The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Commentary
    • Columns
    • Water Cooler
    • Letters
    • Cartoons
    • Books
  • Sports
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Communities
  • Rebate Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Photos
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Politics

    Pro-life Democrats support bill

  • National

    WILLIAMS: Genuine economic stimulus

  • Politics

    Voight, tea party groups plan last-minute protest

  • Politics

    CURL: Obama the Innocent stumps for health care

  • Politics

    Key Democrat Boccieri switches to 'yes' on health vote

  • Commentary

    TURNER: Our lawbreaking Congress

  • Energy

    Obama backs plan to legalize illegals

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Panel backs bill on fetal protection

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen

More Stories

  • Thousands rally on anniversary of Iraq invasion
  • Iceland volcano erupts; hundreds evacuated
  • Ovechkin lights the lamp in return to play
  • Judge rejects settlement for 9/11 rescuers

By

ASSOCIATED PRESS

The House Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a bill that would make it a separate federal crime to kill or injure a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman.

Democrats on the panel called the legislation a thinly veiled attempt to erode abortion rights.

The 20-13 vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, at the first meeting of the committee this year, divided cleanly on partisan lines. Republicans on the committee all voted in favor of the bill, and all Democrats against it.

Under current law, said Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican, "injuring or killing an unborn child during an attack against a pregnant woman has no legal consequence. This situation is unacceptable."

But Democrats and pro-choice groups said the real motive was to establish "fetal personhood" by giving separate federal protection to a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus. "This is part of a larger cultural war that is going on," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, top Democrat on the committee.

Supporters have nicknamed the bill the "Laci and Conner's law" after the pregnant Modesto, Calif., woman who disappeared in late 2002. Her husband, Scott Peterson, is charged with murdering his wife and their unborn child. California and nearly 30 other states have laws providing different degrees of protection to fetal victims.

The bill before Congress probably would not apply in the Peterson case because it covers only federal crimes, including kidnapping across state lines, drug-related drive-by shootings, and assaults occurring on federal property.

The House twice has passed similar "unborn victims" bills, in 1999 and 2001. In both cases, no action was taken in the Senate, where pro-choice lawmakers hold a stronger position. Sen. Mike DeWine, Ohio Republican, is sponsoring parallel legislation in the Senate this year.

Mr. Chabot, who also sponsored the recently enacted law that bans partial-birth abortion, stressed that this legislation "has nothing to do with abortion," and that it specifically states that it does not permit the prosecution of legal abortions carried out with the consent of the mother.

But he and other Republicans rejected an amendment, offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat. She would have increased penalties for attacks on a pregnant woman leading to the interruption of a pregnancy but not confer separate legal rights to the fetus.

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Commenting is disabled for this entry.
If you feel there is still something worth mentioning about this entry please contact the author or the site admin.

Top Stories

Most Shared

  1. KUHNER: Impeach the president?
  2. EDITORIAL: Hiding the true cost of Obamacare
  3. RUSE: The Girl Scout Sex Guide
  4. HANSON: Proud to help -- and to fly our flag
  5. EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow
More Top Stories »
  1. PRUDEN: Into the twilight zone
  2. STEYN: 'Deemocracy' in action
  3. Lawmaker won't press charges in spitting incident
  4. BERMAN: Charities behaving badly
  5. TURNER: Our lawbreaking Congress

Most Commented

  1. KUHNER: Impeach the president?
  2. Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
  3. Lawmaker won't press charges in spitting incident
  4. Voight, tea party groups plan last-minute protest
  5. Key Democrat Boccieri switches to 'yes' on health vote
More Top Stories »
  1. Obama urges Dems to come together for health care
  2. CURL: Obama the Innocent stumps for health care
  3. Obama holds final pep rally for health care
  4. TURNER: Our lawbreaking Congress
  5. Raucous buildup precedes health care vote

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin

Blogs & Columns

  • Water Cooler

    Health care bill opponents: Executive order on abortion doesn't cut it

  • Belief Blog

    Nancy Pelosi invokes the 'wrong' St. Joseph

  • Technology

    Ordering iPad is painless, except for the wallet hit

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.