March 26, 2004

• The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Any stage of development... like in that old cartoon, where scientists say, "OK, conception begins when the couple decides to go to the back seat".
• Bad law. I hope the SCOTUS has the good sense to declare it invalid before it leads to big problems. For one thing, the definition that flagpole so kindly pointed out is hugely vague. Some estimate that up to 50% of pregnancies are terminated naturally - usually before the woman is even aware she was pregnant. Additionally, some birth control methods work not only as true contraception but also as abortifacients, preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. But according to this bill, even the most non-viable pregnancies would be cause for a second murder conviction. Additionally, I'm sure we all know that the congressman is wrong when he says this has nothing to do with abortion. It has everything to do with abortion. If this passes constitutional muster, then there is a precedent for the "rights of the unborn" - and at that point, we have a legal mess on our collective hands - particularly if the unborn have rights from the moment of conception. It extends even beyond banning abortion - do contraception methods that are sometimes abortifacient (such as the ever-popular birth control pill) need to be banned to protect the tiny embryos that can't attach to the uterine wall? I am pretty scared by this sort of thing, but I figure it's the path this country is on anyway. The SCOTUS can stop it - but not much else can.
• Oh, also, I feel so famous! *giddy grin*
• And you've said most of the important things that needed saying : ). It is a dangerous precedent for abortion (though I hadn't thought about the abortifacient birth control - good thinking). I don't think I would feel comfortable with anyone who couldn't see that as my representative, on simple grounds of incompetency.
• Except that contraceptives and abortifacients aren't considered assaults on a woman. Those are, in fact, taken by choice. If a woman is attacked and her unborn baby is 'killed', that is not "abortion by choice". I don't see a problem with the law. Wording might be problematic, but I think the intent is right on.
• I agree with f8xmulder. Although the last thing I want to see is a law that heads in the direction of legalizing abortion, I think the intent of this law is correct. There has to be some stipulation that when some kills your unborn baby against your will that it's murder.
• I'm just glad the monkey poo hasn't started flying with this thread. I'm glad about that. I almost didn't post it because I thought the issue was too controversial. In the previous thread that was post by Musingmelpomene. I'm pro-choice, but think there should be fair law for the state to come in when a pregnant woman is mentally unfit. I still am not buying that. It seems to me that the state of Utah is doing damage control.
• musingmelpomene has it exactly right. Putting the whole slippery-slope-on-abortion rights issue aside for a moment, reading the text of the bill, the law statutorily imposes intent while acknowledging that the actor may not have that intent. In order to be convicted of murder, one has to have the specific intent to kill the victim (lack of intent will result in a lesser charge, such as manslaughter.) Under this law, a person could be convicted of murder of a fetus that he did not know existed. (Disclaimer: criminal defense is not my specialty.) I know that the government can impose strict liability for certain acts without regard to intent, but I'm not aware that there are any other scenarios where the government ascribes specific intent while allowing for the possibility of the lack of that intent. Any other lawyers out there have thoughts on this? I can see this provision being challenged based on the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy, or some analogy thereto.
• Crap. That link you posted, ambrosia, has been slashdotted. The double jeopardy rule would only apply if the accused was tried for the same crime. Fetus killing and assault are two different crimes. That said, I see your point about specific intent, but I think that the government may impose penalty on actions without specific intent if the action itself was intended. For instance, say you've got an assassin who's targeting one person, but in the course of shooting that one person, several other people are killed too. Would that assassin be tried for the murder of only one person? Of course not, he'd be tried on the murder of all the people killed. If it's assault, battery, or attempted murder on the woman, the death of a fetus in such an incident would probably fall under the same guidelines.
• While I agree that perhaps there should be an additional penalty for killing a fetus that a mother KNEW EXISTED against her will, that should be more along the lines of - oh holy god watch the flames rise - destruction of property, or aggravated assault. It should be for the rights of the MOTHER, who has had her fetus killed, rather than for the rights of the unborn. The intent of the law is to give rights to a new class of "citizens" - you know, the kind composed of 128 cells. If it addressed the rights of the mothers, that would be different. As it is, it's a clear step toward encroachment of reproductive choice.
