Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

When reading the current news, a law like The Unborn Victims of Violence Act at first makes sense to many people. The whole country watched as a beautiful expectant mother, Laci Peterson, disappeared. The media marked the day her son, who was to be named Conor, would have been born. People were outraged when their bodies were found washed up from San Francisco Bay, and when the husband and expectant father was charged with the murder. Since Conor was so close to being born, and since he likely would have survived if he had been born on December 24 instead of disappearing with his mother, many believe that Scott Peterson should be charged with two murders. However, currently the law takes the view that unborn children have no legal standing until they are born.

The issue of when life begins has affected multiple issues, including in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and cloning. Scientists can now clone stem cells taken from embryos, but this destroys the embryo, which abortion foes view as murder (Scully, 1998). While the Supreme Court has supported a woman's right to an abortion, the federal government does not support stem cell research. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay connected it clearly to abortion when he said, "All life is precious." (Staff writers, 2001)

Ostensibly, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President because of events like the Laci Peterson murder and a concern that only the mother would be viewed as a murder victim when the unborn child also died. The Federal law applies only to federal crimes -- for instance, bank robberies, which are federal crimes, or murders committed on military bases. The law states that it applies when a child "in utero" harmed, or killed, at any point in the pregnancy (Rosenberg, 2003). It is that part that makes people in favor of abortion choice nervous. They have two criticisms.

First, the wording of the law identifies any unborn fetus as a "child." They fear that the law could be interpreted to include otherwise legal abortions. They view the passage of this law as the first movement down a slippery slope that will lead to the redefinition of all unborn children from the moment of conception as equal to those who have been born, and see it as leading toward an end to legal abortions. As the head of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt said, "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot." (Rosenberg, 2003)

Lawmakers in favor of abortion rights have also seen this law as a precedent threatening the right to abortion (AP, 2004). Some events that took place as the law was being passed suggest their concerns may be valid. An amendment that would have increased penalties when the crime victim was a woman without making any definition about when life began was voted down (AP, 2004), suggesting that part of the intent was to make inroads against abortion rights.