Who supports domestic violence resulting in the death of an unborn child? Certainly no one I know. So legislation to make this a crime would easily pass, right? Well, not quite ... This issue happens to lie where the absolutism of pro-choice activism and common sense conflict and sadly it appears the latter may yield to the former.
The bill in question, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), would create penalties for any violence against a pregnant woman that results in the death of an unborn child, when the original act was a federal crime. For instance, if a man on a military base were to punch his wife in the abdomen and intentionally cause her to miscarry, the bill would change the punishment to reflect both the injuries to her and the loss of her child. Current law recognizes her external injuries but does not account for the loss of her unborn child.
What's most troubling to me is the obfuscation opponents have engaged in rather than debating the bill on its merits. Critics of the legislation have incorrectly attacked it, saying that it jeopardizes legally-provided abortion. This is nonsense. Abortion requires the consent of the mother, while an assault on the mother entails no consent. Moreover, the law specifically allows for abortion and in no way affects protections for the procedure.
The real reason the extremist factions of pro-choice groups oppose the measure is because it recognizes that when a women is beaten and loses her child as a result, she has lost something of value to her. This is problematic not as legal precedent but as a moral one because the logical next step in this line of reasoning is that the fetus she lost may have intrinsic value. In an effort to keep people from eventually making this judgement, the activists have chosen to argue against common sense legislation. It is unfortunate that some have willfully mischaracterized the bill, but given the emotional nature of the larger issue, perhaps their actions are understandable, though not acceptable.
The opposition is egregiously inconsistent in opposing this bill while passing a similar and even broader bill last year. The Innocent Child Protection Act, which prohibits the execution of pregnant women, passed without a single dissenting vote. That bill recognizes the right of someone who is guilty of a heinous crime to carry her child to term prior to her execution. The UVVA protects the right of a law-abiding woman to carry her child to term. It is logically inconsistent that pro-choice believers would support the first bill, which protects criminals, but oppose the second, which protects law-abiding women. The principle involved, that no woman can be deprived of her unborn child without her consent, is the same in both cases.
I think part of the reason opponents of the bill are having such a difficult time reconciling their conflicting beliefs and instead mischaracterizing the bill is because they realize the unborn child is living and valued by the mother. When was the last time you felt an expecting mother's abdomen for the kicking baby and said, "Wow, that's some collection of unconstitutionally-protected cells you've got there. You must be mighty proud." People just don't say that. Because most people feel an affinity for pregnant women, it is difficult to argue against the bill on its merits and so some extremists have tried to link it, falsely, to the larger issue of abortion where public opinion is far less clear. Regrettably, these tactics may jeopardize the chances of what is essentially common sense legislation.
The unborn child may not yet be constitutionally protected, but it is the mother's and she is free to do with it as she pleases. It is a tortuous exercise in doublethink to assert that there is a constitutionally protected right to choose to abort one's child, but that there is no corresponding right to chose to keep it. When someone deprives her of this right, there should be a punishment for the perpetrator. It's that simple. When any citizen is deprived of his or her rights, there is an expectation for redress and punishment of the perpetrators. Why is the right to choose any different?
The arguments perpetuated by extremists that this bill is in some way an attack on legal abortion are both factually untrue and obscure the real issue at hand: preventing domestic violence against pregnant women. Pro-choice extremists should drop the demagoguery and obfuscation and accept the truly pro-choice position: a woman's right to choose to keep her child is at least as strong as her right to abort.
