The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Essay Example

The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act Community Problem the Proposal and Setting of the Government Agenda The legal rights of unborn children had been ignored in situations where a mother was critically or terminally injured as a result of criminal violence. The law only recognized the rights of the mother and not of the unborn children. As a result, violence towards pregnant women was rampant. Criminals were charged with crimes relating to the mother. One of the situations that aggravated the need for the law was the death of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. The husband fatally injured Laci and, as a result, injured the fetus. The injuries resulted in the death of the mother and child. The death of Laci and her unborn child was cited extensively in the Congressional and Senate debates on the bill. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled House. It has been a Republican policy to recognize the life of a fetus as long as it is attached to the uterus. Thus, pro-life Republican members of Congress merged their agenda with Laci’s case to energize the government agenda in the house. Contents of the Policy and the National Government Institutions Involved The Unborn Victims of Violence Act covers the rights of unborn children in the light of criminal violence. The act allows the judiciary to treat the mother and the unborn child as separate entities while dealing with violence against pregnant women (Abrams par. 1). The act also provides that human life begins after implantation in the uterus. Thus, any fetus attached to the uterus is considered a member of the Homo sapiens species. The act allows investigations on the impact of injuring a pregnant woman to the unborn child. Suspects of killing a pregnant woman should be tried on two charges of homicide. In this case, the judiciary would treat the mother and the child as separate legal entities. However, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not consider the legal or illegal acts of a mother that harm the unborn children. The uncovered aspects include abortion. As such, a mother cannot be tried for abortion under this law (Congress 6329). Political Players Involved in the Process Making the bill into law involved several players. The players in this bill include members of Congress, the President, interest groups and political parties. The bill was sponsored by individual members of the Congress. Melissa Hart (R-Pa) moved the bill in the House of Representatives. The house of representatives was the first house to introduce the bill and also debate it. The proposal was sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) in the Senate. The bill was tabled in the Senate after adoption and debate in the lower house. The movers of the motion were acting on their beliefs towards life, party policy and also pressure from civil organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee. Interest groups were also deeply involved in the process. Civil rights groups get direct opinions of the citizens towards a specific issue and relay it to the relevant government branches for consideration. In fact, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was inspired by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The National Right to Life Committee is a pro-life advocacy group that asserts that life should be protected at all incidences. However, pro-choice organizations opposed the bill on grounds that it was in conflict with current laws and set a wrong precedent by separating the mother and her unborn child (ACLU par. 3). Another political player is the political parties. As noted above, the bill was sponsored by Republican members in both houses. Consequently, the Act represents the Republican Party pro-life policy. The party is affiliated with policies that oppose any human interventions that may harm an unborn child. Such issues include violence that hurt unborn children, and voluntary abortion. As such, party policies must have played a significant role in the passage of the bill. The presidents consent is the final stage of transforming a bill into law. He must append his signature for the bill to become law. However, the president has the power to accept or reject a bill that has been forwarded to him and refer it back for specific amendments. In addition, he can veto the legality of the bill altogether. The fact that President George Bush appended his signature on the first presentation implies that he also had the same regard to the bill (Hulse par. 3). Proponents and Opponents of the Proposal Actions to Enact or Block the Policy Proposal Pro-life activist, including the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), led the efforts to have the bill debated and passed. Being in line with their party policy, the Republican-led House adopted the bill. The bill was debated on ground that the cases of violence against pregnant women were on the rise. Also, the existing laws considered the health and the life of the mother and showed no recognition or the presence of a human being in the uterus. The proponents of the motion argued that life begins at implantation in the uterus. Enacting a bill in Congress requires that sponsors convince the members of the importance of the bill to the country. The sponsors appealed to the plight of the victims and the application of the law towards them. The movers asserted that it was unfair to offer justice to a mother and deny justice to the fetus. As the bill ascended to the final stages, the portraits of victims were used. For example, the used the plight of Laci Paterson and her child Conner Paterson (Abrams par. 5). The move showed the reality of the matter and why such a bill would be important to the country. The proponents cited societal morals and culture of protecting human life. The opponents cited inconsistencies with the Constitution and the rights to choose. They argued that the Fourteenth Amendment states that the fetus is not to be regarded as a human being (Hulse, par. 2). Thus, allowing such a bill to pass would create a conflict with existing laws and also court precedents. Also, the prosecutors would face a hard tie to prove that suspects actually intended to harm the unborn child. Intent to harm is an important legal aspect in criminal proceedings. Another action that opponents took to try to block the bill offering an alternative to the bill. The main opponents argued that the mother and child should be treated as single victims in case of criminal acts. The alternative proposals aimed at convincing members of the Congress that it was impractical to measure and separate the criminal damage to the mother and the child in the womb (Congress 6329). Thus, it would be more practical to treat them as single victims of a crime. Resolution The proposal was passed by both houses. The House of Representatives passed the Act on February 26, 2004 and the Senate passed it on March 25, 2004. The president subsequently appended his signature on April 1, 2004 to make the bill into law binding all states in the country. The bill passed the two houses through a vote. It required a simple majority to be forwarded to the president. The Act passed the House stage by 254-163 and also in the Senate by 61-28, thus fulfilling the threshold for being adopted into law. Conclusion The role of Congress is to make laws. The members of the Congress look out for loopholes in the constitutions and propose bills to patch the contentious or void parts. The members of the Congress also get policy proposals from the public, civil organizations, emerging issues and also party policies. The bill is presented to the speakers of both Houses, presented to members and debated. The debate part is the most important as it considers all the relevant facts, opinions of members and the public and the implication of the bill. The final stage is voting where members express their individual decisions regarding the bill. My articulation is that the policymaking process is very systematic and thorough. All stakeholders are allowed to input their contribution. Also, members, who represent the interest of the people, are given a chance to express their opinion without coercion through a vote. Works cited Abrams, Jim. "House Passes Unborn Victims Legislation." The Washington Post. N.p., 26 Feb. 2004. Web. 9 Apr. 2015. ACLU. "Legislative Analysis of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 18 Feb. 2000. Web. 9 Apr. 2015. Congress. Congressional Record, Volume 151. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2012. Print. Hulse, Carl. "Senate Outlaws Injury to Fetus during a Crime." The New York Times . N.p., 26 Mar. 2004. Web. 9 Apr. 2015. Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Pub. L. 108-212. 118 Stat. 568-570. 1 April 2004. The U.S. Government Printing Office. Web. 9 April 2015. Read More