|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2001 : 23:17:32
|
I know that for many abortion is a touchy subject. But the Bush administration is attempting to back door a bill through that would esentially repeal Roe v Wade.
Though I don't personally agree with abortion I don't think our society is anywhere near ready to have that decision repealed. However, there is a problem, apparently this new law is considered unconstitutional.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 23:19:57 [Permalink]
|
Trish: what info do you have regarding this proposed bill?
|
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 23:29:36 [Permalink]
|
Not much other than the news tonight. I'll hafta poke around and see what I can find.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 23:32:08 [Permalink]
|
Here's the info from the local news website.
http://9news.com/issue/fetusrights.htm
Um, maybe repeal was too strong, sorry but upset at the backdoor approach. Rather aims at reopening the argument to repeal R v W.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast
Edited by - Trish on 05/27/2001 23:36:00 |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 23:45:38 [Permalink]
|
It does look like they're trying to get a foot in the door. It'll be interesting to see how this goes. I just knew something like this was going to happen, as soon as Shrub was elected. The fundies helped put him in office, and now it's payback time.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 23:50:02 [Permalink]
|
thanks for the link, Trish
here's my take on it: the news report says, "...[bill] establishe[s] criminal penalties for harming a human fetus during the commission of a federal offense against a woman..." and later "a bill that permits a judge to enhance the sentence for a criminal defendant who commits an offense against a pregnant woman."
Neither of these scenarios would apply to a physician, for example, so I don't think these bills, even if they pass, could do anything regarding Roe vs Wade.
Of course, I'm neither a lawyer nor a politician...so take my opinion with the appropriately-sized pillar of salt.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 00:16:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"a bill that permits a judge to enhance the sentence for a criminal defendant who commits an offense against a pregnant woman."
This is the Colorado Bill, on the governors desk now!
Paraphrasing Jan Lehtos (DU Law Professor)
The US bill goes further to defining the fetus as having indivdual rights under the constitution. Hence, opening the door for the repeal of Roe v Wade.
That doesn't show up in the story as written. The US bill goes further, I'll try and find this on the web and maybe get my sister-in-laws input. She'd have a better understanding of the legalese than I.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 00:33:22 [Permalink]
|
Rather than make all read through the argument on the floor of the House here's an excerpt:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule that I will not actively oppose, but H.R. 503 , the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, deserves full and open debate. A truly open rule would have insured that no one was shut out of the process.
But everyone in the Chamber understands what is going on today. The majority did not bring this bill to the floor to protect pregnant women. The majority brought the measure to the floor today to launch its battle to end a woman's right to choose in the 107th Congress. But, more specifically, the majority is responding to the call of the National Right to Life Committee and their goal of achieving legal status and protections for a fetus.
[Time: 10:30]
If passed, this bill would mark the first time that our Federal laws would recognize the fetus in early stages of gestational development as a person, a notion that the Supreme Court considered but rejected.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 represents an effort to endow a fetus with rights, such as recognition as a crime victim, and to thus erode the fundamental premise of Roe v. Wade. Aside from this general concern, there is a real threat that the bill will spur the antichoice movement to use the legislation as a building block to undermine a woman's right of reproductive freedom.
The threat to Roe v. Wade could not be more clear. In Roe, the Court recognized a woman's right to have an abortion as a privacy right protected by the 14th amendment. In considering the issue of whether a fetus is a person, the Court noted that the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense, and concluded that ``person,'' as used in the 14th amendment, does not include the unborn.
The supporters of H.R. 503 would suggest that they are advancing the bill in an effort to combat domestic violence. If that is true, it is, at best, an awkward and, at worst, a dangerous effort. If the sponsors of H.R. 503 were truly concerned with the problem of violence against women, they would have supported full funding of the Violence Against Women Act. The amounts appropriated in the 2001 budget are more than $200 million short of the authorization levels.
Mr. Speaker, a far more effective legislative alternative is available, which discourages crimes against pregnant women without undermining Roe v. Wade. Such an alternative is embodied in the Lofgren-Conyers substitute which defines the crime to be against the pregnant woman, whereas H.R. 503 makes the crime against the fetus. This distinction is a critical one because the substitute avoids the issue of ``fetal rights'' and ``fetal personhood'' that put the bill at odds with the principles of Roe v. Wade, medical science and common sense. Instead, the Lofgren-Conyers substitute recognizes it as the woman who suffers the injury when an assault causes harm to her fetus or causes her to lose the pregnancy.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 00:33:42 [Permalink]
|
I think I see what's going on. Just a suspicion. Because of the language of the bill, anyone who opposes it can be made to look like they approve of violence against pregnant women. Very slick.
I still think it's an early shot across the bow. This gets passed, and we'll see what next year's "protection measure" is.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 00:36:48 [Permalink]
|
We posted at the same time. Weird.
Anyway, it sounds like there's someone there who sees this for what it is.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 00:45:35 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I 'specially like that comment about the majority not bringing it to protect women. as she says there are better bills to protect women, just didn't get the full funding.
Freakin' bible thumpers!
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 15:11:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If passed, this bill would mark the first time that our Federal laws would recognize the fetus in early stages of gestational development as a person, a notion that the Supreme Court considered but rejected.
I think this is enough to make you think....
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 22:12:34 [Permalink]
|
Here's my personal philosophy on abortion. Though I do not personally agree with the option, I wouldn't be a single mom if I did.
If we force women to have children they are incapable of caring for or do not want, then the onus of raising these children is on us as a society. For instance, a woman has an amnio to check her child for a birth defect prevalent in her family. The results come back, this child has the disease whatever it is. The woman has already lost two children to this disease. She is emotionally unable to deal with the loss of a third child and believes she would be better aborting the fetus. We tell her, she has to carry that child to term and deal with the loss of a third child to whom she has become emotionally attached.
Another senario, a young woman finds out she's pregnant. At this point she is not ready financially or emotionally to care for a child. Do we force her into raising and caring for that child.
Another woman has seven kids, her family cannot support another child. Again, do we force into raising and caring for that child.
This country does not have in place the funding or resources to support unwanted children. Reasons for having an abortion are many, our society is incapable of caring for the numbers of children who would be born if Roe v Wade were repealed. Also, our laws have failed to keep up with the situation regarding children and families. Look at the news coverage surrounding several cases of invetro. Where joint custody is awarded to the woman who carried the child though she has no biological connection to it.
In addition, brain functions are undetected until the 17th week of gestation. If we need a delineation of life, this seems like a good one. However, amnio can not be performed until later in gestation. This means, that provisions would be required for cases of genetic mutations. Or are we to force women into caring for children who are severely handicaped.
Granted the severity may not be known until much later in the childs life. If mom doesn't want the child then society must care for that child if mom is forced to carry to term. However, again there are few options for caring for that child available.
Repealing Roe v Wade opens a can of worms that our system just can not handle at this time. No one seems to be looking at this side of the abortion issue. Until we do, Roe v Wade must stand.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