• I'm curious - at what point does the fetus cease being the woman's property? As it is, it's a clear step toward encroachment of reproductive choice. Gosh, I love the framing of this. This new class of citizen you speak of...wouldn't happen to look like this, would it (pictures possibly NSFW)? I know pictures will never duly prove what constitutes human life and what doesn't, but they at least present a compelling argument against your 128-cell theory. BTW, some of those pictures are at 7-weeks.
• f8xmulder, we can also show pictures of Ted Bundy being executed. If Republicans believe that all life is sacred than so is Bundy's. Turn the other cheek. That kind of tactics remind me of PETA.
• New York Times article.

  "This will be the first strike against all abortion in the United States of America," Ms. Feinstein said. She said a federal statute declaring that life begins at conception could ultimately lead to a court finding that "embryonic stem cell research becomes murder and abortion in the first trimester becomes murder as well." "That's where this debate is taking us," Ms. Feinstein said, "that's the reason for this bill." But the Senate rejected on a vote of 50 to 49 her amendment that would have allowed criminals to be charged with a second offense for harming a fetus or terminating a woman's pregnancy without granting new legal status to the fetus. Senators also rejected another Democratic amendment, one that would have required companies to provide unpaid leave for victims of domestic or sexual violence, a policy that Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, said was a better way to reduce crimes against women. "Despite the rhetoric, they are not truly willing to do something about domestic violence," Ms. Murray said. Backers of the

• 7-week old fetuses certainly didn't go around killing people, if that's the kind of comparison you're trying to make.
• f8x - I'm curious. Is your complaint about this at all founded in Christian theology?
• 7-week old fetuses certainly didn't go around killing people, if that's the kind of comparison you're trying to make. I'm just looking for consistency from Christians. I don't think PETA tactics will work. That will turn people away in the long run.
• musing, I'm certainly not complaining. As I pointed out in my first comment, I believe the intent of the bill is right on. And to answer your question: I am dowsed in Christian theological tenants, but for these kind of arguments, I have learned that applying my theological moral values onto political situations is counteractive. So, all my arguments for this bill are politically founded.
• I'm just looking for consistency from Christians. Then please apply it in your own examples. It is inconsistent to compare 7-week old fetuses to serial killers. I don't think PETA tactics will work. PETA tactics would probably go so far as to throw the aborted remains of fetuses onto women as they enter abortion clinics. Let me know when Christians start doing that... Also, I didn't RAM the pictures down your throats. I merely used them as points of illustration to counter the 128-cell theory. I wasn't attempting to gross out, horrify, or even inflame people's sensibilities. That's pretty much PETA's MO. I hope you can see the difference.
• f8xmulder, Christians (in theory) hold all life as sacred. If the life of a fetus is sacred than so is a serial killer. As a Christian you have to love Bundy as much as those fetuses. Personally, I think people pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with. The Bible says that if a woman marries and she is not a virgin then she must be stoned to death. To not do so is disobeying God. Personally, I think that scripture is idiotic.
• Sully, Christians (well, some Christians) hold that all life is sacred. When one chooses to violate that sacredness by killing, then he/she has also lost the right to live. That's a personal opinion, and is in line with my moral stance on life being sacred. That you disagree is not really a concern of mine. However, if you want to make the argument that all life is sacred, that's absolutely fine, as long as you also support a bill that considers unborn babies as human beings. Otherwise, I'm calling out your strawman. A Bible debate on the facts and history of Torah law and how and which ones apply to Christianity is not something I'm going to get into here. Your statement about scripture being idiotic leads me to believe that you're, at best, misinformed about what Scripture actually says, and an argument would only be counterproductive. Not trying to rage on you here, but I'm tired of having to defend myself and my faith against people who use piecemeal and out-of-context examples to stomp on it. GAH! /FridayBluesFilter
• All that said, Sully, I'd like to keep this thread amiable. I totally respect your beliefs and your dislike of perceived Christian stances, and I'd never ask you to silence yourself.
• All that said, Sully, I'd like to keep this thread amiable. I totally respect your beliefs and your dislike of perceived Christian stances, and I'd never ask you to silence yourself. No problem, f8xmulder.
