JUST RECENTLY, the U.S. Senate passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which would make it a crime to injure or kill a fetus while committing a federal crime of violence. Supporting the bill seems obvious, especially to those, like me, who are especially sympathetic to pregnant woman.But ironically, it is my sympathy for pregnant women that leads me to oppose this bill. Although it may superficially seem to be beneficial for women, the proponents of this bill have publicly shown that protecting women is not their priority; rather, the bill, a sequel to the equally misleading partial birth abortion ban is part of the new pro-life tactic: inch towards eliminating choice.
Regardless of Sen. Mike DeWine's, R-Ohio, claim that it "has nothing to do with abortions," pro-choice advocates are (with good reason) anxious about its implications. DeWine's audacious claim is extremely hard to substantiate, considering the 61 to 38 vote of approval followed a 50 to 49 rejection of Sen. Diane Feinstein's, D-California, alternative, which would have done everything the Unborn Victims of Violence Act did, but would have stopped short of making an ominous reference to the legal status of a fetus. This worrisome clause defines a "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." This carefully worded clause changed the mind of enough senators to make the difference between a rejected bill and a passed bill. Basically, the difference between Sen. DeWine's bill and Sen. Feinstein's bill was that DeWine's included a clause establishing that a fetus is an individual; other than that, the two bills were practically word-for-word. By rejecting the first vote, and accepting the second, the Republican controlled Senate sent a strong message: They want to forge, through legislation, the personhood of a fetus.
Some proponents argue that the bill will help protect women against violent crimes, especially domestic violence. Although this claim is more believable, there is one key vote that many major newspapers barely mentioned: the Senate rather surprisingly rejected, 53 to 46, a proposal by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, that would have provided new benefits to victims of domestic violence. The amendment that would have extended benefits for victims of abuse by offering emergency leave so a victim can go to court or to the police to stop abuse, ending insurance and employment discrimination, providing help for children who witness abuse, offering access to healthcare for victims and improving the way healthcare providers screen for domestic violence.
The amendment's opponents and chiefly the Chamber of Commerce ironically claimed that an amendment that would help prevent domestic violence was irrelevant to a bill protecting victims of abuse. They also argued that it was actually bad for businesses, which is abominable and unbelievable to a person such as myself, who's neighbor's husband was just arrested for over eight years of domestic violence. I would love to invite the opponents of the amendment to my neighbor's house to explain to her why preventing eight years of abuse is bad for businesses, or irrelevant to protecting victims. The tragic defeat of this bill, along with the ad-hoc arguments made against it, have sent an unequivocal message that launching a pre-emptive strike against future domestic violence is neither urgent nor necessary.
After looking below the surface of the issue (and how every pro-life group was against Feinstein's bill and Murray's amendment, while every pro-choice group was for it), the real issue at hand is obvious: abortion. Not surprisingly, the sitting Senate, like its predecessors, has failed to show that women's issues are of much importance, much less a priority. In a society that deems itself civilized, the government must send a strong message that violence against women, especially pregnant women, is unacceptable. The Senate should firmly support a woman's right to have a family when she chooses -- and legislate that any criminal act that robs her of this right is absolutely intolerable. Attacks such as these, that harm a fetus against the mother's will, must be vigorously prosecuted and severely punished without clemency. But issues so sensitive as these should not be hidden behind clever rhetoric and ulterior motives, just as efforts to "protect" women should not be synonymous with surreptitiously chipping away at their right to choose. The rejection of Feinstein's bill and Murray's amendment are a sad reminder about the realities of our government, a government willing to play politics with women's rights, and more seriously, women's lives.
Sina Kian's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skian@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
