Ladies, welcome your new status as brood mares

[Colleen Thomas]

Senate Passes Fetus Protection Bill
44 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Thursday to make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during commission of a violent federal crime, a victory for those seeking to expand the legal rights of the unborn.


AP Photo



The 61-38 vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act sends the legislation, after a five-year battle in Congress, to President Bush (news - web sites) for his signature. The White House said in a statement that it "strongly supports protection for unborn children." The House passed the bill last month.


Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the bill was "powerful because this act is about simple humanity, about simple reality."


But abortion rights lawmakers contended that giving a fetus, from the point of conception, the same legal rights as its mother sets a precedent that could be used in future legal challenges to abortion rights.


It was the second big win for social conservatives, who last year pushed through protections for the unborn with enactment of the so-called partial birth abortion ban. That ban is now tied up in the courts.


The Senate cleared the way for passage with a 50-49 vote to defeat an amendment, backed by opponents of the bill, that would have increased penalties for harm to a pregnant woman but did not attempt to define when human life begins.


Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., President Bush's opponent this fall, interrupted his campaign schedule to vote yes on the amendment. He voted no on final passage.


The bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."


"This bill recognizes that there are two victims," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor. Americans, he said, "intuitively know that there is a victim besides the mother."


The key obstacle was an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would have imposed the same tougher penalties for attacks on pregnant women as outlined in the DeWine bill but made no attempt to define the beginning of life.


Feinstein said that by defining when life begins, the bill was "the first step in removing a woman's right to choice, particularly in the early months of a pregnancy before viability." She said it could also chill embryonic stem cell research.


The Senate also defeated an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., that would require employers to give unpaid leave, and states to pay unemployment benefits, to women when they or family members are victims of domestic or sexual violence.


Supporters of the bill have named it after Laci Peterson (news - web sites) and her unborn child, Conner, victims in the highly publicized murder case in California. California, one of 29 states with an unborn victims law, is trying Peterson's husband, Scott, on double murder charges.


Laci Peterson's stepfather, Ron Grantski, said at a Capitol Hill news conference that he and Laci's mother had received several hundred thousand sympathy cards and "they all mourned our loss of Laci and Conner — not Laci and the fetus."


The Senate bill covers 68 federal crimes of violence, such as drug-related shootings, violence at an international airport, terrorist attacks, crimes on a military base and threats against a witness in a federal proceeding.


It would specifically exclude prosecution of legally performed abortions — a fact supporters cite in arguing that the bill would not undermine the 1973 Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy.


"The criminals who commit these crimes are not committing abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (news - web sites). "They are depriving these unborn children of the right to life. It's a separate issue related to the right to life."





Groups on both sides of the abortion issue lobbied hard on the legislation.

The Christian Coalition of America said votes for either the Murray or Feinstein amendments would be regarded as negative votes on its annual congressional scorecard of lawmakers.

On the other side, NARAL Pro-Choice America delivered more than 130,000 petitions to senators urging defeat of the bill.

"This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman," said NARAL president Kate Michelman. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade."


-Colly

 

[Guest]

 

[KarenAM]

The White House said in a statement that it "strongly supports protection for unborn children."

Pity they so strongly oppose any protection for born children.

 

[Belegon]

Bravo KarenAm!

Well said and directly on target.

 

[shereads]

Next: prosecute pregnant women who smoke, drink, or fail to take vitamins, risking harm to the young citizens who occupy their wombs.

 

[snooper]

Next: prosecute pregnant women who smoke, drink, or fail to take vitamins, risking harm to the young citizens who occupy their wombs.

And then prosecute women who, by carefully preventing fertilised eggs from attaching to the womb, wilfully deprive young citizens of their right to occupy said womb.

 

[Raging Whoremoans]

Seems pointless to me. All I get out of it is that it belittles the mother's rights/importance.

If someone attacks her and is comitting a federal crime, what the fuck difference does it make if there is a second victim? Isn't it enough to put the attacker away for a long time/for good? Why must there be dual charges?