• f8xmulder: I'm sorry people have been disrepctful to your faith - it is neither a polite nor productive way to discuss what are very important, and not easy issues, no matter what one believes. The worry is not really that fetuses will be given human rights, but that those rights will take precidence over the mother's right. With our current technology, we cannot do anything about the fact that a fetus in the first trimester cannot survive outside of a mother's body. To remove it does mean its death. But to forbid this is to force women to carry to term a child they may not be able to handle or care for, or who may even pose a danger to their health. Pregnant girls have been, in the past, and perhaps still would be in some places, forced to leave highschools when pregnant; they cannot continue college. These may sound like mere excuses, but one has to think about what life would mean for both the woman and her child, if she is a single parent, particularly without an education. Of course, many anti-abortion people would then respond that there is always the possibility of adoption - but this means not only loosing almost a year of one's life (including leaving school, maybe being unable to return) to carry the child, but then having to give it up after all that. I think this is one of the reasons many women are afraid to carry to term: not that they hate the child so much they couldn't bear to be pregnant, but that they fear they would love it so, that they would ruin both lives to keep it. And of course, there are always the serious cases where a woman cannot bring a child to term without endangering her own life. Any law would have to take this into account. It is not an easy choice - anyone who thinks it is has not thought about it long enough. No one can claim that abortion is not ending a life, however simple; but at the same time, to make abortion illegal is to begin killing women. I don't know how I feel about abortion, but I know that when it is not available legally, it continues illegally. This has been true since prehistory; in fact, for most of our history, we have also engaged in infanticide, the killing of viable children we could not provide for. But illegal abortion claims women's lives. This is what we must, all individually, weigh. It does matter, how one thinks about souls. I once heard a Chinese story. It was about a man and a woman during a famine; she had a baby, and rather than to see it die slowly, the father took the baby out to drown him. The famine lasted three years - and three times the woman became pregnant - and the famine deepened and three times the father had to take his beautiful baby out and drown him. But slowly, the famine lifted, and the family had more food - and they were so happy when the wife became pregnant again. When their son was born they held parties and gave away red eggs. The father took his son out to see their fields, and started telling the baby how happy they were to have him - and the baby said, "Three times I tried to come to you, but the time was not right, but now I am here and all is well." Okay - that is kind of rambling, and I probably misremember the story. And it's a bit of a fairy tale, so of course babies can talk. But it did make me think.
• The reason I asked about f8x's theological leanings is that I am intrigued by the religious right's insistence on this bill. Even according to unforgiving, Big Bad Old Testament God, if you kill a fetus in a mother's womb, you pay restitution - whereas the punishment for a murder is death. But if you're arguing from a purely political standpoint - rather than one based in Christian philosophy - then you have to consider practical issues. For instance, this applies to federal crimes like a terrorist bombing. How would we necessarily know whether each woman was pregnant? Would each of them need to be tested? What about people for whom no remains could be found? And you admit that basically you're pushing for the "rights" of the unborn - would this mean that you would deny women the ability to use the birth control pill and possibly IUD's? Should expectant mothers be forced to do nothing that could potentially pose a risk to their unborn child? If they do take a risk - say, driving - and they're in an accident and the child dies, are they responsible because they didn't protect the rights of the unborn? How about women who don't eat right during pregnancy? How about women who can't afford to eat right during pregnancy? If a woman attempts suicide and upon medical examination it turns out she's three weeks pregnant, is she to be incarcerated on charges of attempted murder? Just wondering. If you're going to open a can of worms, you might want to read the label first.
• I wasn't going to bring religion into it, but since you have, I'll go along with it. Exodus 21:22-25 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Is that what you're referring to, muse? That's pretty clear that God considers the unborn as worthy of being avenged. If injured, they are recompensed in kind. If killed, the killer is also to be dealt in kind. For instance, this applies to federal crimes like a terrorist bombing. How would we necessarily know whether each woman was pregnant? Would each of them need to be tested? What about people for whom no remains could be found? One assumes that if a woman is pregnant, then she'd have told family and friends. That information would out eventually. The prosecution could then pursue charges for the murders of however many people died, including any unborn children. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it -- would you? And you admit that basically you're pushing for the "rights" of the unborn - would this mean that you would deny women the ability to use the birth control pill and possibly IUD's? I advocate for the rights of the unborn, just as I advocate the rights of all humans. I consider them humans - just because they are still developing inside the mother doesn't mean I value their lives any less. When it comes to the law, current reproductive rights allow a woman to use birth control pills and/or other contraceptives. I don't know what IUD's are. Actually, I don't oppose birth control BEFORE conception takes place. Abortion as birth control, however, is another story. Should expectant mothers be forced to do nothing that could potentially pose a risk to their unborn child? If they do take a risk - say, driving - and they're in an accident and the child dies, are they responsible because they didn't protect the rights of the unborn? Expectant mothers are, I believe, required to do all that is reasonable to protect themselves and their unborn babies from harm. Your driving risk scenario is a strawman. Under that argument, you'd have to ban driving for all people, under the assumed risk scenario. That's a ridiculous argument to make. The woman can only do so much to protect her unborn child. THAT BEING SAID, however, I'll make an analogous argument. What about the woman who has a six month child and takes him to the store, but doesn't put him into the child seat? If they get into an accident and the child dies, the mother could potentially be charged for murder (if her intent was for the child to die and that can be proved). Or she might be charged with criminal neglect, or manslaughter (if no intent is found, but since the child safety laws are fairly innocuous, she would definitely be charged). How about women who don't eat right during pregnancy? How about women who can't afford to eat right during pregnancy? The law can only REASONABLY govern behaviours. Those actions which are not expressly criminal can't be prosecuted under the law. Again, though, it seems you're grasping for straws here. If a woman attempts suicide and upon medical examination it turns out she's three weeks pregnant, is she to be incarcerated on charges of attempted murder? Is that such a bad idea? After all, she's a pregnant woman. If she's responsible for that life, then taking her own life is also willfully ending the life of another. She absolutely should be charged with attempted murder of her unborn baby. Any more worm cans you need opened? I've got hooks all over the place.
• Intrauterine Devices (IUD's).
• Exodus 21:22-25 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Reading this, it seems fairly clear that the fetus is not a person, but "fruit" - and it says that in the cases where "her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow" (i.e. her own death or illness), then the assaultant is to pay restitution, not to be charged with murder. It is only in cases when "any mischief follow[s]", which by the first sentance I would understand as again to the mother (since it has already been established that she has miscarried, and no further harm could be done to the now dead fetus), that he could be charged with injuring or killing someone. Of course, this is in translation only - anyone have (and can read) an authoritative version of the Hebrew?
• jb, fruit is a metaphor here for a child. Haven't you heard of "fruit of his loins"? Here's the New King James translation, which reads a little more clearly, though you're right, it's a little less so than I had originally thought: "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
• BUT - if we also keep in mind what the psalmist wrote in 139, we see that "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." Just another pea to add to the pod.
• Would really not like to stick my head into this issue, but just would like some points clarified: One assumes that if a woman is pregnant, then she'd have told family and friends. That information would out eventually. Would you believe there have been women who didn't know they were pregnant until the child's head was sticking out between their legs (I've read of at least three such cases in the last two years locally)? What about women who have irregular periods and aren't aware of their pregnancies for at least two to three months? If they do something which proves adverse to a child they do not know they are carrying, are they equally guilty of murder? I advocate for the rights of the unborn, just as I advocate the rights of all humans. I consider them humans - just because they are still developing inside the mother doesn't mean I value their lives any less. There are often cases of multiple conceptions, but one fetus (in the case of twins, say) would get absorbed by another fetus in the early stages of pregnancy. Would you accuse the dominant fetus of fratricide? Since you consider both fetuses human beings, is it cannibalism? The law can only REASONABLY govern behaviours. Those actions which are not expressly criminal can't be prosecuted under the law. Again, though, it seems you're grasping for straws here. Not really. Musingmelpomene was just pushing your assumption to a logical conclusion. If a woman's doctor strongly advocates she take certain suppplements to benefit her fetus, and she refuses, does the doctor have the right to sue her? Under this bill, yes. What if the doctor gives her a diet plan and she refuses to keep to it - or cannot afford to keep to it? Can he sue her then? Where would you draw the line in terms of how far this law can be used to regulate proper behavior on the part of the woman to protect the fetus? At medication? Supplements? Cigarettes? Diet? Liquor? Is that such a bad idea? After all, she's a pregnant woman. It's a bad idea for two reasons. One, woman three weeks pregnant is highly likely not to know she is pregnant, since most women have a twenty-eight day cycle and she may not have missed her period yet. Secondly, a woman who is attempting to committ suicide is very obviously not in normal state of mind (whatever that is). To want to kill oneself means one has hit rock bottom, mentally or emotionally or both. She needs help, not censure. If the first thing you do once she wakes up from a botched suicide attempt is to put her in jail for murder, you're going to find a corpse in a jail cell real soon. Is that such a bad idea? It's waaaay past midnight here, so I might not be here to read any replies you may have, f8xmulder. I'll try to check this thread in the morning.
