. Seems pretty hollow and limited considering it only applies if the mother is being victimized under current federal crimes, such as drug related, terrorist, or bank robbery type crimes.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. I like the idea in theory just think they hurried this bill through to fast and did not take the time to construct it properly.

(From the Kansas City Star website)

Posted on Thu, Apr. 01, 2004

Bush signs fetus rights legislation

By JENNIFER LOVEN

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked the case of pregnant murder victim Laci Peterson on Thursday as he signed legislation expanding legal rights of the unborn. "The suffering of two victims can never equal only one offense," Bush said.

Bush was joined on an East Room stage by Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, and her stepfather, Ron Grantski. Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared in December 2002 in the highly publicized case. Supporters of the bill have cited her and the son who was to have been named Connor.

"This little soul never saw light, but he is loved and he is remembered," the president said. "All who knew Laci Peterson have mourned two deaths and the law cannot look away and pretend there was just one."

Bush gave the bill, an important one to many in his conservative base, the first elaborate signing ceremony of the year. The law makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

"As of today, the law of our nation will acknowledge the plain fact that crimes of violence against a pregnant woman often have two victims," Bush said. "Therefore, in those cases, there are two offenses to be punished."

The bill passed by a 245-163 vote in the House and by a 61-38 margin in the Senate.

People on both sides of the fetal rights and abortion issue have said the new law will have far-reaching consequences.

Abortion opponents welcome it as a step toward more sweeping protections for the unborn, while abortion-rights proponents say the measure represents the first recognition in federal law of an embryo or fetus as a separate person.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Bush's presumptive opponent in this fall's election, voted against the bill.

Bush has said he doesn't believe the country is ready to completely ban abortions; he opposes them except in cases of rape or incest or when pregnancy endangers a woman's life. That position has become a standard line in most of his speeches.

Bush has taken several actions that have pleased anti-abortion advocates.

As one of the first acts of his presidency, he reinstated the "Mexico City policy" that bars U.S. money from international groups that support abortion, even with their own money, through direct services, counseling or lobbying activities.

He has signed legislation that bans certain late-term abortions and that amends legal definitions of "person," "human being," "child" and "individual" to include any fetus that survives an abortion.

He has increased federal support for abstinence education, adoption and crisis pregnancy programs, placed severe restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research to only a few existing cell lines and extended state health coverage to "unborn children."

The measure Bush signed Thursday is limited in scope, applying only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime, such as a terrorist attack or drug-related shooting, is being committed against the pregnant mother. The legislation defines a potential victim as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

A number of states have similar laws, including California, which is trying Peterson's husband, Scott, on double murder charges.

Peterson, 31, could face the death penalty if he is found guilty of killing his pregnant wife, Laci. He has pleaded innocent. Lawyers and the judge have completed the second week of questioning potential jurors
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 616 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 12:39 am
I think the whole thing is just a strategy for anti-abortion activists. They should have Just made it a more severe crime to kill a pregnant woman instead of making it two separate crimes. This law helps nobody! It's just more dumb laws to add to the books.
0 Replies
 
InTraNsiTiOn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 02:02 am
I heard something a couple weeks ago, was about a woman who was delivering a baby the natural way, but then had complications so she was needing a C-section, but she refused and now she's being charged with murder. What do you think about that?
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 02:40 am
stand up for pessimism wrote:
I heard something a couple weeks ago, was about a woman who was delivering a baby the natural way, but then had complications so she was needing a C-section, but she refused and now she's being charged with murder. What do you think about that?


Just another way this law can be abused. That was an LDS hospital in Colorado. Her first mistake was going to a religous hospital.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 03:31 am
stand up for pessimism wrote:
I heard something a couple weeks ago, was about a woman who was delivering a baby the natural way, but then had complications so she was needing a C-section, but she refused and now she's being charged with murder. What do you think about that?

To me it would be the same thing as if the doctor said "Your child has an intestinal blockage and needs medical attention or he will die." And I said "The Lord will provide. It is against my religion to allow doctors to touch my child." And my child dies. The authorities would certainly charge me with a crime for his death.

The doctors told the mother that her child would die if she didn't get a c-section. She didn't get it, and the child died. It's the same thing.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 07:27 am
Re: Unborn Child Law
CerealKiller wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I like the idea in theory just think they hurried this bill through to fast and did not take the time to construct it properly.


I'm not sure I see how enough time wasn't taken. There are fetal homicide laws already in 34 of the 50 states and they've been upheld as constitutional every time they've been challenged.

The bill that was finally passed is the 7th or 8th time the issue has been through the Congress.

Question
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2004 06:08 am
Re: Unborn Child Law
fishin' wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I like the idea in theory just think they hurried this bill through to fast and did not take the time to construct it properly.


I'm not sure I see how enough time wasn't taken. There are fetal homicide laws already in 34 of the 50 states and they've been upheld as constitutional every time they've been challenged.

The bill that was finally passed is the 7th or 8th time the issue has been through the Congress.

Question


Really, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Unborn Child Law
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 11:58:44