~ R W (liking Karen AM's style)

Sadly, the little citizens of which everyone speaks are not important to anyone (after they've arrived) in the government until they can pay taxes and vote.

 

[rgraham666]

You know, every time I read about our wonderful representatives working on our lovely legal system I hear the strangest noise.

It sounds like someone knitting.

(Hint: Check out The Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens if you don't get my meaning.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

And then prosecute women who, by carefully preventing fertilised eggs from attaching to the womb, wilfully deprive young citizens of their right to occupy said womb.

And then prosecute men and women for taking steps to prevent the eggs from being fertilized.

After that, prosecute women for appearing in public wearing shoes and being not pregnant.

 

[CharleyH]

Sad indeed . . . for multiple reasons including ones mentioned. Despite Lime's comment about knee-jerk reaction's, this decision does actually affect a woman's right to her own body, whatever her choice. It does indeed give others the right over her body. It appears, as the Bush Admin. often does in an exceptionally contradictory way as a step backwards. Is there a National awareness agenda in the U.S. to hand out condoms prior to grade 9, free birth control? Etc.? One would think there should be with this decision.

A knee-jerk reaction, and my choice is mine . . . still.though I am not pro-a - as a personal decision - my choice about my body is mine. Concede to the all-white-male-corporate regime?

Its about votes, it always is - the sad thing about politics . . . its all personal agenda . . . yes, to quote another thread, there is a conspiracy: its called self-advancement.

 

[shereads]

Seems pointless to me.

I wish it were pointless, Raging.

The point of this bill is exactly the same as the point in Florida when our legislature and governor, having killed an earlier bill to fund healthcare for pregnant women, passed one instead that provides healthcare for "unborn children."

The road is being paved toward a ban on abortion once the Supreme Court gets a new justice or two and gets Roe v. Wade out of the way. Like all threats to human rights, it's being done in small increments that people without a strong opinion on abortion rights will find harmless.

 

[Raging Whoremoans]

I wish it were pointless, Raging.

The point of this bill is exactly the same as the point in Florida when our legislature and governor, having killed an earlier bill to fund healthcare for pregnant women, passed one instead that provides healthcare for "unborn children."

The road is being paved toward a ban on abortion once the Supreme Court gets a new justice or two and gets Roe v. Wade out of the way. Like all threats to human rights, it's being done in small increments that people without a strong opinion on abortion rights will find harmless.

I understand. I just meant that it shouldn't matter whether there are two victims or just one. I know it's against abortion, under the guise of protection for victims. But it seems rather redundant to me.

Of course, they'll stop at nothing to make sure those kids see the light of day...even if the rest of their life is lived as a victim of awful circumstances.

~ R W

 

[Remec]

Next: prosecute pregnant women who smoke, drink, or fail to take vitamins, risking harm to the young citizens who occupy their wombs.

There've already been cases of this. I remember reading of a woman who had gone against her doctor's orders and her social worker (or someone...I may have to search for the article) found out and had her committed until after the birth to ensure the child's safety.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Imagine a woman. She's a loyal wife, and a caring mother of 11 sons. She's a housewife. She cooks and cleans and bakes and changes diapers, and always have the food on the table when her master... I mean, husband, comes home. She has had 11 sons, but she still looks like a Barbie doll. She obeys her husband's every command, because she know that he knows best. She thinks women's rights are unfeminine, and only for man-haters. No, wait a minute, scratch that, my mistake. She doesn't think at all. And she would never, EVER say anything other than "yes, dear", "you're absolutely right", or "kids, don't disturb your father". She's barefoot, except for when her husband asks her to put on high heels and a French Maid's uniform for Saturday night activities.

What year is it? What country does she live in? And how much did her lobotomy cost?

 

[robtheblack]

let me just say... holy....


that las post just knocked my socks off.. in a bad way i hope woman always have a thought .. it would make life a lot less fun wihout woman around..

i may be a man but damn i love woman hehe

 

[gauchecritic]

Is there such a thing as rabid pro-choice? I think I've just met it, several times.

