House Passes Unborn Victims Legislation

[rodbarnett]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted Thursday to treat attacks on a pregnant woman as separate crimes against both her and the fetus she is carrying. Critics say it would undermine abortion rights by giving fetuses new federal legal status.

Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was actively backed by the White House and President Bush's conservative supporters. Following enactment of the law banning "partial birth" abortions last year, the bill is this year's prime measure dealing with the unborn.

It passed 254-163 after the House rejected a Democratic-led alternative that would have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women in which the fetus is injured or killed without conferring new rights on fetuses.

Backers further highlighted the bill by naming it in honor of Laci and Conner Peterson, the pregnant woman who was murdered in December, 2002, and her unborn child.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040226/D80V4VH00.html

[MaineDem]

1. Just one more...

Drip...drip...drip

Women's rights are going down the drain under this administration!

[ramapo]

2. Too bad their concern ends at birth

If only the Republicans would move as quickly to ensure medical care, adequate housing, nutrition, and education for all children.

[sus]

3. 47 Democrats voted for this

I want to know who they are. The roll call doesn't list party. Anyone know an easy way to find out this info?

[mac2]

4. Me too.

Thomas might publish it later. Do you remember the bill number?

[MaineDem]

6. Roll Call Link

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll031.xml

[NewJerseyDem]

7. House roll call link

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll031.xml - final passage

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll030.xml - Lofgren Substitute Amendment

Democrats are in italics
Republicans are in regular print

Democrats voting for final passage:

Alexander (LA)
Berry (AR)
Bishop (GA)
Cardoza (CA)
Carson (OK)
Chandler (KY)
Costello (IL)
Cramer (AL)
Crowley (NY)
Davis (TN)
Doyle (PA)
Gordon (TN)
Hill (IN)
Holden (PA)
Jefferson (LA)
John (LA)
Kanjorski (PA)
Kaptur (OH)
Kildee (MI)
Kind (WI)
Langevin (RI)
Lipinski (IL)
Lucas (KY)
Lynch (MA)
Marshall (GA)
Matheson (UT)
McIntyre (NC)
McNulty (NY)
Mollohan (WV)
Murtha (PA)
Neal (MA)
Oberstar (MN)
Obey (WI)
Ortix (TX)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy (ND)
Rahall (WV)
Ross (AR)
Ryan (OH)
Scott (GA)
Skelton (MN)
Spratt (SC)
Stenholm (TX)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)
Turner (TX)

Republicans opposing final passage:

Bass (NH)
Biggert (IL)
Boehlert (NY)
Bono (CA)
Greenwood (PA)
Houghton (NY)
Johnson (CT)
Kelly (NY)
Kirk (IL)
Kolbe (AZ)
Paul (TX)
Shays (CT)
Simmons (CT)

[sus]

12. Thanks!

[MaineDem]

14. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[CBHagman]

9. Yeah. Remember HHS and the fetal care initiative?

I forget what the idea was called, but I seem to remember that Tommy Thompson put forth some idea that a fetus would be covered under the CHIP program, not specifically the matter of prenatal care. In other words, women seemed incidental to the whole proceeding, as though they were receptacles to house the fetus.

But when that fetus is a teenager and at risk of gun violence, the concern melts away.

[saigon68]

26. According to the Family Chimpanzee

These people are lazy. If they just worked harder they wouldn't need welfare or help of any kind</Sarcasm>

[Malva Zebrina]

8. First thing he attacked with his presidential decree

immediately after being appointed by the Supremem Court was women and their health.

[MaineDem]

13. For a man with two daughters

...he has zero regard for them.

I find this to be very sad. I have no respect for this man nor for his administration at all.

God(dess) help us!

[Virginian]

19. They don't seem to have much regard for him either.

You never hear about them being at the White House. Quite a contrast from previous "First Daughters." It's like they want to be as far away from him as possible.

[ikojo]

25. The reason Bush Co. does not worry about a laws affect on

his kids is because the children of the wealthy are rarely if ever subject to the consequences of a law such as this. When abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade, wealthy people could afford to go to states where it was legal and have the procedure performed and if needed to go overseas to have it done.

Barbara and Jenna Bush would have access to abortion services should they so desire even if Roe v Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court or through piecemeal legislation.

[arwalden]

11. Redefining A Fetus As A "Person"

So will the woman who causes her own miscarriage through drug and alcohol abuse be locked away as well?

-- Allen

[mac2]

5. No wonder the media carried this so much...it was about ....

fetus rights. What does it matter, the person killed the mother and child? Murder would be the punishment.

Taking away abortion rights for women is one thing...murder is another.

It's election time again...sex, abortion, religion, etc. Anything to distract from the election. Oh the RWers will be happy you can bet on that. How many Catholics and Evangelical Protestant women have abortions...lots I bet.

Bush paid for an abortion. Another woman who he was involved in a rape trial was murdered. Is this not a crime?

[Malva Zebrina]

10. I think the subtle point here is that once a fetus is declared to be a

human being, what follows can and most likely will be a slippery slope.

In other words, once declared a human being,like any other born human being, it's premises could extend to the zygote being declared a human being,thus validating the religious belief that a zygote has a soul and is a human being. It also could extend to anything a woman does while she is pregnant--What could in the worst case scenario happen, and with this bunch of religious zealots in charge, is that women could be monitored--any miscarriage will be investigated by the authorities.

After all how would anyone know if she actually killed another human being if they did not investigate her miscarriage?

Another thing that could happen is to take it further, women who do not eat the right foods, do not get enough sleep, ride horses, or some other thing, could be accused of murder if a miscarriage occurs because of their behavior. That behavior of course, will be determined by the recommendations made by various studies done by huge corporations who can determine the "best thing to do" for women. Magazines like "Woman's Day" will publish articles ad nauseum, telling pregnant women what to do to have a "healthy baby". Thata will include eating foods the current corporations push.

I believe this.

It is simply a back door way to gain power over women and their sex.

[iamjoy]

18. I've Had These Thoughts For Years

Yes, if life begins at conception, charge every woman who has a miscarriage with involuntary manslaughter.

If life begins at conception, absolutely no fetal stem cell research, the lines currently in use must be given a proper burial.

Now for the fun stuff:
If life begins at conception, from the moment a woman finds out she is pregnant, she can take the child tax credit.

Social Security numbers will be assigned from conception

Group Life Ins. will have to start covering the child from conception

The guy who got his girlfriend pregnant but doesn't want to marry her, his employer group health insurance will have to cover her prenatal care (even if the company he works for only recognizes legal spouses & children as eligible dependents)

Pregnant commuters - get in the carpool lane!

Pregnant women, when you go to a restaurant, feel free to order off of the child's menu and say you are feeding your baby.

HOLY CRAP - we're all 9 months older!

[JasonDeter]

21. You have some very good ideas! 3 - 8 rock.

[mac2]

15. Here's a link to who voted for it...and against it...

Link: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll031.xml

There's not party designation. You have to know the party they belong to.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. here comes the backdoor dismantle of Roe v Wade...nt

[ramapo]

17. Repub plan is make abortion illegal on par with murder

Step one is giving protection to the fetus by giving it "personhood". The next step will be to overturn Roe v. Wade with the argument that these newly defined "persons" are entitled to constitutional protection against harm.

Not only will Roe v. Wade be overturned but women will be forced to carry ALL pregnancies to term because to do otherwise would be a criminal act both by the doctor and the woman.

Over the years so many women have justified their Republican vote with the qualification "Sure I want abortion rights, they'd never take them away. That's just talk".

[fortyfeetunder]

20. Will the Senate have to vote on this?

It smells like the end of women's rights as we know it. And wait, we also have the decency hearings...Will burqas be mandatory next?

[ramapo]

23. Sure the Senate has to vote

It'll likely be close. Repubs have the edge although perhaps a few like Chafee will vote against. But then there are the Southern Dems who will probably vote for it. Then you get the Democrat-without-a-spine factor and it doesn't look good.

[dusty64]

22. While this may sound

OK in theory, the extremists in the House are NOT doing this out of concern for women or their fetuses. I see this as the first step to creating the legal status of "personhood" to embryos and fetuses thus soon making the act of termination murder. Down the slippery slope we go, I just didn't think they'd dare do this in an election year. I figured they'd wait till after their diebold manufactured "landslide" in November.

[fob]

24. Did they tack on a rider that says the fetuses have no right to marry

if it turns out they are gay?

I mean we are talking about compassionate censervatism, right?