News Conference on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: NEWS CONFERENCE

SUBJECT: UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT

PARTICIPANTS: REPRESENTATIVE MELISSA HART (R-PA); REPRESENTATIVE ROY BLUNT (R-MO); REPRESENTATIVE STEVE CHABOT (R-OH); CAROL AND BUFORD LYONS, PARENTS OF A PREGNANT MURDER VICTIM, SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT

LOCATION: HC-6, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
REP. HART: (In progress) -- and I'm the prime sponsor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner's Law.

We're here today to bring you some good news, and that is about the passage of the bill today in the House. I don't have a score, but it was a pretty convincing vote today, obviously showing that members of Congress do agree that it is important for us to recognize two victims when a crime of violence is committed against a pregnant woman.

There have been many cases and examples of tragic things that have happened to families, and unfortunately federal law did not recognize that if a pregnant woman was attacked, causing injury to her and her unborn child, that there are two victims to such a crime. Federal law would only recognize the crime against the woman.

Twenty-nine states already do recognize two victims to such crimes. As we know, now there's a prosecution under California state law proceeding in the death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner.

Many cases are very sad, very tragic, and we hear about them. And some of us have had the opportunity to hear testimony from those families and it really does bring home to us the significance of the law. And it is actually appalling that for so long the law did not recognize that loss, did not afford prosecutors the opportunity to say to those criminals that we're going to prosecute you for the crime that you have actually committed, that actual crime, which is a crime of violence against that pregnant woman and a crime of violence against that unborn child. Unfortunately, too many of those cases end up with the tragic loss of both the mother and the unborn child.

The legislation simply changes federal law and allows for prosecution of two crimes against two victims. It's very clear and very to the point. And it is consistent with what a majority of the public have agreed should be the case, and that is about 80 percent in some of the polling that we've heard done by Fox News, done by Newsweek.

And also it is in compliance, obviously, with the vast majority of the states, which already have such laws in place.

I'm pleased to sponsor the bill and work together with my colleagues through the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee; with my chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner; and the chairman of the subcommittee, Steve Chabot, who's here with us. And I'm also pleased to have worked with my colleagues of both parties who have really stood up for this law, stood up in the face of some opposition which was pretty unreasonable, and stood up for families who have suffered losses, and stood up actually to help them find closure and help them see justice done, and that's really what this bill is all about.

And I have with us today, actually, a family who have suffered such a loss, and I really appreciate them having the strength to be with us today. They are from Kentucky, the most recent state to have passed an unborn victims of violence law, and they are Carol and Buford Lyons. Their daughter, Ashley, who you may have heard about in some of our discussion on the floor over the last couple of days, was very happy and pregnant with a grandson, their grandson. Unfortunately and very terribly-tragically, Ashley was murdered, and I ask Mr. and Mrs. Lyons --

(To Mr. and Mrs. Lyons.) Do one of you wish to speak today? Mrs. Lyons?

I'm asking Carol Lyons to please come forward and just tell us a little bit about the tragedy that the family is dealing with and the really terrible loss, and also the feelings of the things that you need to have happen in law that are very important because the criminal law, as our chairman said today and-Chairman Chabot said today-is there to reflect the values of the people, and clearly the values of the people are with the Lyons today.

Mrs. Lyons? Thank you.

CAROL LYONS (Unborn Victims of Violence Act supporter): Good afternoon.

This is Ashley. My daughter was 18 years old. She graduated in June, June 7th, 2003. On January 7th, 2004, I came home from work and she showed me a video of Landon. She had just found out that day at the doctor she was going to have a baby boy. She was so excited. She had already picked out names.

She showed me every part of the baby on the video, on the image. She was just ecstatic. She said now we can go shopping for the crib and everything, and what color we're going to do the room in.

At 5:30 that evening, approximately, she left our home. She never returned. She was found later that evening murdered, shot in her car in a local park.

