Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2004

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is debating this sensible measure, and I certainly hope that the outcome will be the rejection of the two amendments and passage of the underlying bill. Such an outcome will lead immediately to the enactment of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, as the legislation has already passed the House and the President has stated that he will sign it.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would recognize an unborn child as a victim when he or she is killed or injured during the commission of a Federal or military crime. The gist of this debate is the question of whether there are one victim or two in such instances. Polling suggests that upwards of 80 percent of the American people believe that there are two victims, a view no doubt reinforced by the well-known case of Laci and Connor Peterson. It has been noted that when definitive evidence of foul play in that case came to light, two bodies washed up on the shore, not one. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would codify that common sense observation in Federal law.

Opponents of the bill contend that the bill's "two victims" premise is "unprecedented," but 29 State laws-including the law in California, where Laci and Connor Peterson were killed-relfect that exact understanding of what merits punishment when a violent crime is committed against a woman and her unborn child. It is the "one victim" idea the Feinstein amendment would inscribe in law that would depart form the understanding embedded in the State laws addressing this question.

Finally, I sincerely hope that my colleagues-whatever their views on the question of one victim versus two victims-will firmly reject the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Washington State. I am very proud of my record of support for victims of domestic violence, and I believe that some of the ideas contained in the Murray amendment merit our consideration.

But passing the amendment we are presented with today would be a serious mistake. First, I must note that the Murray amendment was obviously drafted in haste because it contains serious technical flaws-not the least of which is a provision that would-as I understand it-give an abusive family member the same rights as a victim!

The Murray amendment would create an unpaid leave provision that is distinct from the provisions contained in the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, and State laws. This new leave provision would apply to employers with as few as 15 employees-compared to 50 for FMLA. FMLA applies to workers who have been employed for at least a year, but the proposed Murray leave program has no minimum requirements for length of service. Moreover, under this amendment, domestic violence leave could be taken without advance notice, and without corroborating evidence beyond the employee's own sworn statement. Given the extraordinary degree of uncertainty such a regime could create for employers, Congress must proceed cautiously here. To pass the Murray amendment today would be to flout that imperative.

I strongly support the unamended version of this bill.