Fetal Protection Bill to be signed.

Someday there will be a question on the SAT’s asking:

Select the one that doesn’t belong:

1863 Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation
1949 Truman issues executive order integrating the military
1963 Johnson signs Voting Rights act
2004 Bush signs Fetal Protection Bill



But my real problems with this are:
1) It takes effect on conception not on fetal viability
2) It will probably lead to (imho) criminal penalties for smoking, drinking, etc while pregnant. Maybe even penalties for not providing adequate nutritional care.

Articles please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilovetheusers

Articles please?

---

Here.

Got it. Looks like a good thing but it's probably the 1st step towards dismantling RvW I suppose. I know it's where he's moving towards.

And what about the fetus, does it not deserve protection under the law against assault on the mother, and in so doing, itself?

I understand that this is a start of something that could turn into making abortion illegal again. And with a conservative president, who is openly against abortion at the helm, it does look somewhat ulterior in motive. However it is a way to prevent/prosecute crimes against the unborn. Take the Lacie Peterson murder, and of her unborn child. The bastard that did it wasn't on trial for the baby’s murder, but for the mothers alone. Even though he killed both! (I don't remember the charges, they may have upped it to two counts of murder, but all I remember is the controversy of it, and don't know if they ever did). This bill, although perceived as a blow to the pro-choice movement, is not that in my eyes. It is ample legislation that will put criminals behind bars for crimes that they commit, instead of letting them walk on technicalities…

If you kill a kid before it's born you can get in trouble? Sounds good to me. :thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Someday there will be a question on the SAT’s asking:

Select the one that doesn’t belong:

1863 Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation
1949 Truman issues executive order integrating the military
1963 Johnson signs Voting Rights act
2004 Bush signs Fetal Protection Bill



But my real problems with this are:
1) It takes effect on conception not on fetal viability
2) It will probably lead to (imho) criminal penalties for smoking, drinking, etc while pregnant. Maybe even penalties for not providing adequate nutritional care.

---

:bor:

Looks like all these protect the rights of ppl who didn't have any, signed or ordered by great men. I don't think they'd ask a trick question on the SAT. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilovetheusers

Got it. Looks like a good thing but it's probably the 1st step towards dismantling RvW I suppose. I know it's where he's moving towards.

---

It's also something Roe would agree on today: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe...s/roe.profile/


Just to add oil, kerosene, petrol, and methanol to the fire. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

If you kill a kid before it's born you can get in trouble? Sounds good to me. :thumbs:

---

Here! Here!

All WRONG!

Truman signed the bill integrating the military in 1946.
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862
LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. :D

President Signs New Law Protecting Unborn Victims of Violence

Quote:

---

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act provides that, under federal law, any person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb shall be charged with a separate offense, in addition to any charges relating to the mother. (Applause.) As of today, the law of our nation will acknowledge the plain fact that crimes of violence against a pregnant woman often have two victims. (Applause.) And therefore, in those cases, there are two offenses to be punished. Under this law, those who direct violence toward a pregnant woman will answer for the full extent of the harm they have done, and for all the crimes they have committed.

Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury or death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman. This omission in the law has led to clear injustices. The death of an innocent unborn child has too often been treated as a detail in one crime, but not a crime in itself. Police and prosecutors had been to crime scenes and have shared the grief of families, but have so often been unable to seek justice for the full offense. The American people, as well, have learned of these cases, and they urged action. The swift bipartisan passage of this bill through Congress this year indicates a strong consensus that the suffering of two victims can never equal only one offense.

The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who are harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers. And now, the protection of federal law extends to those children, as well. With this action, we widen the circle of compassion and inclusion in our society, and we reaffirm that the United States of America is building a culture of life. (Applause.)

It is now my honor to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zil

:bor:

Looks like all these protect the rights of ppl who didn't have any, signed or ordered by great men. I don't think they'd ask a trick question on the SAT. :rolleyes:

---

Well Said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orangeman

All WRONG!

Truman signed the bill integrating the military in 1946.
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862
LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. :D

---

Hey, when I took history they told me the dates weren't that important. It was like horsehoes. Close counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Hey, when I took history they told me the dates weren't that important. It was like horsehoes. Close counts.

---

Hi Tech,

I guess I'm in the generation before you. When I took Social Studies, dates were the only thing that counted....:sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orangeman

Hi Tech,

I guess I'm in the generation before you. When I took Social Studies, dates were the only thing that counted....:sad:

---

For me that was High School.

Ok how about if the woman desides she is going to have a child then she MUST care for it otherwise she will have an abortion... It would be better than the children I have seen suffering from damage caused by their mothers... If you don't care for the child then off to jail AND the child is taken away from you after it is born...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Escape_Driver

Ok how about if the woman desides she is going to have a child then she MUST care for it otherwise she will have an abortion... It would be better than the children I have seen suffering from damage caused by their mothers... If you don't care for the child then off to jail AND the child is taken away from you after it is born...

---

There already are laws against neglecting the care given to children in the US and Canada. You neglect your kids, you can get a criminal record.

It just sucks that the resources alloted to overseeing this jsut don't match up the real-life state of things.

Very bad, cleetus no like, cleetus smask!!111