Thank or Spank Your Senators on Anti-Choice Vote

[swag]

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=9988&c=143

[Zookeeper]

1. Done! Thanks for the post! n/t

[Indiana_Dem]

2. All done. Thank you!

[sybylla]

3. Kick

Done, Thanks for pointing it out.

[lazarus]

4. btw

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that bill does, because it also explicitly states that it can not be applied to abortion at all. So it actually protects a woman's right to choose. :shrug:

[outinforce]

5. What This Bill Actually Does

What this bill actually does is to say that if, during the commission of a Federal Crime, a pregnant woman is assaulted in any way, there are two victims -- the woman who is assaulted and the unborn child.

It acknowledges the rather common-sense notion that if you kill a pregnant woman, you also kill an unborn child.

When Laci Peterson was killed in California, her son -- who, until he was killed, was living, growing, and developing -- was also killed.

This common-sense notion is terribly dangerous. The ACLU told me so.

Oh, and you are quite correct -- abortions are specifically NOT included in this act.

[Toucano]

6. I haven't heard

how many pregnant women were killed in the commission of a federal crime.

Does anyone know? I'm interested in how many people this actually affects because it strikes me as hollow symbolism. We know, for instance, that this law wouldn't have any impact on the Laci Peterson case.

[outinforce]

8. Are You Suggesting

that since there may have been onmly a few pregnant women (along with their unborn children) killed during the commission of Fedral crimes that Congress should notenact legislation which makes the killing of a an unborn child during the commission of a Federal crime illegal?

If memory serves, it is against the law to assassinate the President.

But only four Presidents in over 200 years have been assassinated.

Is ther law against Presidential assassination mere "hollow symbolism"?

[Toucano]

14. Proportionality matters.

The killing of the president affects all citizens. It's not the same thing. Also, it would be illegal to kill him whether he was president or not and whether he was on federal property or not.

Legislation that attempts to remedy a problem that doesn't exist is hallow symbolism. It's election year grandstanding.

Does a problem exist regarding the killing of pregnant women on federal property? Are prosecutors having trouble getting convictions in such cases? Does this legislation help them get the convictions they seek? Have killers of such women been let out of jail too soon because they killed only one victim?

By contrast, thousands of people are killed and injured during rollover accidents because of pooly designed automobile roofs. Higher federal standards could easily prevent those deaths. Is congress talking about punishing the people responsible for those tragic deaths? Nope. Not a peep.

Congress needs to focus legislation where it can do the most good.

[outinforce]

16. "Congress needs to focus legislation where it can do the most good."

There are more than a few people in this country (and many of them good, decent Democrats) who think that legislation which acknowledges that assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child results in two victims -- the woman and the unborn child.

Even if it is nothing more thn "hollow symbolism" or "election-year grandstanding", it can be a good thing.

Besides, it's not like this is the first time something good became law because of election-year grandstanding.

[Toucano]

20. More than a few people

need to apply some critical anaylsis to the legislation and deal with it's true purpose and affect.

If we've established that it has no practical value for protecting anyone (since we've not found a single real-world case where this legislation would apply), look at what it actually accomplishes.

The federal government now has defined a fetus as a person. Having accomplished this, they now have a green light to proceed to dismantle a woman's choices about her own body. Specifically exempting abortion is irrelevent because the precedent is established that the unborn are people.

Will a pregnant woman who attempts to commit suicide, miscarries, but survives be prosecuted for the death of the fetus? If she does it on federal property, I guess so. Does anyone benefit from that?

If you support the legislation because you think a fetus is a person, that's fine. I may disagree with you, but at least you're consistent.

If people support this legislation because they think it will help punish Scott Peterson, they are grossly mistaken. The effort of those in congress to connect the two is obscene and exploitative.

Laws produced as the result of election year grandstanding are almost universally bad because those laws have more to do with getting people re-elected than the actual value of the law. I wouldn't support any of them.

[outinforce]

28. Hypotheticals and Grandstanding

"The federal government now has defined a fetus as a person. Having accomplished this, they now have a green light to proceed to dismantle a woman's choices about her own body. Specifically exempting abortion is irrelevent because the precedent is established that the unborn are people."

I'm not too sure that the Supreme Court of the United States would agree with your statement here. Specifically, I doubt that the Court would merely say "Oh, since Congress, in a piece of legislation, has said that assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her fetus is a crime we must, therefore, dimsntle all the juriprudence that gives women the absolute power of life or death over their unborn children."

You will, I hope, excuse me when I observe that you may be engaging in just a tiny bit of grandstanding here.

"Will a pregnant woman who attempts to commit suicide, miscarries, but survives be prosecuted for the death of the fetus? If she does it on federal property, I guess so."

My guess is that it is more likely that she would be prosecuted, if she is prosecuted at all, for the something that has been against the law for some time now -- attempted suicide.

