Kerry has his priorities... Are they yours?

Okay, after further review, if you look at this bill in a vaccuum, without taking into consideration the politics surrounding it, which Bill (or Carol Channing, if you like) is doing, then it sounds good to me.

But I can see how this bill could be used in the future to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I do believe that it is a political move by the right to do that very thing at some point further down the line.

I understand Bill's desire to look at it without all the political motivations behind it, because if you do, then you might see that there is more in play here than just protecting an unborn child. And what Craven said makes sense, that it is legally re-defining the rights of a fetus.

How do you resolve the fact, Bill, that an abortion can be performed up to a certain stage in the pregnancy, meaning that the fetus is not entitled to any rights, but that in this case only, the fetus does have rights during that early term pregnancy? Either the fetus has rights all through the pregnancy or it doesn't. If it does, which this bill states, then there is a contradiction in the laws. This means that inevitably, the legal rights of an unborn child will have to be debated in court, which could be used to outlaw abortion.

Why doesn't this bill use the same criteria for life that current abortion legislation does?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bill, if this is about concern for a fetus more than about legally defining a fetus as alive why was Senator Dianne Feinstein's amendment to it that would allow for the imposition of punishment without changing the legal status of the fetus rejected?

I haven't read Feinstein's amendment, so I don't know. Do you have it handy?

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm well aware of that Craven. The "irrelevant questions" you objected to are my answer to those concerns. They were unfounded. I object to placing a higher priority on a non-tangible concern than on the victims of violent crimes. That doesn't make sense to me.

What lacking concern for victims? This new law can't come into play in any way that was not criminalized by laws that existed prior to it.

Bologna. This new law, in certain situations, turns simple assault into a far more serious crime, and rightly so. There have been enough horror stories told right here on A2K to justify the need for this type of legislation.

Craven de Kere wrote:

So it's not like it's a new law preventing any acts, it's a change in legal status for the fetus.

... for the sole purpose of punishing more harshly those that would choose to unlawfully destroy a fetus WITHOUT the mother's consent.

Everybody is Pro-Life and nobody is Pro-Abortion.

IMHO, this is a Pro-Choice positive anyway.

Not only is it worded specifically to not take away a woman's right to choose; it helps enforce the woman's right to choose over that of the violent monster who attacks her. With regular rigorous enforcement; it could become common knowledge that pregnant women are untouchable. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

BTW, they named the bill after Lacy. If that isn't focusing on the outcome of this case, what is?

I don't believe they should have hung the precedent of the law on this one case. If the case is lost it could change the ultimate constitutionality of the law. Even if I do believe that states should have laws and presumably they do about unlicensed, intentional abortions without the permission of the mother. I believe the jury will consider this new law as an influence to decide on the death penalty if he is convicted. I think it was a mistake to bring it up during that specific event that is in the title of the bill. Did they really believe this was going to be happening on a weekly, okay, even an annual basis?

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm well aware of that Craven. The "irrelevant questions" you objected to are my answer to those concerns. They were unfounded. I object to placing a higher priority on a non-tangible concern than on the victims of violent crimes. That doesn't make sense to me.

What lacking concern for victims? This new law can't come into play in any way that was not criminalized by laws that existed prior to it.

Bologna. This new law, in certain situations, turns simple assault into a far more serious crime, and rightly so. There have been enough horror stories told right here on A2K to justify the need for this type of legislation.

Bill, you are demonstrating reading incomprehension. Just what is bologna? You contradict not a single thing I said there but interject a "bologna" for punctuation.

Please be more careful with your reading. Your response did not in any way address what I had said.

Craven, you are demonstrating your own reading incomprehension. Look at the bold stuff. Bologna was used, and called for, because what you said was bologna. If you don't wish to be called for making false statements, don't make them. And what's with this pretending I didn't address anything you said? That too is bologna.

kickycan wrote:

Okay, after further review, if you look at this bill in a vaccuum, without taking into consideration the politics surrounding it, which Bill (or Carol Channing, if you like) is doing, then it sounds good to me.

Good Kicky. The rest is groundless hype.

kickycan wrote:

But I can see how this bill could be used in the future to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I do believe that it is a political move by the right to do that very thing at some point further down the line.

Immaterial. While that may very well be the motivation of the hated right; it doesn't change the facts. I'll list out the facts again for easy reference:
1) This Bill gives extra protection to pregnant women and their unborn children.
2) Abortion is specifically excluded so this Bill cannot be used to address Roe Vs. Wade.
3) Roe Vs. Wade cannot be overturned without a Supreme Court Decision anyway.
4) Any so called "encroachment" on Roe Vs. Wade, would have to come in a subsequent Bill; since this one specifically excludes consideration of Medical Professionals, the Women themselves AND abortion.

What this means Kicky is that the only effect this could have on Roe Vs. Wade is: it could
1) Encourage someone to submit another Bill for consideration that goes beyond this one.
2) Encourage the Supreme Court to re-examine Roe Vs. Wade.

A day doesn't go by that the Supreme Court isn't encouraged to re-examine Roe Vs. Wade. EVER. NEVER EVER.

Conclusion: Since this Bill can have no direct bearing on Abortion AT ALL. There is no excuse not to afford women the additional protections it offers.

kickycan wrote:

I understand Bill's desire to look at it without all the political motivations behind it, because if you do, then you might see that there is more in play here than just protecting an unborn child. And what Craven said makes sense, that it is legally re-defining the rights of a fetus.

This is the boogyman. The fetus isn't given rights by this bill. This bill makes it illegal to harm the fetus without mom's
permission. That's all it does. It specifically says that:
1) Mom can harm fetus by accident with no repercussions. See? No rights
2) Doctor can harm fetus on accident with no repercussions. See? No rights
3) Doctor can harm fetus on purpose with no repercussions. See? No rights

All claims to the contrary are "the boogyman might come in the future." If anyone believes otherwise; please provide a credible problem that this bill could cause without some other future decision…

kickycan wrote:

How do you resolve the fact, Bill, that an abortion can be performed up to a certain stage in the pregnancy, meaning that the fetus is not entitled to any rights, but that in this case only, the fetus does have rights during that early term pregnancy? Either the fetus has rights all through the pregnancy or it doesn't. If it does, which this bill states, then there is a contradiction in the laws. This means that inevitably, the legal rights of an unborn child will have to be debated in court, which could be used to outlaw abortion.

There is NOTHING to resolve.
1) Roe Vs. Wade provides that a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body, and establishes the States varied amount of interest according to the stage of development.
2) This Bill provides that no one has the right to harm a fetus without the woman's permission. This Bill applies neither to Doctors (including, specifically Abortionists) nor the Woman herself. There is no conflict.

kickycan wrote:

Why doesn't this bill use the same criteria for life that current abortion legislation does?

Because; this bill has NOTHING to do with abortion. It couldn't be any clearer about that. It has to do with protecting woman and unborn children from violence. Until such time as it gets amended it to include abortion, it DOESN'T include abortion.

Bill this is an idiotic lie. What I said was not false and what you said in no way contradicted it.

Here is the "bold stuff" you mention:

I said: "This new law can't come into play in any way that was not criminalized by laws that existed prior to it."

This is true, not false. Any act that is covered by the new law was already covered by existing laws.

You said: "This new law, in certain situations, turns simple assault into a far more serious crime, and rightly so."

I said nothing of making a crime into a more serious one. I said it was already criminal.

What you retort with does not contradict it Bill. "Simple assault" was already illegal.

Again, please be more careful with your reading Bill.

The Justice Department has sent a letter and, in their opinion, the penalty section provides no penalty, under the Feinstein amendment, for the killing of the fetus. It is vague; it is unclear at best. It defines additional crimes as the interruption or termination of a pregnancy. When it describes the punishment, it refers to injury or death. Whose injury or death are we talking about here? Is it the unborn child? Whose injury?

No. 1, the Feinstein amendment does not recognize a second victim. Our bill does. The Feinstein amendment creates a legal fiction. It is contorted, it twists the law in a sense--maybe a better way of saying it is not that it twists the law; it doesn't do that, but it twists the reality of the common sense of people when they look at this. When they see a pregnant woman who is assaulted and her child dies, they intuitively know there is a victim besides the mother. They know the mother is a victim, but they also know there is a second victim.

The vast majority of the American people, if you ask them was there another victim, will say of course there are two victims. Our bill recognizes the second victim. The Feinstein amendment refuses to recognize the second victim. Now we can talk about punishment and all kinds of things, but it refuses to recognize good common sense.

This bill in front of us has nothing to do with abortion. It has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. We have explicitly exempted abortion in this bill. Yet opponents still try to argue this point.

Our statute could be no more clear on this point. Senator Feinstein uses identical language to exempt abortion or any related activity in her amendment. This bill simply doesn't affect abortion rights whatsoever. The language could not be clearer. I invite my colleagues to pick up the bill and look at the section. It exempts any reference to abortion, anything a mother would do to her own child, anything a doctor would do is exempted. It has nothing to do with abortion, not at all. That is not what this is about.

I have to agree with Craven that the law has the definite appearance of being superflous and therefore politically motivated.

At least we agree on something. Let's see if you can understand this. Abortions are legal up until around the sixth month of pregnancy. That would mean that legally, there is no separate life there to protect.

Which means that in this bill, they are in effect saying that it is illegal to intentionally harm something that, according to our current laws, isn't a separate life.

I know you see how this is contradictory, but as usual you're so caught up in trying to win the argument that you ignore the contradictions, and you pretend that these two contradictory laws don't have any relation to each other.

Get it?