Here's the statement that everyone can argue about.

Actually some women only ever want to be a mother and wife in that specific order.

Here are the things that it would be pointless to point out. That these women are the victims of brainwashing. (aren't we all?)

That these women are under-educated and poor. (the ones I'm talking about are neither, although I'll concede others are, but that's still beside the point)

I'm just angry at Svenska's post.

As to the bill and it being anti-choice I do believe that it would have serious trouble in being used in any abortion prosecution simply because it is diametrically opposed to what is classified as viable in terms of the unborn. I also think it would probably be impossible to prosecute.

Gauche

 

[Boxlicker101]

Is there such a thing as rabid pro-choice? I think I've just met it, several times.

Here's the statement that everyone can argue about.

Actually some women only ever want to be a mother and wife in that specific order.

Here are the things that it would be pointless to point out. That these women are the victims of brainwashing. (aren't we all?)

That these women are under-educated and poor. (the ones I'm talking about are neither, although I'll concede others are, but that's still beside the point)

I'm just angry at Svenska's post.

As to the bill and it being anti-choice I do believe that it would have serious trouble in being used in any abortion prosecution simply because it is diametrically opposed to what is classified as viable in terms of the unborn. I also think it would probably be impossible to prosecute.

Gauche

There are people who are rabidly anti-choice, rabid meaning fanatical, and they are the ones who blow up clinics or kill doctors because they might perform abortions. Although some persons may be strongly pro-choice, and I am one, they are not fanatical as the anti-choice zealots are. I have never heard of a pro-choice person murdering a preacher or judge or prosecutor because of a position taken.

By itself, the bill is not anti-abortion and could not be used in an abortion prosecution, at least not yet. It is, however, a toe in the door. It is according a fetus, probably even an embryo, the status of a person, even though a fetus or an embryo is not a person. On its face, it is not unreasonable and anybody who deliberately inflicts injury on a pregnant woman, causing injury to the fetus, should be severly punished, but it should be because of injury to the woman, not the fetus. There are already plenty of laws on the books to take care of that so the purpose of this bill is to give status where none exists.

 

[minsue]

There are people who are rabidly anti-choice, rabid meaning fanatical, and they are the ones who blow up clinics or kill doctors because they might perform abortions. Although some persons may be strongly pro-choice, and I am one, they are not fanatical as the anti-choice zealots are. I have never heard of a pro-choice person murdering a preacher or judge or prosecutor because of a position taken.

By itself, the bill is not anti-abortion and could not be used in an abortion prosecution, at least not yet. It is, however, a toe in the door. It is according a fetus, probably even an embryo, the status of a person, even though a fetus or an embryo is not a person. On its face, it is not unreasonable and anybody who deliberately inflicts injury on a pregnant woman, causing injury to the fetus, should be severly punished, but it should be because of injury to the woman, not the fetus. There are already plenty of laws on the books to take care of that so the purpose of this bill is to give status where none exists.

The other thing to mention regarding the obvious anti-abortion slant of this bill is the democrat-backed ammendment that was defeated. The ammendment would have had the same consequences for the same act, but it would be for assaulting a pregnant woman and would have removed the language assigning rights to a fetus from the moment of conception.

It's the same as a few years back when they afforded medicare/medicaid benifits to fetuses rather than changing the benifits to pregnant women.

It's all very much to start the tumble down that slippery slope.

I do agree with Gauche that there are women who want nothing more than to be a mother and a wife and I see nothing wrong with that. I do, however, take issue with the many women I've met who actually believe that it is wrong for a woman to have her own thoughts and opinions. (Don't take that as a contradiction. They apparently believe it because a man has told them to. )

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The point of this law is not to protect anyone, nor is it to get tough on crime. It's an end run around the protections of Roe V Wade. It's only purpose is to make it practicible to outlaw abortion. It's sole intent is to get legislation passed that grants the rights of a citizen to a fetus or embryo.

No more. No less. And unless the courts again come to our rescue, it puts pregnant women into bondage, with absolutely no presonal rights.

