Source: Washington Times; June 4, 2001

Abortion by Any Means
by Nat Hentoff

[Pro-Life Infonet: Nat Henthoff is a nationally-known pro-life liberal
and columnist for the Village Voice. he also writes a weekly column for
the Washington Times.]

For many years, a fervent priority of the American Civil Liberties
Union has been to protect and expand abortion rights, thereby leaving
defenseless the most vulnerable human beings the not yet born, each of
them with his or her own distinct genetic identity.

Predictably, the ACLU has attacked what it scornfully describes as
the "so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which passed the House on
April 26 252 to 172 with 53 Democratic votes. This bill, says the ACLU, is
"a cunning attempt to separate the fetus from the mother in the eyes of
the law and in the court of opinion."

The ACLU might be surprised to learn that according to a standard
medical text, "The Unborn Patient: The Art and Science of Fetal
Development" (W.B. Saunders, 2001) the fetus is an individual patient, and
to be considered as such "as much a patient as any other patient."

The federal bill, which has yet to pass the Senate, concerns the
unborn patient. That is why it alarms the ACLU, the New York Times
editorial board, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and others
who believe in "choice" although the choice in this case is unilateral.

If under 68 already-defined federal crimes of violence an attacker
has injured a woman, and in that act has injured or killed an unborn child
(a fetus), the perpetrator can be charged not only with violence against
the woman, but also with the death of or injury to the unborn child.

This is not a radical bill. If it is passed by the Senate and signed
by the president, it will not erase Roe vs. Wade. H.R. 503, the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act that passed the House, states explicitly that
nothing in the legislation "shall be construed to permit the prosecution
for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant
woman . . . has been obtained."

Indeed, as the National Right to Life Committee has pointed out and
this has not been denied by pro-abortion extremists "twenty-four states
have already enacted laws that recognize unborn children as victims of
violent crimes, and these state laws have been upheld by the courts." In
Arkansas, for example, a living fetus of 12 weeks gestation is a person.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court in Webster vs. Reproductive Health
Services (1989) did not object to a Missouri law that confers on the
"unborn child at every stage of its development all the rights, privileges
and immunities available to other persons" provided, said the Supreme
Court, that Missouri did not use the law to restrict abortions.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not permit the death penalty
to be imposed if the unborn child is killed, but it does speak of "a child
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place."
A further definition of the violently killed fetus is given as
follows: "a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of
development, who is carried in the womb."

The fierce opponents of this bill claim that the notion that there
can be two victims when a pregnant woman is attacked is actually a
stratagem to so undermine Roe vs. Wade that it will eventually be
inoperative. I have no doubt that many supporters of this bill do desire
the end of Roe vs. Wade; but there are pro abortion rights believers,
including my wife, who insist that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
makes sense, logically, legally and morally.

Julia King, in a commentary on National Public Radio, said, "I've
marched, picketed, telephoned and written letters in support of
reproductive freedom."

But, she adds, "If a pregnant woman is assaulted and, as a result,
loses her fetus, the bill would make it possible to prosecute her
assailant for murder."

She then makes the crucial point in favor of the bill:
Prosecuting the assailant "affirms the woman's right to give birth a
choice just as significant as terminating a pregnancy."
Julia King prefers "the more scientific term 'fetus' over the
politically charged 'unborn child.' " OK, can we agree that he or she in
utero is human_ And Julia King and I do agree that, as she says, "fighting
an acceptable bill today simply because one anticipates an unacceptable
one tomorrow isn't good strategy. It's stubbornness."

It's also zealotry. A companion bill has been introduced in the
Senate by Mike DeWine of Ohio. It's now in the judiciary committee. Last
year, the House passed a similar bill, but it died in the Senate because
Bill Clinton threatened to veto it. President Bush will sign it. This
year, will Senate extremists filibuster this affirmation of a woman's
fundamental right to give birth_