People say I only lost one victim here. No, I lost two. I lost my daughter-we lost our daughter and our grandson Landon. When we buried Ashley, I held Landon in my arms. He was wrapped in a baby blanket that I had sewn for him, and I placed him in his mother's arms and kissed her good-bye for the last time before we closed the casket.

We lost two family members, not just one. And that's why we support this law. And we ask that all the senators and everyone do so. This is an urgent need in all the states, all of the United States of America. This is a crime that needs to be punished for two victims. They need to be charged for two victims. And I just urge everyone to support this bill. Thank you.

MR. LYONS: The only thing I would like to add to that is we have a video of the ultrasound that Ashley had that day. I never got home in time that day-because I leave early for work-to view that video with my daughter. I've seen it since, but I never got to see it with my daughter, like my wife and my son did, where she got to show them his little heart, little legs.

Then later that day, I had to go look for my daughter and I found her in her car, and my son found her as well; he went with me. And you can't imagine what that did to her brother.

But then, even worse, as we're dealing with the loss of Ashley and Landon, to find out that our state only said we lost one victim, there was no law to say that Landon existed.

Well, when I stood beside my wife and watched her place that baby in our daughter's arm, which she never got to hold him while she was alive, other than inside of her-she never got to hold him in her arms. That was a baby. She was planning on a baby. We were planning on a baby. But there is a video that we have that shows that baby moving, his little mouth opening, his little legs kicking. And for anybody to say that that's not two victims, I don't know where their heart is, because I know where my heart is; my heart tells me that was two people, my daughter and my grandson. And the things that they took away from us-not just her but the things we'll never get to do with him; never get to put him on a horse for the first time like I had with my other grandchildren.

She had a journal that she wrote to this baby, talking about how that she loved him from the beginning and was going to continue loving him, and things that she had done each day that were important to her, and she wanted that baby to see that when he got older so that he would know how much he was loved from the very beginning. And he'll never get to see that.

I believe that if people look into their hearts, do the right things for the right reasons, they'll see this bill needs to be a law, federally, in every state, to protect these innocent-of the most innocent victims that can't do anything to protect themselves. Yeah, somebody comes up to me, I can protect myself. But that baby couldn't. I actually couldn't either at that time, but the baby has no chance to protect itself. And why we wouldn't want to protect that baby, I just don't understand it. Thank you.

REP. HART: Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Lyons. I know that's difficult, but you really do help to demonstrate exactly what we're doing here, and that is prosecute the criminal for the crimes the criminal committed.

We also have had wide-ranging support from members of Congress, as you can see, and I'm going to start today with Roy Blunt. Thank you.

REP. BLUNT: Thank you, Melissa. Thank you for your leadership on this. Chairman Chabot, thank you for your leadership.

You know, the thought to every parent of losing a child is the most horrifying of thoughts. To lose a child and a grandchild, born or unborn, simultaneously, is even more horrifying. That's obviously-that horror is complicated and compounded by finding out, as the Lyons did, that in their state, on the day their daughter was killed and their grandson was killed, that only one of those crimes was considered a crime.

They've worked hard in Kentucky, and now it's a crime in Kentucky. It wasn't a crime in Kentucky the day it happened, but it's a crime in Kentucky now and in 28 other states. We're working today to make this a crime in 50 states.

Some months ago we decided, with the incredible and brave support of Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, that we would name this act after Laci and Conner and in honor of all of those losses in families who have lost two people at the same time. In California, that's two crimes. Now in Kentucky, it would be two crimes, but in 21 other states, it's not two crimes. And this law moves in that direction.

Again, Sharon Rocha's been so brave in her support of this law. She's been here with us before. Because of the pretrial hearings going on right now in California, she couldn't be here today, but she did a video. (To staff.) And Ron, do you want to-this is a video from Sharon. And as we honor the incredible loss here, we'll start that video.

(Video is played.)

REP. HART: I want to thank Mrs. Rocha, because she actually spoken with us and really helped us, at the very beginning of the introduction of the bill, to understand and really portray what happens in those kinds of crimes and how important it was for us to recognize two victims.

And I'd like to next introduce a gentleman who has been in the forefront on this bill from the very beginning of its introduction: Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee Steve Chabot, from Ohio.

REP. CHABOT: Thank you, Melissa. And I want to thank you for your leadership on this bill and introducing it once again.

We've passed this in the Congress now, in the 106th and the 107th Congress, in the House, but we've been unable to get the Senate to act. We are most hopeful that the Senate will finally act in this Congress and we can get this passed into law. This is, after all, about protecting what is in reality two separate lives. The mother's life has been destroyed, but so has this innocent unborn child that she's carrying.

And there are-this is not as rare as one thinks it might be. It happens far too often.

We had a photograph of Tracy Marciniak that we utilized on the floor of the House during the debate upstairs. And it's a picture of Tracy holding her eight-month-old child Zachariah at the funeral of Zachariah. And when Tracy Marciniak testified in our committee as to why she thought we should pass this legislation, she said, "I want all of you to look at that picture up there and tell me how many victims do you see?" And it was obvious there are two; it was Tracy and her son Zachariah.

And now we see the Lyons come forward.

And I know that-I used to debate this because, again, this isn't the first Congress that we've taken this up. But we had a case that happened in my state in Ohio. And I'm just across the river in Cincinnati-and this happened at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, where an airman-he was a sergeant-attacked his wife and brutally punched her in the stomach area. She survived, but the unborn child did not. Now, because Ohio had, shortly before that, passed a law, it was two separate offenses and he could be prosecuted and was prosecuted for both of those victims. But I used to make a statement, as did others using that case, "But had this happened right across the river in Kentucky, there could not be two prosecutions." So in essence, you're only acknowledging the existence of one life in that case.

And to a family that has to go through this trauma, that makes a tremendous difference because they know how much they loved that child that would have been born not too far off into the future. And it means an awful lot. And that's why this legislation is important.

At the federal level, it will affect-if there's a federal statute involved, if it happens on a military base, if it happens in a national park, if somebody stalks the wife across state lines, for example, so there are many instances when the federal law would take effect. But I would also encourage states to pass this law, as now Kentucky is doing. It's just unfortunate that Kentucky waited too late to pass the law.

REP. HART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Next we have Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, who has been a very eloquent advocate for the legislation.

Congresswoman Davis.

REP. JO ANN DAVIS (R-VA): Thank you, Melissa.

And I'd just like to publicly say thank you to Congresswoman Hart and to Congressman Steve Chabot, and to the leadership for helping pass this bill. And to say thank you to the folks like the Lyons, who are courageous enough to come forth and speak about something.

And I just-you know, I don't know how you can sit, anybody sit and listen to the Lyons, or listen to Mrs. Rocha and not see that this-this is two victims. This is another child. And for the argument from the opponents to be that it's about abortion, it's not about abortion. It is about a woman's rights. And so, regardless of what ideological or political spectrum women are from, this is a women's rights bill, because the woman has chosen to carry that baby. And if you really care about women's rights and you care about the choice that that woman made to carry that child-and this is about, this bill is about justice for the family, for the father, for the little brothers and sisters of the unborn child, for the grandparents, the aunts, the uncles, that's what this bill is about. It's just-it's about justice.

And I am so thankful, Melissa, that you fought hard and we got it passed out of the House, and I certainly hope our senators will do the same. And I certainly hope the other 21 states-and I'm very disappointed to see that my own state was not on that list. And I will certainly be talking to our local-our state legislators to see if we can't get Virginia to have this law as well.

But thank you all for coming out here and for just making the point that it is about two victims, not one. Thank you.

REP. HART: Thank you, Congresswoman Davis.

In fact, what she mentioned about women being victims is something that was emphasized when we started looking for statistics. We found statistics were kept by several very large states-New York, Illinois and Maryland. And when they kept statistics on the causes of death of women who were pregnant, fully a quarter or more of the women who died while they were pregnant were victims of homicide. This is a domestic violence issue. It is an issue of a woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term. This is a very broad issue dealing with those things as well, obviously, as a family's loss. And it was so important, I think, for us to have the opportunity to debate this, as well as to debate the substitute that we debated today, which would have ignored the fact that there are two victims to these crimes.

Also joining us in that debate was Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Thank you, Congresswoman Hart. And I want to say congratulations. She has done a wonderful job applying leadership to directing this bill, and Chairman Chabot, Chairman Sensenbrenner and our leadership.

I think it's probably all been said, but this is an important day. It's important legislation because it does allow for the placement of a penalty to those who have injured or killed, harmed a woman and her child, and it does allow for federal-federal prosecution, and that is something that is so very important. They've done a great job bringing this bill about, and we appreciate the Rochas, we appreciate the Lyons and their coming to support the bill, to remind us that there are some very, very unfortunate instances that are there in the news right now that do remind us why this is such an important addition to our federal code. So thank you all for your leadership.

Q Congresswoman -- (off mike) --

REP. HART: Anybody else out there before-anybody else out there before I take questions? Okay.

Thank you, everyone, for being part of this. I want to thank my colleagues for the assistance, and I especially want to thank the Lyons for having the courage to do this-I know it's very difficult-and to help us understand the situation.

If anybody has any questions, we'd like to answer those.

Q Major Garrett from Fox News. During the debate, Jerry Nadler noted that they generally agree with the direction of this, but they fear this legislation would create an equal protection clause opening, a legal toehold, to undermine Roe versus Wade. Without getting into all the hyper definitions technically, address that complaint that was raised by the Democrats on the floor.

REP. HART: Well, simply if you read the bill --

Q (Off mike.)

REP. HART: -- (chuckles) -- what you have-there's a clause in the bill that specifically states that there is nothing in this bill that will allow for a prosecution of an individual who is involved in a legal abortion; that is the woman who has consented, the doctor who may be performing it, anyone who is involved in the act of a legal abortion that the woman has consented to or that her guardian has consented to in case she cannot consent. So we made clear in our legislation that this bill is about victims of crime and the perpetrators of those crimes being punished for the crimes they have committed, and not with abortion.

Q But their contention is by creating a definition at any stage of development, federal law will then recognize that a fetus at any stage of development has legal recognition, therefore legal rights. Their point is once that's a part of federal law, an equal protection claim could later be raised that they believe could begin the process of undermining Roe. They would not dispute the clause you just mentioned.

REP. HART: Yeah.

Q What they're disputing is the definition of a fetus at any stage of development now being in possession of federal protection and federal definition of rights.

REP. HART: Well, interestingly enough, those who argued against the bill today and cited that definition, many of them actually voted for that definition. I think it was in the 106th Congress.

Q In (2000 ?)-- (off mike).

REP. HART: Right. When they passed the identical definition as a part of legislation called the Innocent Child Protection Act, that would have prevented the death penalty from being carried out against a federal prisoner who was pregnant, the same definition was supported by them. So I fail to see what the distinction is. I simply can tell you that our goal here is to address the fact that there are two victims to these crimes.

Q And if I could ask the Lyons a question. Some have suggested that by naming this the Laci and Conner Law, there is an effort in some vague way to exploit that crime for political advantage. Number one, do you think that is true? And number two, do you have any objection at all to this bill being so named?

Q Will you go to the microphone, please.

MS. LYONS: No, we have no objection to it being named Laci and Conner. And it's just easier for a bill or a law to have a name for people to recognize it than House Bill 108, Senate Bill 4, things like that. People don't recognize numbers, they recognize these names.

And I would like to address the issue of abortion that you just said. What about her rights? What about her rights to have this baby? She chose to have her baby, not to have an abortion. Where are those rights that we want to protect? It just excludes abortion. All of the laws that I have read in all the states-I have a copy of all the states that have passed laws. It excludes abortion. Just like Ms. Rocha said, in California there is a law since 1970. Now, I know there has been abortions performed in California since 1970. There's been no cases brought forth in court to show how any difference.

