Update: April 26, 2001

The U.S. House of Representatives today voted 252-172 in favor of The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 providing harsh penalties for injuring or killing an unborn child during the commission of a federal violent crime.

The Bill, H.R. 503 - "To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder," is sponsored by Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) and 95 cosponsors.

Punishments for harming a fetus would be separate from and in addition to those imposed for any harm done to the mother. For example, a person who kills both a pregnant woman and the fetus could be charged with two separate counts of homicide. 

"Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." (HR 503)

Lawful abortions conducted with the permission of the mother are exempted from prosecution under the bill.

Language of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 is virtually identical to that of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 passed 254-172 by the House on Sep. 30, 1999. That bill remained in the Senate Judiciary Committee and was never considered by the full Senate. Former President Clinton had stated his intent to veto the bill had it ever reached his desk. President Bush has not yet expressed his opinion of the 2001 version of the bill.

At least 24 states currently have laws providing some degree of fetal protection. Should The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 be approved, it would become the first and only fetal protection law at the federal level.

Support: Pro-life groups, such as the National Right-to-Life Committee (NRLC) support the bill. They argue that the law's intent is to ensure that the wrongful death of a fetus is punishable under federal criminal law, not to subvert laws protecting a woman's right to abortion. In other words, not a way around Roe v. Wade.

"[T]he Supreme Court has based its pro-abortion holdings on a supposed "right of privacy" held by the pregnant woman, which has no application in the case of a violent assault. Indeed, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the Supreme Court regarded as unobjectionable a Missouri law that declares "the life of each human being begins at conception" and that 'the unborn child at every stage of development [holds] all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons' -- so long as Missouri did not use this law to restrict abortion. Moreover, 24 states have already enacted unborn victim laws," according to the NRLC.

Opposition: Pro-choice groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), support enhanced laws punishing violent acts against pregnant women that harm the fetus, but argue that granting a fetus legal rights independent of those of the mother could be interpreted and applied in ways resulting in the denial of the woman's right to a legal abortion.

"While acknowledging the deep emotions that fetuses may evoke for millions of Americans, the ACLU opposes the creation of theories of 'fetal rights.' Permitting legal actions on behalf of stillborn fetuses or enacting laws to protect fetuses opens a Pandora's box in terms of how the law treats pregnancy and childbirth. However great our compassion and concern for bereaved prospective parents, we must examine such lawsuits and legislation with a critical eye. If they pose a real threat to reproductive rights, as they often do, then we must intervene and oppose them," states the ACLU.

Advertise on This Site