You smoke? too bad. Your drink? too bad. You are already destitute and can't hope to raise a child? too bad.

You aren't a person anymore, you are a vehicle for a person.
Suffer. It's what you get for being a woman.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Gauche, my point was not to insult women who don't want anything other than to be mothers and wives.

My point was to ridicule what seem to be the rightwingers idea of the perfect woman.

Although I personally can't understand why anyone would want to stay away from work altogether to be a full-time mother and wife, I won't deny them the right to do so.

What I'm against, is the idea some religious conservatives have that this should be what EVERY woman wants.

If my post was offensive, I apologize to anyone who was offended - unless he/she is a religious conservatives who actually feels that any woman wanting something other than this is a bad mother and an unfeminine woman. Coz then he/she is the one I WAS trying to wave my middle finger at.

 

[rgraham666]

If I were a cynical greedy person, I would be thinking about opening an abortion clinic up here in Canada. It would be well appointed with luxurious private rooms, for all the rich women who want to abort their pregnancies but can't get them in "the Land of The Free and Home of The Brave" anymore.

The poor ones will be going the coathanger or quack routine again, but if I were cynical and greedy, I wouldn't care.

Fortunately for me, I do care.

I remember my first exposure to abortion and all it's implications. It was on that old Raymond Burr chestnut, Ironside. It started with some woman sitting down on park bench. The next shot is after dark and she's still sitting on the bench with her eyes closed. A park worker tries to shake her awake and she falls over, dead.

It turned out some quack had botched an abortion he had performed on her and she bled to death.

I was 12 years old. I had never even heard of abortion. But I was so sickened by the way that poor woman had died. That one scene has informed everything I believe about abortion. I would do just about anything to prevent another woman from dying that way.

Personally, the 'pro-life' stance is one I find unfathomable. It requires such a willing suspension of compassion and wisdom that their stance can't be understood by me at all.

If you ever want to get up the nose of a 'pro-lifer', ask them what happens to the two-thirds of fertilised human ova that don't come to terms under the most 'natural' circumstances.

I just remebered a Heinlein quote that sums up my view quite concisely:

Much as we make think and act as individuals, our species is an organism, and like all organisms must be pruned ocassionally to remain healthy.
The big question is whether this pruning should take place before or after birth. Being an incurable sentimentalist, I much prefer the former to the latter.
But there are some shamans who believe it is better to die in a famine or plague, or during childbirth than never to have lived at all.
And they may be right. But I don't have to like it and I don't.

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm really confused by your post RG. Your belief about abortion is coloured by a scene of a woman who dies from a back-street abortion. You disagree with pro-lifers. You suggest that we ask pro-lifers what happens to aborted foetuses (which I'm pretty sure they'd be only too happy to illustrate) and then you quote Heinlein who is apparently promulgating forced contraception.

For a view of the difficulty of choice involved in abortion I'd suggest watching the 60s Michael Cane film "Alfie"

For a view of Mr Heinlein's point consider this: In the 80s I was informed that there were very very few, if any, disabled (Downs, palsied etc) people below the age of 40 in Germany.

That's not a flight of fancy from one to other, it's an unavoidable progression.

Gauche

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm really confused by your post RG. Your belief about abortion is coloured by a scene of a woman who dies from a back-street abortion. You disagree with pro-lifers. You suggest that we ask pro-lifers what happens to aborted foetuses (which I'm pretty sure they'd be only too happy to illustrate) and then you quote Heinlein who is apparently promulgating forced contraception.

For a view of the difficulty of choice involved in abortion I'd suggest watching the 60s Michael Cane film "Alfie"

For a view of Mr Heinlein's point consider this: In the 80s I was informed that there were very very few, if any, disabled (Downs, palsied etc) people below the age of 40 in Germany.

That's not a flight of fancy from one to other, it's an unavoidable progression.

