So was the Unborn Victmis of Violence Act really about protecting pregnant women, or was it about getting a pro-life precident written into law? Bush Campaign Lies has the answer – I hope they don’t mind if I quote extensively.
Actually, the exact reverse is true. It is Senate Republicans who placed abortion politics over unborn victims of violence. The fact is that Republicans exploited the Laci Peterson tragedy in order to gain support for the bill — and demonize its opponents — precisely so that they could pass legislation which accords the same rights to a fetus as to anyone else.
How do I know this? Because Dianne Feinstein introduced a substitute amendment (S. Amdt 2858) which would have effectively replaced the Unborn Victims of Violence Act with legislation which, according to Feinstein:
“. . . include(s) the same structure, the same crimes, and the exact same penalties as the DeWine bill. The only real difference between our amendment and the DeWine bill is that we do not attempt to place into law language defining life as beginning at conception–beginning with an embryo.”
Those who are truly concerned with ‘protecting pregnant women from violence’ would happily support the Feinstein amendment, which was defeated 50-49, with 47 Republicans voting against it (and yes, Kerry voted for it). Only those whose true intent is to ‘place abortion politics above unborn victims of violence’ would reject the Feinstein amendment in favor of a bill which sticks a thumb in the eye of Roe v. Wade.
Bush Campaign Lies, by the way, is a new blog with a very tight focus on rebutting statements made by the Bush campaign. An excellent resource if you’re involved in any Bush v Kerry arguments and you’re looking for ammo. :-)
if pro-choicers would just quit caving in to the anti-choice framing of the abortion debate, we wouldn’t wind up in situations like this.
first off, abortion isn’t about what the fetus is but about what the fetus does. if the anti-choicers get their way, nobody but a fetus will be allowed to make biological demands on a person’s body without that person’s consent. we have to consent to blood and organ donation, but these freaks want pregnancy forced on a woman even if she doesn’t consent to it. they claim she consented if she had sex, but (1) sex is not pregnancy and (2) consent is not a contract. it can be revoked.
it’s stupid to even get into the discussion of when life begins. know when life began? several hundred million years ago. conception isn’t the “beginning” of life but a continuation of it. you can’t make something alive out of something dead. biologists have pretty much conclusively proven that by now. i wish the major pro-choice activists would just say that once where the media would pick it up and then maybe this stupid argument could be reframed.