House passes bill to protect fetuses

Heres something to really start thinking about, much closer to reality then the FMA.

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.

Seriously from what I've read in the past, this is a serious attempt to undermine Roe, in that it confers legal rights upon an unborn fetus.

•  That's the thing

  It doesn't confer legal rights on the fetus.
  

  by Stirling Newberry on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:06:18 PM PDT

  •  so what you're saying then

    is that this in no way is a threat to Roe, or abortion rights.?  Cuz I was'nt so sure

    by mickey on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:12:05 PM PDT

    •  Other way around

      It is nothing BUT a trojan horse to attack Roe with.

      by Stirling Newberry on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:18:04 PM PDT

•  Hmm. Legal rights for a fetus. Hmm.

  Any chance we can get two pregnant lesbians carrying children of opposite sexes to City Hall in SF to get the fetuses hitched, just as a test case?

  OK, they don't have to be lesbians, but it's funnier that way.

  by Kagro X on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:14:03 PM PDT

•  At least

  our leaders are not so cynical and manipulative as to manufacture public support for legislation by naming it after a murder victim...

  whoops...

  Backers said the measure was needed to bring federal law in line with 29 states where those who attack pregnant women can be charged with two crimes when the fetus is harmed, including murder.... One of those states is California, where Scott Peterson is on trial for the murder of his wife Laci and her unborn boy Conner. The bill has also been designated Laci and Conner's Law.

  by Creamed Corn on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:21:09 PM PDT

•  Just Smoke and Mirrors

  The legal principle does not undermine Roe, which guarantees a woman's right to choose.  The law, at least as described, only targets cosnequences of an attack on a pregant woman which results in harm to the fetus.

  Think of it this way - if someone breaks inot your house, attacks you and tdestroys your belongings in the house during the attack, the damage to the house is a separate crime.  (I am inno way equating a house to a fetus, just rying to demonstrate why I do not think the proposed law as described is a chalenge to Roe.)

  by Armando on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:27:15 PM PDT

  •  Roe is completely the target

    the proposed law gives the fetus the same legal standing as a born human, it doesn't charge with a property crime or a crime against a pet - it establishes a legal status as victim of a capital crime. This provides an erosion mechanism for anything else that might be argued as directed at the fetus.

    Don't look at the 'stated purpose', look at who is supporting these laws. No groups who's stated goal is ending violence against women is anywhere near it. Groups who have actively worked to overturn Roe, to establish waiting periods, parental notification, etc... are front and center in this.

    by JD SoOR on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:36:56 PM PDT

    •  The Purpose?

      To shore up the base of course.  To pretend to be taking on Roe.  I know that.  Question is does it?

      As for the law itself, here's what is in the diary - "The bill would for the first time under federal law give victim's rights to a fetus."  I don't know what that means.  Victim's rights?  That amounts to being able to testify in the sentencing phase and is transferable to the victim's family.  Indeed, it really almost is "victim's family rights."

      I'm skeptical.  Let's put it this way, if the new bill purports to define the termination of a fetus by an assailant as a homicide, then we have a Roe analysis.  Does it clash with Roe? The analysis does not necessarily lead to a Roe challenge.  Many states have statutes that define the non-consensual termination of a fetus as a homicide.  The charge is never made, so the constitutionality of these penal laws is unknown.

      by Armando on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:27:22 PM PDT

    •  Here's the game

      ". . . The legislation would apply only to attacks on women that qualify as federal offenses. Those would include such crimes as terrorist attacks, bank robberies, drug trafficking or assaults on federal land.

      The sponsors of the bill, led by Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pennsylvania, said they were not out to undermine abortion rights and their bill specifically precludes from prosecution those who perform legal abortions.

      "This bill is not about the debate over the sanctity of human life. This bill is just about justice," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana.  . . "

      They want to throw some red meat to their wingnut supporters, but this doesn't effect Roe.
      

      by Armando on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:33:02 PM PDT

•  anti woman

  This is the same kind of anti-woman thing I'm talking about with the pro life people. How long before harming a pregnant woman becomes just one crime--hurting the fetus.

  Harming a pregnant woman should be the crime...end of story...

  by JMS on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:31:21 PM PDT

  •  Do you have a link to the bill?

    Here's what is in the diary - "The bill would for the first time under federal law give victim's rights to a fetus."  I don't know what that means.  Victim's rights?  That amounts to being able to testify in the sentencing phase and is transferable to the victim's family.  Indeed, it really almost is "victim's family rights."

    I'm skeptical.  Let's put it this way, if the new bill purports to define the termination of a fetus by an assailant as a homicide, then we have a Roe analysis.  Does it? BTW, the analysis does not necessarily lead to a Roe challenge.  Many states have statutes that define the non-consensual termination of a fetus as a homicide.  The charge is never made, so the constitutionality of these penal laws is unknown.

    by Armando on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:24:56 PM PDT

  •  Ignore

    Replying to another post.  sorry.

    by Armando on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:28:17 PM PDT