• You care to finish that little pea? 139:19 If only31 you would kill the wicked, O God! Get away from me, you violent men! 139:20 They rebel against you and act deceitfully; your enemies lie. 139:21 O Lord, do I not hate those who hate you, and despise those who oppose you?37 139:22 I absolutely hate them, they have become my enemies! 139:23 Examine me, and probe my thoughts! Test me, and know my concerns! 139:24 See if there is any idolatrous tendency in me, and lead me in the reliable ancient path! You can't pick and choose, f8xmulder. Would you then follow the example of the psalmist and hate all those who do not follow the God of Israel? If we followed all the laws of Deutronomy and Exodus, we will have to kill many, many people, most of them women. I admire the poetry of the Bible, but I have to admit my blood runs cold at the laws and the threats. I turned away from it because I did not wish to learn to hate those who love me but did not choose to love the God of Israel.
• Fetuses aren't for saving, unless you plan to eat them later.
• Alneda, sorry for the late reply - been away. I am not picking and choosing from scriptures. It's a mystery to some how certain parts of old Testament laws and customs can be "left behind", while others are dutifully followed. It has to do with the "fulfillment of the law" as described by Jesus. In a nutshell, the tenants of Old Testament Jewish law existed for the Israelites to show their dependence on God. That there were laws even regarding the kind of fabrics one could wear indicated the depths to which God was involved in their day-to-day lives. And yet, look at the Old Testament - it's the story of the Israelites failing time and time again. Under Moses, under the Kings, and the Prophets, they disobeyed God's laws. When Jesus came, he said, "I came, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Indeed, he was the living embodiment of the law, but with one thing different - he introduced grace without merit. Before, the OT method of forgiveness was through sacrifice of a pure animal. Jesus' death/resurrection took away the need for sacrifice, since he was the ultimate sacrifice, the once-for-all-time sacrifice. But, to get back to the picking and choosing. Please remember that OT law was not just spiritual laws, but also civil laws as well. This is a proscription upon governments to maintain civil order by punishing evildoers (lawbreakers) if necessary. That's a commandment repeated in the New Testament as well (Romans 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Nevertheless, we know that Jesus maintained that His government was not a civil one, but a spiritual one only (John 18:36). With His coming, the rules of the civil changed (at least for His followers) so that violence was to remain in the civil realm, not the spiritual realm. The spiritual laws which are set up in the OT are also binding in the New Testament, but with certain restrictions eliminated because of the power of the new covenant installed through Jesus' death/resurrection. I know, it sounds complicated, so email me if you want to know more. Nevertheless, the fact is, OT scriptures that include actions such as what follows in Psalm 139 CAN be reconciled with current spiritual laws.