So I don't know why everyone wants to keep harping on the abortion issue, because this isn't-it's a totally separate issue. This is to protect our unborn children that have been given a life and the mother has chose to give them life.

REP. HART: Thank you.

MR. LYONS: Can I add one thing to that?

REP. HART: Please.

MR. LYONS: In answer to your question about it being Laci and Conner, I applaud Ms. Rocha for everything she's done so far, because, you know, she's been working very hard, along with everyone up here, to help make a law that would protect our unborn children.

So I appreciate what she's doing and continuing to do.

And just like she said, she'll be back next year if it doesn't pass this year. We'll be back next year too as well, because it's the right thing.

And I don't believe it's political. I believe it's that people are wanting to do the right thing for the right reasons, because they believe there's two lives.

Q Does this envision two separate indictments and two separate prosecutions and trials, one? And is there an implied expanded civil cause of action for an unborn child?

REP. HART: There is not an implied civil cause of action. There is also not any requirement that they be separate trials. It's the same act of violence. And I'm not a federal prosecutor. But if they would allow those both to be prosecuted at the same time, it could be.

Q But could there be separate trials, separate indictments, separate (federal ?) causes of action?

REP. HART: I expect there will be indictments on separate charges against separate victims. That's normally what happens. But I'm not sure-there's not an exclusion as a result of that that they be tried together, as far as I am aware.

Q On the civil action, there's no expansion of civil cause of action?

REP. HART: We have no mention about a civil cause of action in the bill.

Q Would you speak again on why --

REP. HART: Where are you from?

Q Lydia Lively (sp) from NBC.

REP. HART: Thank you.

Q Why the need to make this a federal law, first of all, since states generally address these things? And two, would it supersede whatever the situation is in the state, whatever the state law is, in the absence of a state law?

REP. HART: Okay. Thank you. That's a good question.

First of all, it is not intended to supersede anything. There is a federal criminal law that exists separately from state criminal laws. Some of them overlap. In a particular act, a crime could occur that could be charged on either level. Many times, though, they are separate and distinct. It depends on what the crime is. It also depends on the state, whether it will turn over to the federal prosecutor of the state prosecutor, which in my state, for example, would be the county DA, or to the state attorney general. So it does not supersede state law. It does change what can be charged under federal law. But it would provide an opportunity for crimes that may overlap with state crimes to be charged perhaps in a state that does not have this law.

Q It wouldn't require it. It's just another opportunity.

REP. HART: Right. It gives prosecutors the tools to prosecute crimes that they couldn't prosecute before.

They could prosecute a crime-for example, if it was a terrorism, you know, and it was a federal crime and it was prosecuted-for example, the Oklahoma City bombing; prosecuted under federal law, unborn victim could be charged as a separate crime under that federal law, no state law involved. I don't know whether there is a state law in Oklahoma, but that's just an example of a federal crime. There's also other federal crimes that are more-that coincide also with state causes of action.

So there's a big list. There's about 60 federal crimes that this would apply to, and most of them are crimes of violence that cause injury to people. So that would fit right into that definition.

Did I answer both of your questions?

Q Yeah.

REP. HART: Okay.

Q Thanks.

REP. HART: Yeah, here?

Q I have a question for Congressman --

REP. HART: You are?

Q Cox Newspapers --

REP. HART: Thank you.

Q-specifically, Ohio --

REP. HART: Thank you.

Q-for Congressman Chabot. How similar is this to the daily law that you kind of mentioned in passing, where you're speaking about the law that had just passed before the incident at Wright-Pat?

REP. CHABOT: Which-are you talking about the law that was-under Joe Deters that was-in Ohio?

Q Yeah.

REP. CHABOT: Yeah. My work-I believe, and I'd have to sit down and read Ohio's law exactly, but I think they're quite similar.

Q Thank you all.

REP. HART: Anybody else?

Q Thank you.

REP. HART: Thank you all very much.

Q Thank you very much.