Vote Expected April 25 or 26

U.S. House to Vote on Bill to Recognize Unborn Children As Crime Victims

WASHINGTON (April 4) - - The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote April 25 or 26 on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, an NRLC-backed bill that would legally recognize unborn children as victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of federal crimes of violence.

Pro-life forces expect a very close vote on a substitute bill, backed by pro-abortion groups, that would increase punishments for federal crimes in which a woman's "pregnancy" is interfered with, but which would also enact into law the doctrine that the pregnant woman is the only victim in such a crime.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503) is sponsored by Congressman Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The same bill has been introduced in the Senate at S. 480 by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio).

The legislation would establish that if a criminal injures or kills an "unborn child" (or "child, who is in utero") during commission of any of 68 federal crimes, he may be charged for the harm he has done to the unborn victim. The bill provides that it covers every "member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Under current federal statutes, unborn children are not recognized as victims of crimes, even when the child dies. On March 15, the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by pro-life Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), held a hearing at which testimony was heard regarding several cases in which unborn children were killed during the commission of federal crimes, including some crimes in which the unborn children were the specific targets of the attacks.

The bill does not cover legal abortions or harmful acts performed by a woman on her own unborn child (for example, drug use). Nevertheless, the bill is opposed by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), the ACLU, and other pro-abortion groups.

For example, in a March 21 statement, PPFA President Gloria Feldt said the bill would "erode the foundation of Roe v. Wade."

Many pro-abortion members of Congress have embraced the same viewpoint. For example, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said the bill's premise is "at odds with the holdings of the Supreme Court and the Constitution."

But pro-life lawmakers point out that the Supreme Court has based its pro-abortion holdings on a supposed "right of privacy" held by the pregnant woman, which has no application in the case of a violent assault. They also note that in the 1989 case of Webster v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court said a Missouri law that declares "the life of each human being begins at conception" and that "the unborn child at every stage of development [holds] all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons" was unobjectionable - - so long as Missouri did not use this law to restrict abortion.

Bill supporters also emphasize that 24 states have already enacted unborn victim laws, and that courts have upheld these laws against all legal challenges, since they do not apply to legal abortions.

(The bill does not replace or supersede these state laws, since it would apply only in cases in which an unborn child is harmed during commission of a federal crime. For a factsheet on state unborn victim laws, see  www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/sthomicidelaws.htm .)

One-Victim Substitute

The House has approved the Unborn Victims of Violence Act once before, on September 30, 1999. But that bill was placed under a veto threat by President Clinton, and it died without action in the Senate.

The 1999 House vote in favor of the bill was 254-172 - - but that lopsided margin occurred only after the bill survived a close call. By only 12 votes, the House rejected a gutting amendment offered by pro-abortion Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Ca.). The Lofgren Amendment would have removed all references to the unborn child from the bill, and provided punishments for causing "an interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy."

When the House Judiciary Committee considered the new bill on March 28, Lofgren again offered her substitute proposal. The gutting amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, but Lofgren is expected to offer it again when the bill reaches the House floor on April 25 or 26.

The Judiciary Committee also rejected several other weakening amendments, before approving the bill on a party-line 15-9 vote.

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson heralded the committee's rejection of the Lofgren one-victim amendment, saying, "This bill simply puts federal law behind the commonsense recognition that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. Any lawmaker who votes for the 'one-victim' substitute is really voting to say that when a criminal injures a pregnant woman and kills her unborn child, there has been no loss of human life."

Some pro-abortion Judiciary Committee members objected to the bill's use of the terms "unborn child" and "child in utero."

But as Congressman Graham pointed out, on July 25, 2000, the House by a vote of 417-0 passed a bill that contained the same definition of "child in utero." That bill, the Innocent Child Protection Act, said that no state or federal authority may "carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero. ... 'child in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

For further details on the bill, see NRLC's March 12 letter to House members on this page, or visit the Unborn Victims of Violence Act section at the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/ Unborn_Victims/index.html.