The Unborn Victims of Violence Act Still Setting a Dangerous Precedent

There are few things more uncomfortable than arguing against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a Federal law passed in 2004 during the Bush administration that recognizes a child in utero as a victim if he/she is injured or killed with the mother.  It's easy to come across as severely insensitive, so I usually avoid this debate like the plague.

However, the recent tragedy at Fort Hood has made it difficult to ignore.  Army Private Francheska Velez was six weeks pregnant when she was killed in the violent rampage by Army psychiatrist Major Hasan, who opened fire at the Texas military post, killing 13 people.  Now two U.S. Senators and an anti-abortion group are insisting that Hasan be charged with a 14th murder count for Pvt. Velez's fetus.

There is a way to appropriately punish perpetrators for violence against pregnant women without setting a dangerous anti-choice precedent. In early 2004, Senator Dianne Feinstein did just that by introducing The Motherhood Protection Act, an alternative bill which sought stiffer penalties for injuring or killing a pregnant woman and allowed prosecutors to make a double, but not separate, charge -- all without attempting to define when life begins. Unfortunately, her bill failed, and we were stuck with Mike DeWine's Unborn Victims Act instead.

While there is an abortion exception currently on the books, giving a fetus separate, legal status has serious repercussions for the pro-choice movement. This Federal law and the fetal homicide laws later passed by over 35 states lay critical groundwork for our judicial system to pursue an anti-choice strategy and undermine Roe v. Wade. (Who feels secure that Roberts' Supreme Court will protect women's reproductive rights if given half a chance to set them back?)

Think this is merely pro-choice paranoia? Here's what anti-choice leader Samuel Casey had to say about the law: "In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person ... That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection -- even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy." You can just see those wacky anti-abortion fanatics twisting their mustaches.

Bestowing personhood on fetuses creates an immediate rift between a woman's right to choose and a fetus' "right to life."  It would be naive to believe that this rift will not exploited.  So, while it may be uncomfortable to make this case, using a tragedy to promote an anti-choice agenda is downright disturbing. To urge your representatives to repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act -- and instead pass a woman-friendly bill like The Motherhood Protection Act -- sign the petition here.

Photo courtesy of Big Stock Photo