But do you have any information to suggest how likely it is for a pregnant woman to attempt suicide, micarry, and survive -- all while on Federal property? Isn't your example a bit of a rather far-fetched hypothetical?

[rucky]

12. I know instances of spousal abuse go way up

when the wife is pregnant.

I can't actively work against this bill.

[Toucano]

17. What impact will the legislation have on that?

I guess the man would think twice about killing his pregnant spouse if he knows that he'll be guilty of killing two people.

Spousal abuse is generally a very rational, well thought out crime.

"I was gonna slap my pregnant wife around and kill her today (on federal property), but not if I'm going to be convicted of killing two people. That totally changes my plan."

That seems like a plausable, real-world scenario doesn't it?

[outinforce]

21. You Know, It Rather Sounds to Me

It kind of sounds to me as though you would be opposed to any bill that might possibly result in better, less-abusive treatment of pregnant women.

My guess is that this particular bill, if it does nothing else, might contribute to the creation of a society in which pregnant women are not abused by anyone.

If for no other reason than that, I would think that most pro-women people would support it.

But I guess it is the fact that, although this bill specifically exempts abortion, it acknowledges what most Americans really know -- that pregant women are "pregnant with their child".

[Toucano]

22. Exactly how?

I'm totally open to hearing how this legislation protects pregnant women?

Fienstein's amendment would have increased the penalty for killing a pregnant woman. That helps protect the pregnant woman.

How does this legislation, in its extremely narrow scope, increase the respect for women? Now it's being lauded for reducing spousal abuse. How? If you have any idea, I'm open to hearing it.

You keep praising the esoteric value of this legislation. But, the law is not a symbol. The law is a tool. It has to come from a rational, well-reasoned place to have any value in the real world.

As I said earlier, this legislation is all about electing conservatives by exploiting the "feelings" people have about pregnant women.

They'll say, "My opponent opposed protecting pregnant women like Lacy Peterson." Nevermind that the legislation didn't protect any women.

[outinforce]

23. Simple

How is it possible, except in the case of abortion, to harm an unborn child without also harming the mother?

[Toucano]

26. Good point, but

If someone is going to harm a pregnant woman, this law isn't going to stop them. They already know they'll be harming the fetus. It doesn't stop them now, and it won't stop them in the future.

I'm glad it makes you "feel" like it stops them, though.

That's so much more important that protecting womens' rights.

[outinforce]

27. Please Explain Something To Me

How is it that if I voice support for a piece of legislation which specifically excludes abortion from its provisions, but which says that when a pregnant woman is assaulted in any way, both she and her unborn child are victims, that indicates that I do not want to protect women's rights?

[GOPisEvil]

7. It's another in the long line of attempts to make fetuses people.

If they are classified as people instead of fetuses, then abortion will be murder.

That's my dos pesos on the subject.

[elfwitch]

10. Dos more pesos...

This bill goes so far to say that if a woman is even 2 weeks pregnant and miscarries because of a violent act, the assailant will be charged twice. He/she will be charged for assault and for homicide. This bill elevates even a two week old fetus to full human status.

That is what is wrong with this bill.

[outinforce]

24. "Full Human Status"

"This bill elevates even a two week old fetus to full human status."

Most states have laws that govern how cats and dogs and other pets can be treated.

These animal protection laws do not, I think, elevate pets to "full human status".

Most children can inherit property. This law does not give unbron children that right. It does not make unborn children the equivalent of born children.

[otohara]

9. done

thanks

[cally]

11. I can't find on the site how to determine how my Senators

voted. My Senators are Feinstein and Boxer. Anyone know?

[outinforce]

15. Fill in the Space

marked "Zip Code"

The ACLU will conveniently take you to a page which lists your two Senators.

And the ever-thoughful ACLU will spoon-feed you the actual text that they want you to send to each of your Senators. (Can't have any deviation from ACLU orthodoxy here).

And the ACLU will also give you some space to compose some comments of your own (but they would have to come after the mandatory comments that the solons of the ACLU insist you send).

Then, in order to be really convenient, the ACLU provides a space so that you can fill in information that it says certain members of COngress require.

The ACLU says that this information will be used only to meet the requirements of the members of Congress, but it also has, prechecked for you, a box that places you on the ACLU's "action e-list"

[cally]

19. Thanks Lazarus and Outinforce

On edit..I saw Lazarus' reply also. Thanks!

[lazarus]

18. Dems who voted for it

In addition to Daschle are: Bingaman (D-NM), Breaux (D-LA), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND), Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Landrieu (D-LA), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Reid (D-NV), and Rockefeller (D-WV).

[Crowdance]

13. Done and kick!

[swag]

25. Oh, duh. I finally did it myself

*kickaroonio*