On April 27, the House of Representatives approved “”The Unborn Victims of Violence Act,”” which would make hurting or killing an unborn fetus a federal crime, though it explicitly excludes abortion.
Guardian
Supporters of the bill argue that this is an important step in ensuring that anyone committing a violent crime against mothers and unborn children will be fully prosecuted. Opponents argue that giving unborn children federal protection is the first step in overturning Roe v. Wade, and that the bill is being used by anti-abortion groups to erode abortion rights.
It is no secret that this law has serious political and cultural overtones. It would be ignorant to think otherwise; abortion is a subject that has proven to be one of the most divisive issues in our society. It pits women against men, liberals against conservatives and Christians against just about everyone else.
What makes abortion such an intense issue is that any argument made with the intent to change minds is essentially futile. When it comes down to it, abortion is not an issue that is based on opinions, facts and other quantitative analyses. Instead, it strikes at fundamental feelings and ideologies that cannot be changed through debate. It is a question of beliefs, not one of opinion, and as a result no one side will ever change the mind of the other.
Sadly, American politics dictates that the victor will not be the group that garners the most popular support. Instead, it will be the one that can muster the most political might.
Thus arguing over this recent decision by the House on the basis of abortion will accomplish little. Anti-abortion activists and abortion-rights supporters will simply never come to a consensus on this validity and the intentions of this law. Instead, the bill should be examined as one strictly defining the penalties of violent acts against pregnant women.
In Wisconsin, after beating his nine-months pregnant wife nearly to death and killing the unborn child, an abusive husband walked out of jail after serving time only for assaulting the mother. The fetus must be protected, just as must the rights of the women carrying them.
The holes in our legal system make it too easy for criminals to get off without paying for their crimes. Murderers walk, rapists are let go for good behavior, and child molesters — over 90 percent of whom are repeat offenders — live freely in our neighborhoods. This law will send a stern message that law enforcement agencies are taking a stand on violence against women, namely pregnant ones. By adding another victim to such crimes, this law will necessarily punish those who break it more severely.
Another reason this law is important is that improvements in medical science now make it possible for younger fetuses to survive outside the womb. Since a five- or six-month-old fetus would be viable if born prematurely, we must take action to protect it as a life. While this may give rise to a new debate in the abortion arena, we should not use that fact as an excuse to ignore the rights of a viable human being.
We are moving into an age when medical advancements are redefining what we consider human life, and we must start enacting laws to protect all that can be considered as such. We cannot leave it up to Washington bureaucrats to pick and choose only some of us to be protected under the law. Fetal rights is a crucial first step, as advancements in cloning and genetic engineering will provide interesting developments in this field in the future.
One popular argument against this bill is that it is narrow in scope and is thus not important enough to pass. Since it is a federal law, it does not cover instances of domestic abuse, though half of states have adopted equivalent laws to protect fetuses against domestic abuse. The law does, however, specifically target military bases, where domestic abuse and violence against women is certainly an important and — until now — unaddressed issue.
Scope is not a valid measure in determining the merit of a law. Look at environmental protection regulations aimed at preserving the habitats of single endangered species — very narrow in scope but also incredibly important.
In a majority rule form of governing, one must take great pains to protect the few, no matter how few. Until this point, the fetus has gone unprotected. Whether you consider life valid at conception, a few months into pregnancy or birth itself, few would argue that an unborn child is insignificant. Losing an unborn child can be a devastating loss to an expecting mother, and anyone who induces this should be punished as if an infant has been killed. This law will make sure this happens, and ensure the punishment is one that fits this heinous crime.
