Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[A18]

The Laci Peterson law.

What is the argument for this law being constitutional? I don't see anything in the document that allows Congress to bestow upon individuals this kind of legal protection.

[John Dibble]

Probably not. Nothing says the states couldn't have similar laws though.

[Lunar]

Congress does a lot of stuff that's not in our short Constitution.

[A18]

Congress does a lot of stuff that's not in our short Constitution.

That doesn't make it constitutional.

[LesterMaddox]

All it should take would be for one state to make fetuses citizens and Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 would stop abortion cold, unless you want to argue that it's OK to murder citizens.

[Mikem]

All it should take would be for one state to make fetuses citizens and Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 would stop abortion cold, unless you want to argue that it's OK to murder citizens.

agreed.  the only thing that is questionable about the law is that in the constitution citizens are defined as "born or naturalized".  So technically a fetus has no rights under federal law.  It is interesting that abortion and this law can coexist, since the Laci law implies that the fetus is under federal jurisdiction, and thus abortion would be murder 1.

[A18]

No it wouldn't. That just means that a citizen of Kansas has to have the same rights as a New Yorker when he is in New York.

If Kansas outlaws murder, but in New York it's legal (yes, I know this is a stupid example) it's still okay to kill the Kansan while he's in New York. But a New Yorker in Kansas would have to be protected under the Kansas law banning murder.

[khirkhib]

So Mikem.  When a women needs to get an abortion because bringing the child to full term could kill her, like when the fetus is developing in the Fallopian Tube, is having an abortion self defense.

[Angel of Death]

You can't have it both ways. Either you accept RvW or allow the UVoVA. So yes, it is unconstitutional.

[Mikem]

So Mikem.  When a women needs to get an abortion because bringing the child to full term could kill her, like when the fetus is developing in the Fallopian Tube, is having an abortion self defense.

I didnt say I agreed with it, I was just stating how the language reads.  I suppose in some twisted way that would be correct though.

This law and R v W should not bea able to coexist because the terminology is mutually exclusive.

[John Dibble]

You can't have it both ways. Either you accept RvW or allow the UVoVA. So yes, it is unconstitutional.

I disagree. The two are not related in such a way. RvW asserts that a woman can terminate a fetus in her own body - the fetus is 'hers', it is her 'property' so to speak, under RvW. The UVoVA asserts that a criminal can be punished for killing a woman and killing her fetus - the fetus is not the murderer's 'property', so since it does not belong to the murderer so he has no right to terminate it. Thusly the two laws are not mutually exclusive.

The constitutionality of the UVoVA should be determined by other means than RvW, since RvW only applies to the mother. The 'born and naturalized' thing is the most likely candidate to determine unconstitutionality.

[Mikem]

The dicotomy comes in that in the Laci law federal jurisdiction is extended to the fetus and makes killing the fetus by a third party murder.  Thus, the fetus must be defined as a person or else it would not be murder.  So how can the mother own the fetus and the fetus be a person since you cannot own a person.  Either the fetus is property (no murder) or it is a person (murder), it cant be both.

edit: 3rd option, you can own a person (slavery)

edit 2: Dibble is right though that you cannot say Laci law is unconstitutional because of RvW, since that is merely an interpretation of the constitution.  We have to look at the language itself.  I am simply trying to point out the error in logic of having the 2 coexist.

[John Dibble]

The dicotomy comes in that in the Laci law federal jurisdiction is extended to the fetus and makes killing the fetus by a third party murder.  Thus, the fetus must be defined as a person or else it would not be murder.  So how can the mother own the fetus and the fetus be a person since you cannot own a person.  Either the fetus is property (no murder) or it is a person (murder), it cant be both.

edit: 3rd option, you can own a person (slavery)

edit 2: Dibble is right though that you cannot say Laci law is unconstitutional because of RvW, since that is merely an interpretation of the constitution.  We have to look at the language itself.  I am simply trying to point out the error in logic of having the 2 coexist.

Well, a fetus could be considered a 'pseudo-person' of sorts. Not quite a person, but still having enough qualities of a person to be given some status under the law. Regardless of what some people will say, it really isn't clear what status a fetus has when it comes to personhood/ensoulment/whatever the heck you want to call it.

[A18]

Roe vs. Wade is a total joke and has nothing to do with this topic. The point is, where does the Constitution give the federal government the right to protect life?

[John Dibble]

Roe vs. Wade is a total joke and has nothing to do with this topic. The point is, where does the Constitution give the federal government the right to protect life?

Well, not in the domestic sense, but what do you think it authorizes the use of military force for?

[Engineer]

Not that I support abortion, but it is the law of the land right now. A difference is that abortion is a choice of the mother, the other is an unlawful taking.

[A18]

I never knew this before, but the Unborn Victims of Violence Act applies only to cases over which the federal government has jurisdiction (crimes committed on federal property).

So it is constitutional.

[John Dibble]

I never knew this before, but the Unborn Victims of Violence Act applies only to cases over which the federal government has jurisdiction (crimes committed on federal property).

So it is constitutional.

Well, in that case, I change my answer to yes.