This post has been edited by BTroutman on Nov 28 2004, 01:17 AM

Mr. Speaker:

This bill is very simply replacing pro-choice laws with pro-life laws. Debate will do nothing for this bill, I do not believe as it is, like I said, a pro choice and life debate. The vote will be done morally and nothing can change that.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in opposition to this act.

This legislation would create a separate criminal offense if an individual kills or injures an �unborn child� while committing a federal crime against a woman. The specific language of the bill establishes for the first time that a zygote (fertilized egg), embryo (through week eight of pregnancy), and fetus would be recognized as a person distinct from the pregnant woman.

The proposed legislation defines an unborn child as �a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.� Although the measure would exclude voluntary abortion, it is a back-door attack on reproductive rights because choice opponents could argue that the bill states that life begins at conception, which would become another stepping stone to further anti-choice legislation.

Acts of violence committed against pregnant women are tragic and should be appropriately prosecuted, but this legislation would do nothing to prevent violence against women. Although the sponsors of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act claim to advocate for the protection of women from violence, this bill fails to address the needs of the woman by ignoring the fact that any assault that harms a pregnancy is inherently an attack on the woman. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would create separate legal rights for the fetus, thereby eroding a woman�s right to reproductive choice. The bill would also undermine the Supreme Court�s decision in Roe v. Wade, which held that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Violence against women should be the central concern. We have ensured the continuation of a woman�s right to live in a safe environment through the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2000, which extended the original Violence Against Women Act for five more years and authorized more than $3 billion over five years to support state and local efforts to protect and assist victims of gender violence. This legislation expanded the original act to assist elderly and disabled women who are victims of violent crimes, created a national resource center on sexual assault, and brought attention to the impact of violence on women�s work lives. The 2000 VAWA reauthorization supports a range of programs that promote healthy childbearing. It continues the commitment of the original VAWA by expanding victims� services and providing grants for law enforcement and prosecution to combat violent crimes against women.

Murder is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States. While I support legislation to prevent and punish violent crimes against women, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does nothing to this end.

Rather than creating separate legal rights for the fetus, Congress should enact the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which would extend current hate crimes law to cover crimes targeting people based on their gender. The act would also cover crimes targeting people based on sexual orientation and disability; strengthen the federal response to hate crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin; and expand federal jurisdiction to cover the most violent of these crimes.

Congress could also bolster its efforts on behalf of pregnant women by increasing penalties if the woman suffered injury to her fetus or miscarried. To this end I have introduced the Motherhood Protection Act, which would create a separate criminal offense for harming a pregnant women and offer penalties matching those in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. By not establishing the fetus as a separate victim, the Motherhood Protection Act still addresses the problem of violence against pregnant women without calling into question the validity of Roe v. Wade.

Further, by advocating for the separate, legal rights of the fetus, it is clear that the purpose of this legislation is not to protect women from violence, but to undermine a woman�s right to choose.

I urge this body to defeat this bill and instead pass a sensible solution.

I yield

This post has been edited by Carat on Nov 28 2004, 02:27 AM

Mr. Speaker,

It's time we realize this is neither an issue of pro-choice or pro-life, but an issue of common sense. It is not an abortion issue. This issue has to do with whether or not it is a criminal offense to kill or injure an unborn child in utero. I hear so many tout "pro-choice" but they so often forget what this means while masking their support with "it should be up to the mother" and bringing up women's rights when this issue comes up. Now, let me, as someone who is mostly pro-choice say this: If you are so quick to think about pro-choice women's rights on the issue of abortion, why do you not think of the mother when this issue comes up? Why not think of the mother who lost her child due to a criminal act? Why not think of the mother who wants justice for the child she intended to give birth to and raise?

Today, I am thinking about that mother, just like I think about mothers by being pro-choice. Just like I think about women's rights by being pro-choice I am thinking about women's rights today. I am thinking about their right to achieve justice for their unborn child in the unfortunate event a criminal act should occur which cases her unborn child injury or death.

