Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1997, Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1997, UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2004 -- (House
of Representatives - February 25, 2004)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are here again to consider the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which has for several years unnecessarily mired what should be a laudable and uncontroversial effort to punish truly heinous crimes in the emotionally charged, and legally suspect, back alleys of the abortion debate. This is regrettable because real people are suffering real harm while this House has played abortion politics instead of punishing truly barbaric crimes.

This rule provides for consideration of this bill once again, and a reasonable substitute that will be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). That substitute would deal harshly with the perpetrators of these crimes, in some cases more harshly than would the underlying bill itself. It would also punish these offenders without treading into constitutionally suspect territory. From day one, it would be enforceable without question. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute and to oppose the underlying bill.

For those of who are prochoice, the right to choose extends not just to a woman's right to have an abortion, but to a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term and to deliver a healthy baby in safety, if that is her choice. That is why we supported the Violence Against Women Act, that is why we support programs to provide proper prenatal care and nutrition to all women, that is why we support proper health and nutrition services after birth, and that is why we support other initiatives such as the Family and Medical Leave Act. Life does not beginning at conception and end at birth. We have an obligation to these children and parents throughout and after the pregnancy.

Let there be no mistake, using physical violence against a woman to prevent her from having a child she wants is just as much an assault on the right to choose as is the use of violence against women who exercise their constitutional right to choose to end their pregnancies. A woman and only a woman has the right to decide whether and when to bring a child into a world, not an abusive partner, not a fanatic, not a Congressman.

My colleagues should understand we are not talking here just about viable healthy fetuses who are ready to be born. This bill says "at any stage of development." That means any stage, including violence to embryos, violence to zygotes, violence to a blastocyst. I do not apologize to my colleagues who have in the past taken offense to the use of the correct medical terms for the subject matter we are discussing.

We should have no illusions about the purpose of this bill, that it is yet another battle in a war of symbols in the abortion debate in which opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose attempt to establish that fetuses, from the earliest moments of development, are persons with the same legal rights as the adult women who are carrying them. The implication is that anyone who does not share the metaphysical slant of the radical antichoice movement that a two-celled zygote is a person on exactly the same basis, and with exactly the same rights, as a child or adult must secretly favor infanticide.

This bill, by making the destruction of a fetus, or even a zygote, crime against the fetus, without any reference to the terrible harm suffered by the pregnant woman speaks volumes.

Recognizing an embryo as a legal person is at odds with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court clearly said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the whole sense," and concluded that " 'person,' as used in the 14th amendment of the Constitution, does not include the unborn." The rhetoric used by supporters of this bill urging that the law must "recognize the fetus as a victim" makes clear the purpose of this bill, which is a direct frontal assault on that holding in Roe v. Wade.

Rather than debate the abortion issue yet again, we should pass the Lofgren substitute that provides for the same severe penalties for the same terrible crimes without getting into the thorny issue of whether an embryo at 30 days of gestation is a legally recognized person. The Lofgren substitute provides for two separate crimes, one conviction for the assault and murder of the woman, and a new crime involving injury to the fetus or termination of the pregnancy. The major difference is that the Lofgren bill gives recognition to and imposes serious penalties for the additional and truly grotesque crime against the woman, not against the fetus.

If we are serious about this problem of violence against women, we have effective remedies at our disposal. If we want to play abortion politics, we have an appropriate vehicle before us to do that. Violence against a pregnant woman is first and foremost a criminal act of violence again a woman that deserves strong preventive measures and stiff punishment. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, homicides during pregnancy, and in the year following birth, represent the leading cause of death among women in the United States. Among nonpregnant women it is the fifth leading cause of death.
Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes continue to occur, Congress fiddles with largely symbolic legislation rather than taking affirmative steps to deal with the problem. Why has this Republican-controlled Congress and White House continually refused to fund fully the Violence Against Women Act? It appears that many of the Members who have signed on to this bill are the same ones who have voted to divert funds from protecting women from violence to protecting stock dividends from taxation.

No one who listened to the testimony we have heard in our subcommittee could be left unmoved by the murders and assaults against women who wanted nothing more than to have a child. We owe it to these women, and to those who are closest to them, to ensure that early intervention is available, and that States and localities receive the full resources of the Violence Against Women Act to prevent violence against women by intervening before the violence escalates to that level.

We must enact strong penalties which are not constitutionally suspect for these heinous crimes. We should not cloud that issue by plunging a legitimate law enforcement effort into the murky waters of the abortion debate.

Finally, this bill opens the door to prosecuting women, or restraining them physically, for the sake of a fetus. Some courts have already experimented with this approach. The last time we had occasion to consider this bill, the Supreme Court had just struck down a practice in the then sponsor's home State of South Carolina where a hospital would give the results of pregnant women's blood tests to local law enforcement for the purpose of initiating legal action against those women if they had used crack. Once we recognize a zygote, two cells, as having the same legal status as the pregnant woman, it would logically follow that her liberty could be restricted to protect it. The whole purpose of Roe was to protect that liberty interest. This bill would undermine it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT