http://nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/26VICT.html?hp Okay, so are the abortion rights proponents engaging in "slippery slope" arguments here? The bill does make it clear that medical abortions don't count as crimes. It seems like surely we can recognize a crime against an unborn child without endangering the right to abortion. Actually, Feinstein tried to do just that... So one has to suspect ulterior motives behind this legistlation. The tricky bit being: Full text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108qiVfuA:: They call the bill "Laci and Connor's Law"... was Laci Peterson murder a federal crime?
"The Senate approved legislation on Thursday making it a separate offense to harm the fetus in a federal crime committed against a pregnant woman, sending the measure to President Bush for his signature." Aren't most assaults and muders state crimes? So isn't this an exercise in futility or am I off?
Most, but not all. For instance, Timothy McVeigh was convicted and executed for murdering the dozen or so federal employees who were in the Murrah building, whose murders fell under federal jurisdiction--technically, he was never tried for killing the other 100 people who died (altho it obviously weighed on the jury's mind during sentencing). If the woman killed is a federal employee then her murder would be a federal crime--which opens up an interesting legal argument since the unborn child is, of course, not a federal employee. I believe that if the murderer is employed by the federal government they also have jurisdiction, altho I'm not sure on that one. In addition, in cases such as murders committed on federal property (such as a national park) or where someone crosses state lines for the purpose of committing a murder, I believe the federal government would have jurisdiction--I'm not a law student tho, so correct me if I'm wrong. The most far-reachign implication of this is probably that it will inspire conservatively-minded states to pass similar laws.
What kind of law enforcement technology will we need in order to investigate first trimester miscarriages? After all, the mom might have been drinking or having coffee. Or she might have wantonly committed sit-ups. Just because the woman didn't know she was pregnant is no excuse for murder. Anyway, I'd better go out and kill a bunch of pregnant women before this law passes. Oh, killing pregnant women is ALREADY against the law? What the ******** do you know about that. There goes my whole weekend.
There already exist similar laws in a number of states. Scott Peterson is facing 2 counts of murder and thus the death penalty because such a law exists in California.
Assaults and murders commmitted on federal lands (military bases, national parks, etc.) are punishable under federal statutes. The scope of this is very narrow, which makes you wonder why they're bothering, except to provide legal precedence for rights to the unborn.
You're right of course. But stripped of the political motivation, what objection do you have for setting a legal precedent for rights to the unborn? Is the U.S. Congress not the proper body for defining who is or is not a person under the laws of the United States? they were troubled by the definition of the "child in utero" covered under the bill as "a member of the species ******** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable definition for the purpose of the law. I agree that abortion rights are (thankfully) not completely secure but they are (unfortunately) not hanging on such a thin thread that a slippery slope the size of K2 needs to be invoked. Excuse mixed metaphor, please.
In the Kingdom of Mel, this all makes sense. In reality, where I have to live among and with other people, this stinks of the slippery slope mentioned at the beginning; keep an eye on this one...
Reasonable? The key phrase to me is "at any stage" because two months is different than eight months. This phrase makes this totally political. I would (if we needed such a law): 1) Define a viable fetus 2) Make that distinction in this law This "at any stage" is crap. My wife lost two fetuses. One at 3 months and the other at four. Neither were able to sustain life on their own. Maybe they want to define as narrow, a fetus, which itself is defined as: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. dictionary.com This shows sloppy wording with intent. The intention is to have the USSC have to settle all this and then apply it to abortion laws. This alone will not make abrotions illegal, but make them totally linked to some limited medical standard. The real point to make here is the fact that this forces women to be against women. On one hand, we will have a women who will say, yea, we need to be protected and our babies! On the other hand, we will have women say, NO, this will limit our right to choose, for ourselves! I mean, divided women killed off the ERA!