Bill targets fetal murder, manslaughter

A bill designed to punish non-abortion-related criminal acts that harm a fetus, such as murder and manslaughter, is being criticized by Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the attorney general's office who oppose "identification of a fetus as a separate and distinct victim of crime."

The bill, titled the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which passed the House back in September, "would hold criminals liable for causing harm or death to an unborn child during the commission of certain violent federal crimes," said Sen. Mike DeWine, sponsor of S. 1673.

In such cases, the assailant could be charged with a second offense committed against the unborn child, rather than just the mother, explained DeWine. The single attack affecting both victims would be treated as two separate crimes under the Federal Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Assistant Attorney General Eleanor D. Acheson

During Wednesday's hearing, critics said the bill is an election-year attempt to infringe on the rights granted by the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion-on-demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denied any intent to make the legislation pertain to abortion, but acknowledged that it was a contentious issue.

"The only opposition that I can suppose is that some in the pro-choice movement believe that our bill draws attention to the effort to dehumanize, desensitize, and depersonalize the unborn child," he said.

Eleanor D. Acheson, known as "Eldie," an assistant attorney general and former co-chair of the 1992 Clinton-Gore New England Finance Committee, said the Justice Department would recommend President Clinton veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.

She said the bill's "identification of a fetus as a separate and distinct victim of crime is unprecedented as a matter of federal statute."

Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. pointed out, though, that federal law does make one interesting indirect reference to the unborn: Section 3596 states, "A sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is pregnant."

Supporters of S. 1673 said that in addition to bringing justice to numerous victims of fetus murder and manslaughter, the measure would bring the federal government in line with states and unify conflicting laws.

"I think, regardless of pro-life or pro-choice feelings, that most Americans want to protect the unborn from violence [by] criminals, and when a woman chooses to have her child, a criminal should not take that away from her," said Graham, sponsor of the House's version of the bill.

Acheson, however, told committee members the bill actually has the effect of diminishing legal protections for women's safety.

"Our first concern is that S. 1673 reaches only pregnant women, and then only if they happen already to be protected by one of the 68 enumerated federal offenses listed in S. 1673," she said. "Because it penalizes harm only to a subset of women, S. 1673 is a less effective means of combating violence against all women, and may have the side effect of devaluing the gravity of violence done to women not falling under S. 1673's auspices."

Acheson also claimed the bill, because it does not require a defendant to "know or should have known" the victim was pregnant, could harm police officers.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah

"If a police officer uses a slight amount of excessive force to subdue a female suspect -- without knowing or having any reason to believe that she was pregnant -- and she later miscarries, the officer could be subject to mandatory life imprisonment without possibility of parole, even though the maximum sentence for such use of force on a non-pregnant woman would be 10 years," she said.

"We strongly object to this "Russian roulette" aspect of S. 1673, which dramatically increases the penalty for harming a pregnant woman," concluded Acheson.

Twenty-four states already have laws protecting unborn children from violent crimes and would allow prosecutors to bring murder charges in cases of violence where a baby dies, even if the mother survives.

California's penal code, which defines murder as the "unlawful killing of a human being or fetus," requires that a defendant "know or should have known" a woman was pregnant at the time of the crime in order for the statute to take effect.

For example, if a man shoots a woman in the stomach, killing her unborn baby, he can be prosecuted for the murder of the fetus. If, however, a drunk driver hits another car in which a pregnant woman is riding, killing her child, no manslaughter has been committed.

Rep. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C.

California State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, R-Carlsbad, worked to change the state's manslaughter statute last year to include "fetus," but faced the same objections as posed by opponents of the congressional bill.

Kaloogian brought a victim to testify for his bill: Patty Groesbeck-Wade, now a current leader in Mothers Against Drunk Driving, was eight and a half months pregnant when her car was hit by a drunk driver, instantly killing her unborn daughter.

Wade chose to give birth to her dead child rather than have her surgically removed. Four days after the accident, Wade delivered Katie, as she had been named prior to the crash, who weighed just under seven pounds. Katie received birth and death certificates, was dressed and photographed.

Katie's mother brought poster-sized versions of two of those photos to the committee -- one showing mother and daughter in the hospital just after Katie was born; another showed Katie, just shy of seven pounds, lying dead in a pink nightie.

Calif. State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian

Just before the committee voted on AB 722, the chairman, Assemblyman Mike Honda, D-San Jose, looked Katie's mother in the eye and said his vote was not a reflection of how he felt about her loss.

"Sometimes we cannot let our hearts rule over our heads," he said, proceeding to vote "no," along with every other Democrat on the committee, including Assemblyman Carl Washington, a minister from Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Gloria Romero, also from Los Angeles.

The opposition's primary argument against Kaloogian's bill was that it would infringe on abortion rights. However, the lawyer-turned-legislator assured the committee and opposing witnesses the bill would not change the state's abortion laws since they are a separate, "lawful" act. Manslaughter is defined as an "unlawful killing."

Additionally, Kaloogian argued against the legal inconsistency of not including "fetus" in the definition of manslaughter. Manslaughter, he said, is a lesser offense than murder, but should apply to the same entities as murder.

In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Wade expressed her frustration with the hypocrisy of legislators who protect a woman's right to choose abortion, but not her right to keep her baby.

"I would like the system to realize that this man got away with a free murder because he was responsible for her death and he should have been charged with her death," said Wade.

"Citizens need to know that this happened and that they can change it," she continued. "We've tried for so long, and what really irritates me is that citizens don't realize this happens until it happens to them, and then it's the worst thing."