Andrew
Jr. Member
Posts: 562
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2004, 11:05:11 PM » |
|
Senator Feinstein had this to say when presenting this amendment:
"But here is where it gets more complicated. The House bill before us, the DeWine bill, now takes the position in law that life begins at conception. This, then, involves this bill directly into a woman's right to choose--an issue that need not be raised and should not be raised in this debate.
"Although the text of the amendment itself technically provides an exception for abortion [as J. J. noted above], experts on both sides of this issue agree the language in the bill will clearly place into Federal law a definition of life that will chip away at the right to choose as outlined in Roe v. Wade. I hope to make that crystal clear as I go on.
"The Philadelphia Inquirer in its editorial yesterday put it succinctly by saying:
" 'If passed and signed, as promised by President Bush, the Federal law would be the first to recognize unborn children at any stage of development as victims with legal rights separate from those of their mothers. ..... It's so easy to see how a Federal unborn victims law, coupled with unborn victims laws in 29 States, will form the basis of a new legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that gives women the right to terminate certain pregnancies. If a fetus who dies during a crime is a murder victim, then isn't abortion murder?' "
The amendment she suggested would have used phrases such as, "protection of pregnant women," rather than, "protection of unborn children."
|
