Fetal rights granted

[LV426]

Senate Passes Dangerous Unborn Victims of Violence Act

S. 1019 Poses a Direct Threat to Roe v. Wade

March 25, 2004

Washington, DC — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today denounced the Senate's passage of S. 1019, the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), which creates a penalty for anyone convicted of harming a fetus during commission of certain federal crimes. The UVVA would give separate legal status to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus even if the woman does not know she is pregnant.


"The so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) is not intended to protect pregnant women from domestic violence or punish individuals who harm them," said PPFA President Gloria Feldt. "It is part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."

The UVVA was created with the sole aim of undermining the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that "the word 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." This bill elevates the legal status of a fetus to make it equal to that of the adult woman who actually suffers the primary injury. It is part of ongoing attempts to bestow personhood on the fetus by granting it separate legal rights equal to and independent of those of the pregnant woman.

This legislation, which passed the Senate 61 to 38, fails to mention the harm to the woman resulting from an involuntary termination of her pregnancy. Sponsors of the UVVA today made their ideological goal abundantly clear: when given the opportunity to vote for a substitute bill that had virtually identical criminal penalties but recognized the pregnant woman, rather than the fetus, as the victim, they voted against the alternative.

"Violence against women, including pregnant women, is a significant problem in America, one that should be addressed," stated Feldt. "This bill does nothing but shift the focus away from real solutions by undermining women's health and reproductive freedoms."

[Darth Cluich]

Yup, for the first time, the fetus has legal status as a person. This could very well be the first step to overturning Roe v. Wade. Abortion-rights activists realize this, but in the argument over this particular case, they phrased their argument against conferring such a status on a fetus in terms of abortion rights, which came across as callous.

Of course, this isn't the only case poking around abortion rights. Bush just signed the ban on late-term abortions into law, and there's also the case of the woman who allegedly refused a C-section temporarily, which may have caused one of her twins to be stillborn. Obviously, the former is a more direct approach to the abortion issue, but the latter has implications similar to the case discussed in the article above.

[LV426]

Major issues here, more politicians are trying to rule over a woman's body again and while it is appalling for a miscarriage or fetal injury to occur during an act of crime, granting fetal rights is going to cause some serious issues.


They have passed the abortion amendment on late term abortions but have made no exceptions or clauses in case of medical emergency or danger to the mother.

And abortion itself is almost on the verge of becoming a illegal.


AAARRRRGGGG!!!!!!!

[MorganaFang]

A part of this argument of course is people using abortion like birth control, which costs money. I'd like to believe it is the person getting the abortion that is paying for it and not having the government pay but really I'm not sure.

[LV426]

A part of this argument of course is people using abortion like birth control, which costs money. I'd like to believe it is the person getting the abortion that is paying for it and not having the government pay but really I'm not sure.
There is no government money used to pay for abortions.
Even planned parenthood which has some government funding provides abortions but in two forms, the first is a pill called Mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486 and also called "the abortion pill,". It is a drug that induces abortion when administered in early pregnancy, providing women with an alternative to vacuum aspiration abortion.

The other type is the late term abortion, after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that is the suction type abortion which still the person having the abortion pays for although they do offer low cost depending on income.

[LV426]

A challenge to a federal law banning a certain type of late-term abortion begins Monday in three states, including one where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar state ban four years ago.

Lawsuits were filed in the fall on behalf of several abortion-advocacy organizations in federal court in three cities.

Opponents of the law say it could become the first step in a move toward abolishing abortion. Supporters say the law applies only to a specific procedure performed late in pregnancy.

Congress passed the bill -- dubbed the "Partial-Birth Abortion Act," using the nonmedical term that anti-abortion activists prefer for the procedure -- in October, and President Bush signed it into law in November.

The focus of all three trials -- in federal courts in New York; San Francisco, California; and Lincoln, Nebraska -- is expected to be on whether the procedure, called by doctors dilation and extraction (intact D&E), is ever medically necessary.

During the procedure, the fetus is partially removed and its skull collapsed.

The National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a handful of doctors sued in the three cities to overturn the law.

The federal government contends that it is never necessary, refuting the Supreme Court's rejection of a Nebraska law in a 2000 decision.

Congress, in a lengthy section on findings in the text of the law passed in the fall, described the procedure in vividly disturbing language and labeled the Supreme Court's findings in the Nebraska case "clearly erroneous."

Congress said in its findings that the ban would "advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy."

The Supreme Court also hung its decision in Stenberg v. Carhart on the Nebraska law's definition of "partial-birth abortion," saying that it could spur prosecutors to pursue doctors who use the procedure for earlier -- and currently legal -- abortions.

The federal law adds some detail, but the National Abortion Federation said it is not enough to stop a prosecutor from possibly using the new law to chip away further at the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Law's merits debated in New York
In court in New York on Monday, an attorney for the plaintiffs said the federal law fails to stand on four points: that it lacks an exception to preserve the health of the woman; that the term "partial-birth abortion" is imprecise; that it infringes on a woman's right to choose; and that the government has no compelling interest in the case.

"In its stunning breadth, it would -- and frankly seems intended to -- remove the range of abortion alternatives available to women in the second trimester," said Stephen Hut in his opening statement.

"The act is unconstitutionally vague for it fails to give providers a guide for action," Hut added.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Lane argued that safe alternatives exist and that the procedure is "never necessary for maternal health and has no proven safety advantages"

"It is an inhumane and gruesome procedure that inflicts severe pain to the fetus," he said.