Gauche

As you probably know, there are two kinds of abortions, the induced kind which is the subject of Roe V. Wade and natural, which are usually referred to as miscarriages. An egg becomes fertilized but somewhere along the line, the woman's body recognizes a roblem with the fetus and expels it. When RG referred to "the two-thirds of fertilised human ova that don't come to terms under the most 'natural' circumstances" he was probably referring to these spontaneous or natural abortions, or miscarriages.

I have read a lot of books by Heinlein but it was a long time ago and I don't remember those specific lines but just because some lines appear in a book, that doesn't mean the author advocates what is being said. The author could, in fact, be advocating just the opposite of what is being said.

I don't remember the "Ironside" story but I would assume it was illustrating the dangers of aortion, and there are many, in abortions of that type. I don't actually believe that pro-lifers are actually in favor of what are sometimes called "back-alley abortions" but they must be aware that they will happen if abortion becomes illegal. They happened before and they will happen again.

You mentioned that during the eighties there were few persons in Germany under the age of forty with disabling birth defects. Those weren't your words but I am sure that is what you meant. Yes! Absolutely. One of the big advantages of legalized abortion is that families can terminate a pregnancy if is looks like the baby will be born with serious problems. If a woman is pregnant and has tests done sometimes the tests show the fetus has a serious defect and, if it is carried to term, the baby will never live anything like a normal life and and will always be a financial burden to his or her family. The family, particularly the expectant mother, will have to decide to either have the baby and deal with the problems or get an abortion and try again later. Many families, even if they love and want children, will choose an abortion under the circumstances. I am not referring to "imperfections", you understand. I am referring to serious defects such as Downs Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy that you mentioned. Pro-lifers would deny that right. The bill, which has probably already been signed into law by now, will not deny that right but it is an obvious step in that direction.

 

[gauchecritic]

I still don't know where RG is coming from. Everything you said Box I understood and I know about spontaneous abortion (not because there is a defect with the foetus by the way, implying that a woman's body is capable of detecting deficiency in a bunch of cells)

The Ironside story holds no weight against pro-lifers, only back-street abortions.

The Heinlein quote was used, it seems (out of context, from a character or not) as a pro-choice arguement, which is what I took it as. The text however is not pro-choice at all but, as I said promulgating forced contraception.

I think I was a little bit too subtle with the Germany reference. The reason that there were few if any disabled immediately after the war is not because of any choice but because they (the already born and living disabled) were 'cleansed' from Germany for not being perfect specimins. Shocking no?

As Michael Cane might say "There's not many people know that."

I really cannot believe you said this next:
"If a woman is pregnant and has tests done sometimes the tests show the fetus has a serious defect and, if it is carried to term, the baby will never live anything like a normal life and and will always be a financial burdento his or her family. The family, particularly the expectant mother, will have to decide to either have the baby and deal with the problems or get an abortion and try again later."

There lies a Brave New World.

Gauche

P.S Just to clear any confusion which may arise, Yes I'm pro-life, as my choice but I wouldn't force my choice on anyone else.

 

[minsue]

I really cannot believe you said this next:
"If a woman is pregnant and has tests done sometimes the tests show the fetus has a serious defect and, if it is carried to term, the baby will never live anything like a normal life and and will always be a financial burdento his or her family. The family, particularly the expectant mother, will have to decide to either have the baby and deal with the problems or get an abortion and try again later."

There lies a Brave New World.

I'm of two minds about this. The concept of terminating a once-wanted pregnancy because of a genetic defect is unbelievably sad to me (bordering on horrific) and, yes, it does also bring a fear of slowly bringing public acceptance of designer offspring into existance.

At the same time, for many families the financial burden is an issue. The medical and caretaking costs must be borne by the family and there are many who simply cannot do so. It is a sad fact of life in the world we live in. There are people who turn their children over to the state, not because they don't love them deeply, but because they simply cannot provide them the care required and in some of those cases it is an act of love and tremendous sacrifice made so that their child can live the best life possible. Considering the life of a mentally or physically disabled child as a ward of the state is not exactly ideal and that it would be more than most could bear to turn their child over because of financial needs, I can understand those who would terminate the pregnancy rather than face that.