Unborn Victims of Violence Act factors into abortion debate

Laci Peterson's murder is a mystery that has plagued law enforcement for the past year. Soon, it might not be her murder alone, but also the murder of her unborn child, that remains unresolved.

On Thursday, March 26, the Senate approved legislation that makes it a separate offense to harm a fetus when violence is committed against a pregnant woman. Cases like Peterson's have helped to build support for the act, known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Senator Mike DeWine, a republican from Ohio and strong proponent of the bill, brought the debate to the Senate floor on Thursday. In DeWine's press release, he states, "it is just plain wrong that federal law does absolutely nothing to recognize that violent acts against unborn children are a crime."

"We are going to close this glaring loophole in our federal criminal code once and for all. This is a vote about justice for all of the victims of crime, including the unborn child," he continued.

The measure has already been passed by the House, and is now in the hands of the president. A strong supporter of the Bill, President Bush is expected to sign it into law.

According to The New York Times, Bush issued a statement on Thursday night stating, "Pregnant women who have been harmed by violence, and their families, know that there are two victims -- the mother and the unborn child -- and both victims should be protected by federal law."

Opponents of the law, however, feel that it is not directed towards ending violence at all. They feel that the new legal designation of the fetus is just a tool for anti-abortion advocates.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), a group known for its pro-choice position, denounced the Senate's passage of the bill. "The so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not intended to protect pregnant women from domestic violence or punish individuals who harm them," President Gloria Feldt said in a statement on the organization's website. "It is part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."

Junior Judith Neufeld, co-president of VOX, is concerned by this and other recent legislation. "The goal behind all these acts that are being passed is to strip away a woman's right to choose," she said. "They're trying to mask this bill, but the larger agenda is it is an anti-abortion agenda."

Tufts political science professor Gary McKissick shares the position taken by Neufeld and PPFA. "When the sponsors and main proponents of the legislation claim it is not about abortion they are lying, plain and simple."

"The law itself will have virtually no effect on crime," he continued. "It applies only to what happens in the commission of a federal crime of violence -- so it simply adds on a newly created category of punishable outcomes to a behavior already deemed illegal, and "federal" crimes constitute a rather small category of violent crime."

Sophomore Meredith Harris agreed with McKissick. "I think the act is a bridge for President Bush to later use against pro-choice groups in passing laws against abortion," Harris said.

Many opponents feel that the bill will lead to an eventual challenge against the Roe v. Wade decision. According to the PPFA website the act "was created with the sole aim of undermining the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision."

"For opponents of abortion rights, it's a politically expedient strategy," McKissick said. "They know they don't have the support to take on Roe v. Wade directly. This law, though, is an easier sell. Because it's dealing with criminal activity, lawmakers who oppose it risk looking 'soft on crime.'"

Other members of the Tufts community support the act and question McKissick's assessment that it will directly affect Roe v. Wade.

Robert Curry, vice president of The Catholic Community at Tufts, believes the act is a good thing for our country. "I view life in all forms as sacred," he said.

Senior Matt Dysart also supports the act. He says it is explicitly provided in the bill that it won't be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. "The biggest reason in my mind of supporting the bill is that the distinction between a 'fetus' moments before birth and a 'baby' moments afterwards seems so arbitrary and artificial," Dysart said.

For Dysart, the goal of the bill is to protect human life in all possible forms. "I think there is a universal instinct to protect developing infants from violence from without," he explained. "Our children are protected from murder and abuse and adults are protected, but for some reason previously we have not protected human life before the moment of birth. The distinction seems so unnecessary to me."

Dysart challenges the assumption that the goal of the bill is to undermine a woman's right to choose. "I think you can be morally consistent and state that a woman's right to choose is consistent with the right of a fetus to not be harmed from without," he said.

Whether or not the act has an ulterior motive, McKissick feels that basic logistics were overlooked. "Lost in all the hoopla over the abortion issue is a relatively simple question: how exactly is a law like this to be enforced?" McKissick asked. "Has anyone considered how hard it is to establish -- concretely -- 'fetal harm' and, especially, its causes?"