The two sides also are battling over whether hospitals should be compelled to release medical records the government says it requested to bolster its case that such late-term abortions are never necessary for a woman's health.

The government requested records from several cities, with mixed results -- in some, including New York, judges ordered hospitals to comply, but others cited privacy issues in ruling for the hospitals.

The cases that begin Monday are National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, before Judge Richard Casey in New York; Carhart v. Ashcroft, before Judge Richard Kopf in Nebraska; and PPFA v. Ashcroft, before Judge Phyllis Hamilton in California. All three judges blocked implementation of the law in their jurisdictions.

The trials are expected to last at least two weeks.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/abortion.lawsuits/index.html

[kaycee]

I don't agree with late term abortion at all. I'm not for or against early term abortion, I think it depends on the circumstances, and the woman/people involved. But if you want an abortion, make up your damn mind before you get into 'late term' for crying out loud.

[LV426]

And what about those who come to discover late term that there is a complication where the mother will die if she gives birth? Or that the fetus has some impairment or suffered some damage and can never live a normal life? Or any number of medical problems that could make it unsafe to continue to give birth to a child?

There are always extenuating circumstances.

[kaycee]

That's different. I'm talking about simply aborting a child because you just don't want it.

Of course there could be life threatening circumstances in late term pregnancies. I certainlly would understand an abortion under those conditions.

[MorganaFang]

That's different. I'm talking about simply aborting a child because you just don't want it.

Of course there could be life threatening circumstances in late term pregnancies. I certainlly would understand an abortion under those conditions.
What about casting off a child to an orphanage because you don't want it. Our system in dealing with abandon children and orphans sucks. If I were the child I would have wished my parents had aborted me.

[Sorrowsong]

And what about those who come to discover late term that there is a complication where the mother will die if she gives birth? Or that the fetus has some impairment or suffered some damage and can never live a normal life? Or any number of medical problems that could make it unsafe to continue to give birth to a child?

There are always extenuating circumstances.


Well, it just sucks to be them. Because remember, a baby's life is more important than the mother's. The father won't be sad, I promise. </end sarcasm>

I really don't think men should be involved in making decisions like this. They'll never get pregnant and will never know what it's like.

I hate being controlled.

[kaycee]

What about casting off a child to an orphanage because you don't want it. Our system in dealing with abandon children and orphans sucks. If I were the child I would have wished my parents had aborted me.

This is not for me to say. I know I could never get rid of a child like that, but I'm only one person and can only speak for myself.

EDIT: Although, I would rather see a child given up for adoption than aborted in late term pregnancy.

[phantomroller]

There is no government money used to pay for abortions.

well tax payers money do go to fund aborition clinics. we had some abortion teacher person come to school yesterday and talk about abortions and stuff and she mentioned that tax money goes to the clinics. which is another reason why pro-life people have a problem with it.


What about casting off a child to an orphanage because you don't want it. Our system in dealing with abandon children and orphans sucks. If I were the child I would have wished my parents had aborted me.

well that's why there's adoption

I don't agree with late term abortion at all. I'm not for or against early term abortion, I think it depends on the circumstances, and the woman/people involved. But if you want an abortion, make up your damn mind before you get into 'late term' for crying out loud.

I'm very much pro-choice, but when you get into the thrid trimester when the partial birth abortion takes place, I'm against that. it's like you knew for 8 months you were pregnant, you should have made up your mind already. you've waited this long, just wait a couple more weeks. when they preform the operation the baby is turned around in the mother's womb to make it come out feet first, then they keep the head in the mother and crack the skull so it can collaspe. the baby is halfway out by that point, just let the rest come out!!

but it seems as though our lawas are becoming very contridicting again. you can't hurt the fetus in any way, if you do, you go to jail. but you can kill it and it's ok....seems a little contradicting

[LV426]

Just because adoption is an option doesn't mean that every kid gets adopted. People please pull your heads out of your asses.

[kaycee]

Excuse me?

We're stating our opinions here. Is it necessary to be so damn rude because our opinion isn't the same as yours? People are different and feel differently about different things.

Sheesh....

[WolfScribe]

I'm sure I'll start a flame war here, but it won't be the first time.

I'm all for a woman having choice. She can choose to have sex. She can choose to use contraception. But beyond that, both parties involved should have to live with the consequences of their choices if she gets pregnant. You can't go to Vegas, bet the farm and then abort the dice roll when it doesn't come out the way you want it.

Statistically, most abortions are done for convenience, NOT because the mother is in danger. Even Planned Parenthood acknowledged this back when I was a newspaper reporter. I'm sure the statistics are still out there.

America's biggest problem is that people are allowed to shirk responsibility for themselves and their actions.

As for men not having a say in abortion, that's insane. If the woman chooses to have the baby and names a guy as the father, he can be held financially responsible for 18 years. No choice for him. That sounds callous, but since you claim no guy would care if his girlfriend or wife went and had his baby sucked out and thrown in a dumpster, who am I to argue?

Why stop with late-term abortions? Hell, if the 2-year-old kid is a drain on the single mom, why can't she bash out his brains? When does her right to choose end? Obviously not when the baby exits the womb because its partly out for the "partial-birth" abortion. Is it when the baby can vocalize the words, "I am a living being. Please don't kill me"? When?

I like sex as much as the next person (maybe more), but I know that if you're going to play the game you better be ready to accept the possible consequences.