Unborn Victims of Violence Act
UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2003 -- (House of Representatives - February 26, 2004)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 529, I call up the bill (H.R. 1997) to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MS. LOFGREN
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Ms. Lofgren:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Motherhood Protection Act of 2004".
SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN THAT AFFECT THE NORMAL COURSE OF HER PREGNANCY.
(a) Whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the person so engaging for a violation of any of the provisions of law set forth in subsection (c), and thereby causes an interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy), shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation, be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is-
(1) if the relevant provision of law set forth in subsection © is set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of that subsection, a fine under title 18, United States Code, or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, but if the interruption terminates the pregnancy, a fine under title 18, United States Code, or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both; and
(2) if the relevant provision of law is set forth in subsection ©(4), the punishment shall be such punishment (other than the death penalty) as the court martial may direct.
(c) The provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203(a), 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848).
(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(4) Sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of title 10, United States Code (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, on its face, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act appears to be a tool to prevent assault against pregnant women and nonconsensual termination of pregnancy. Upon closer examination, it is obvious that the purpose of the bill is to conflict with the core principles of Roe v. Wade.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act focuses on, legally recognizes a fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst, a fertilized egg as a person with rights and interests separate from and equal to those of the woman.
Today I offer a substitute that my colleagues and I hope can unify Members on both sides of the debate over choice to achieve a very important goal, the deterrence and punishment of violent acts against pregnant women.
According to the purported goals of H.R. 1997, that is our common ground, but it is clear that the purpose of H.R. 1997 is not actually to achieve the purported common goal of protecting pregnant women from assault. If that were the case, we would all vote today for the Lofgren substitute and begin to ensure that women across the country are safe from violence.
The Lofgren substitute does not threaten Roe v. Wade, but instead creates a new separate offense for any violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy. The substitute provides that any termination in the pregnancy is punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to 20 years, and if the pregnancy is terminated, even if unintentionally, the assailant can be sentenced to life in prison. These penalties are even tougher than those provided for in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Those of us who have experienced a miscarriage understand a very essential truth: The loss is something you never forget. Whether the woman is 6 weeks pregnant or 6 months pregnant, the loss is acutely felt by that woman, and it deserves the full penalty that the law can provide.
Penalties under H.R. 1997, however, vary depending upon the underlying crime resulting in inconsistent penalties for the same horrific crime. In fact, under H.R. 1997, if a postal worker was assaulted and there is a resulting injury to her pregnancy, there is only a maximum penalty of 3 years; but if the same assault happened to another Federal employee, her assailant could get up to 8 years in prison under H.R. 1997. Why should the penalty for injury to one pregnant woman over another depend upon where she works? It defies logic and reason.
Unlike the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Lofgren substitute has tough, consistent penalties for the same horrific crime, regardless of irrelevant circumstances like the place of employment. A loss or injury to a pregnancy is the same loss to a woman no matter where she works.
Mr. Speaker, advocates for H.R. 1997 say their bill is about protecting women from violence. In fact, the bill ignores women. H.R. 1997 does not address the woman nor the assault committed against her. Under H.R. 1997, there is a possibility that the crime against the woman could go unpunished because there is no conviction requirement for the underlying crime. How can the other side say they are preventing crime against pregnant women when you ignore her and the crime against her?
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Lofgren substitute does not needlessly interject the abortion debate and exploit what is concededly a matter of a pregnant woman's right to a safe, healthy and free from horrific acts of violence pregnancy.
Although many have said that the underlying bill has nothing to do with abortion, I think it is important to look at what some of the proponents of the antichoice movement have said about the bill, and I would like to quote Samuel Casey, the executive director of the Christian Legal Society, who said last year, "In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection, even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy."
Joe Cook, vice president of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, said last year, "We have to approach this in a way that is doable, a step at a time. This bill is aimed at establishing that a fetus in utero is a human being and has human rights."
Finally, Senator ORRIN HATCH said last year, "They say it undermines abortion rights; it does, but that is irrelevant." Irrelevant perhaps in the other body, but not to me.
Mr. Speaker, I support legislation that has the goal of protecting a pregnant woman from violence. I cannot do so through legislation that would also undermine other extremely important rights of women, like the right to choose. That is antithetical to the protection and safety of women.
I hope we can come together on this substitute. Last Congress there were a number of antichoice Members of the House that voted for the substitute, understanding that the penalties are more severe and would provide more complete protection for women. I urge those individuals to do so again to show this country that Congress is serious about protecting pregnant women from violence.
We have in this country and in this House strong disagreement about who gets to decide whether a pregnancy will be brought to term or not, the Congress or the woman. That debate is going to go on for a long time, but it does not have to be part of this discussion. We can come together to protect women against violence without having the argument about abortion involved in that effort. I hope that we can come together to embrace common ground on what I think could be a moment of triumph for this Congress and for the American people in standing against violence against women.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
--
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note that on line 6 on page 1 of the amendment, it notes that whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the person so engaging does not include an abortion that is legal because of Roe v. Wade.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
--
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that just for corrective purposes, the Lofgren substitute does provide for a separate offense, not a sentence enhancement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
--
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
--
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman has 15 minutes.
Ms. LOFGREN. Do I have the right to close, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The majority manager has the right to close.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sánchez), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
--
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the substitute that I have offered creates a separate Federal criminal offense for assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in injury or termination of her pregnancy, without entangling the issue in our disagreement about abortion and the woman's right to choose.
In addition to recognizing the horrendous underlying crime of assault on a pregnant woman, it recognizes the horrific crime of assault on a pregnant woman that results in the interruption or termination of a pregnancy. It creates an offense that protects pregnant women and punishes violence without conflicting with the core principles of Roe v. Wade.
The substitute provides consistent penalties for the same horrific crime. It provides for a consistent maximum 20-year sentence for injury and a consistent maximum life sentence for causing the termination of a woman's pregnancy. It requires a conviction for the underlying criminal offense, ensuring the crime against the woman is also punished, and it focuses on the assault of violence committed against the pregnant woman, providing a deterrent effect for violence against women.
I am sure that the Members of this body who oppose a woman's right to choose also oppose violence against women. There is no disagreement on that score. All I am saying with my substitute is that we have the ability to come together in this substitute against violence against women without engaging in our very serious disagreement about choice.
I think it has been made clear by the proponents of this bill that it is about choice. That is why this bill, the underlying bill, was referred and considered by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, not the Subcommittee on Crime, in the Committee on the Judiciary, because it is about the Constitution.
The point of the underlying bill is to undercut Roe v. Wade. I think Roe v. Wade provides important protections for the women of this country. I am 56 years old, and I remember as an undergraduate in college young women who had to seek abortions from illegal providers or go to another country. I know women who almost lost their lives. Thankfully, because the Supreme Court has now recognized that women have the right to make choices about their own reproduction, women now do not have to seek illegal or dangerous health care solutions when they have made a decision that they cannot have a child.
I think that Roe v. Wade, by allowing women to make decisions about their own lives, is an important principle and an important defense for the freedom of American women, and I do not think American women should give up their freedom in order to get protection from violence. That is what I think the underlying intent of H.R. 1997 is. I think that is why the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which represents organizations and domestic violence shelters in all 50 States, opposes H.R. 1997.
So I hope the Lofgren substitute will be approved, and I hope that we can come together to stand against violence and for freedom for American women.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
--
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
--
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
--
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 529, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the further amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 186, nays 229, not voting 18
--
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LAHOOD) (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.
[Time: 13:36]
Messrs. SHIMKUS, SMITH of Texas, GARRETT of New Jersey and BERRY changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."
Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table