That being said, I would like this legislation to be limited to be limited only to such crimes committed during the 3rd-trimester.

I would like to hear any input on this from my colleagues and see any amendments to do so that anyone can bring forth.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

This bill quite clearly coincides with all current laws regarding abortion and its legality. In fact, it specifically says that no person can be prosecuted for performing an abortion. This simply nationalizes the law in California that got Scott Peterson two counts of murder and not just one.

I don't see any reason to oppose this.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to be associated with the comments by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I concur with my two colleagues before me. This bill seems to coincide more than perfectly with any law in this nation. While I consider myself a pro-life advocate, and this bill will do nothing to illegalize abortion; I must at the very least show support for a bill that would do, as the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania said, harsher penalty for a criminal accused of a crime against a pregnant woman.

Thank you,

I yield.

Mr Speaker,

This legislation does not coincide with any law in this country, this is an attempt to federalize what California (and perhaps a few others) does. This is not a common sense piece of legislation laden with self-evident factors. If it were, we would bestow upon the IRS the ability to allow women who became pregnant after the 12th week of any tax year to begin at time time claiming withholding allowances, even if the birth took place after the 31ST of December. To my knowledge, this is not statutorily allowed. As far as I know, one cannot get a Social Security Number for an unborn child.

My friend, the Gentlelady from Texas is correct. This legislation does not address the competing legal and moral interests involved in any pregnancy. Where the law is concerned, we cannot help but conclude that if there is too much fetus-centric focus, that focus cannot help but become mother-poor. In a case where the interests are mutually exclusive, the Constitution does not allow us to side with an entity which has never spent even a minute in which independence, sentience, and self-awareness have even been present over an entity, the vast majority of which possess all three.

I will be opposing this legislation because I feel it fails to address the practical issues above.

This post has been edited by yuzhulsuspex on Nov 28 2004, 01:55 PM

Mr. Speaker,

To those that believe this bill is an argument about abortion, I point them to this portion of the bill.

I am staunchly pro-choice, and yet I rise in support of this bill, for the simple reason that if a woman's unborn baby is harmed, she has lost her right to choice. It's a completely separate debate whether the government has the right to take away a woman's right to choice, but I think we can all agree that any old maniac with a knife who takes away that right should be prosecuted.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in support of this bill.

For too long, Justice has been denied to murdered children. Children murdered as a result of an action against a pregnant woman would never know justice.

What the pro-Abortion lobby wants you to believe is that this is an attack on so-called Abortion rights.

This shows how soft they are on crime.

Those who are depraved enough to kill beautiful pregnant women should be punished for her death and her child's death.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker,

Let me be associated with the comments of the two honorable Congressmen before me.

Thank you,

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I appreciate the comments from my friend from California, but I must ask a question in response:

1. If proponents of this legislation are to be believed that this ISN'T a back-door attempt at usurping the Roe rights of women, why isn't there a move to merely federalize enhanced penalties for the murder of pregnant women without the central focus being on the unborn child?

IOW, why would it not be enough to say: Hey, you killed a woman who happened to be pregnant. Exactly why can't Justice be delivered without the fetal focus?

Mr. Speaker,

In respononse to the comments of the representative from Maryland, there is the possibility of the woman surviving any sort of assault, but the fetus not, and having the perpetrator only be charged with some sort of assualt crime.

To clarify that this is NOT an attempt to undermine Roe vs. Wade, I move to amend the bill as follows:

To replace all instances of the phrase "unborn child" with the word "fetus".

I yield.

This post has been edited by Fayul on Nov 28 2004, 03:56 PM

Mr. Speaker,

I second the Representative from California's amendment.

I yield.

This post has been edited by William Dunne on Nov 28 2004, 04:01 PM

Mr. Speaker,

I rise to say how pleased I am that so many pro-choice members of this Congress have, like me, stood in support of this legislation.

I yield.