• Would you believe there have been women who didn't know they were pregnant until the child's head was sticking out between their legs (I've read of at least three such cases in the last two years locally)? Strange, but if it happens, it happens. I'm not denying that it's a sticky dilemma. But do you really want to argue against a law that might legitimately effect .01% of a population set? What about women who have irregular periods and aren't aware of their pregnancies for at least two to three months? If they do something which proves adverse to a child they do not know they are carrying, are they equally guilty of murder? You seem set on ignoring that the crimes we're talking about are crimes of intent. If no intent, then how can you charge with murder? There are often cases of multiple conceptions, but one fetus (in the case of twins, say) would get absorbed by another fetus in the early stages of pregnancy. Would you accuse the dominant fetus of fratricide? Since you consider both fetuses human beings, is it cannibalism? I'm astonished that you're stooping this low. Honestly, at what point do you start recognizing that there is a process of biology at work in pregnancy? I have no problem with the concept of uterine complications in pregnancy that result in the death(s) of one or more unborn babies before they're born. It's generally considered miscarriage, and that's not a crime. There are certain things that happen that are unavoidable, or unaccountable. You tend to sound paranoid when you throw out examples like this. This law does not trample biology. In actuality, it confirms it. If a woman's doctor strongly advocates she take certain suppplements to benefit her fetus, and she refuses, does the doctor have the right to sue her? Under this bill, yes. What if the doctor gives her a diet plan and she refuses to keep to it - or cannot afford to keep to it? Can he sue her then? Where would you draw the line in terms of how far this law can be used to regulate proper behavior on the part of the woman to protect the fetus? At medication? Supplements? Cigarettes? Diet? Liquor? NEGATIVE. This bill does not deal with doctor/patient situations. Is that diet plan essential to the baby's survival? Are those supplements vital for a viable pregnancy? There are already warnings about cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol for pregnancies - they're on all labels and it's fairly common knowledge as well. I really don't see the connection between your examples and this bill. It's a bad idea for two reasons. One, woman three weeks pregnant is highly likely not to know she is pregnant, since most women have a twenty-eight day cycle and she may not have missed her period yet. Secondly, a woman who is attempting to committ suicide is very obviously not in normal state of mind (whatever that is). To want to kill oneself means one has hit rock bottom, mentally or emotionally or both. She needs help, not censure. If the first thing you do once she wakes up from a botched suicide attempt is to put her in jail for murder, you're going to find a corpse in a jail cell real soon. Is that such a bad idea? Okay, I'll concede your point here. But I would assume that if a woman attempts suicide, there are probably programs that she will be put into - if she's mentally unstable, the state puts her in a ward, and she's taken care of. So either way, this is a case where the exception is the rule.
• I'm astonished that you're stooping this low. I am pretty paranoid, I will be the first to admit that. Since the ultimate purpose of this bill is to override Roe v. Wade eventually, I do feel very uncomfortable about it, although it is in and of itself fairly innocuous. I was not really arguing with your points (except for the Psalms) but wished to see where you draw the lines in the circumstances you have been arguing. Thank you for your offer, f8xmulder, but a decade and a half of Catholic schooling have rather put me off. Oh, in case you haven't found out what an IUD is, it's a InterUterine Device. It's like a loop which lines the uterus and prevents fertilised eggs from attaching. So you might consider it a kind of abortion.
• Thanks for the IUD info. dng kindly offered me a link to clitoral.com or something like that. It was informative, to say the least.
• Oh boy, I'll bet it was. clitoral.com??? *eyes bug out*
• My mistake. It was clitical.com. Not as much fun as clitoral, but just as enlightening...
• That sounds like something a Chinese might say in a B-grade movie. "Situation clitical! Need lee-inforcements! Lay-diation le-bel off the scale!"
• Alneda, to get back to your concerns/paranoia, you may want to consider these points: -- The Unborn Victims of Violence Act explicitly excludes abortion, and excludes any act committed by the mother herself, legal or illegal. -- Twenty-nine states, including California, have fetal-homicide laws, some of which have been enforced for decades and have had no effect on abortion. -- Criminal defendants and advocacy groups have mounted more than a dozen legal challenges to state unborn-victims laws. EVERY SINGLE ONE has failed in the federal and state courts. The 1994 ruling by the California Supreme Court is typical: "[W]hen the mother's privacy interests are not at stake, the Legislature may determine whether, and at what point, it should protect life inside a mother's womb from homicide." -- In its 1989 Webster ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower-court order against the most comprehensive of the state laws, a Missouri statute stipulating that "the life of each human being begins at conception," and that the "unborn child" has the rights of others under all state laws (including criminal laws), with the Supreme Court observing that this law could be constitutionally applied outside the realm of abortion. -- Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger of Duke University School of Law, who advised President Clinton on constitutional issues and authored his 1993 abortion-related executive orders, said, "I don't think [fetal-homicide laws] undermine Roe vs. Wade. The legislatures can decide that fetuses are deserving of protection without having to make any judgment that the entity being protected has freestanding constitutional rights." Just food for thought as you ponder what this bill really means for abortion supporters. I honestly don't think this is a "first step" to criminalizing abortion.