« Of Abortions and Boobies | Main | Ooh Baby Baby »

March 25, 2004

Laci's Law

You might have read that Laci and Conner's Law has been passed by both the House and the Senate, and is on its way to the desk of the President. I have some thoughts on the law that I might get around to posting tonight or tomorrow.

In the meantime, however, I leave you with this blast from the past. Shudder.

Update: OK, some brief thoughts on the law and how, despite protests to the contrary, it is clearly a step toward trying to make abortion illegal in this country.

The bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child, "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

So, what the bill is saying is that - regardless of the level of development - the embryo or fetus is a human being entitled to the right to life and protection under the law. But...

It specifically excludes prosecution of legally performed abortions — a fact supporters cite in arguing that the bill would not undermine the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

"The criminals who commit these crimes are not committing abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (search). "They are depriving these unborn children of the right to life. It's a separate issue related to the right to life."

Absolute nonsense.

Does an abortion not deny "these unborn children...the right to life?" As defined in the bill, it most certainly does, and this "exclusion" - while an apparent compromise - is philosophically indefensible in light of the wording of the bill's protection of the embryo or fetus.

Further, what is the greater crime? The criminal who, while robbing someone, injures the fetus knowingly or unknowingly - or the woman who, deciding she can't support or doesn't want a child, willfully goes to a clinic to have her "unborn child" denied its "right to life," and in fact pays for the killing to be done? Not to be too blunt, but in the first example, the death is effectively collateral damage - and in the second, the death is premeditated murder (if we're going to be philosophically consistent).

Please note, I'm not against abortion (up to a point, somewhere in the second trimester - Google away for "Sagan" and "abortion" and you'll find Carl's thoughts which are similar to my own). I'm simply demonstrating that, well, those who say this isn't a veiled attack on Roe v. Wade are either idiots or liars.

With politicians, it's often hard to tell the difference.