Unborn Victims Act vs. Roe v. Wade

Unborn Victims Act vs. Roe v. Wade

By Mark Stevens

Unborn Victims Act vs. Roe v. Wade

In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This act recognizes a fetus, at any stage in pregnancy, as a separate person during the commission of a violent crime against its mother. Until now, 13 states grant this legal status only to a fetus of a specific age, 11 states recognize the fetus from the moment of conception, with the remaining 26 states not addressing the issue in any fashion.

Lawmakers had good intentions in passing this law in the wake of several high-profile cases where expectant mothers were slain to eliminate the liability of potential child support payments in the future. What lawmakers may have unwittingly stepped into the middle of is the controversy between pro-life and pro-choice groups and the age-old question: When does life really begin?

Pro-life supporters see the new law as an opportunity to attack the Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion legal with the assumption a woman has the right to determine the destiny of her own body. Pro-choice supporters see the new law as an opportunity to reverse a ruling that, for over 27 years, has protected women and curtailed the birth of unwanted children.

Both sides make good points, and both sides have become heated and vocal in making their points. Indeed, one pro-life member posted a web site that, seemingly, targeted abortion-performing doctors in the United States. After doctors on the list were slain outside their homes and clinics, a red line was drawn through the doctor’s name. Hit list or not? You make the call.

America always works best when we arrive at a common consensus and middle ground in such disputes. It would seem a logical compromise to settle this dispute would be to determine when life legally begins by determining when America legally has determined it ends. It is commonly accepted that if you cannot stay alive without mechanical assistance, and you lack brain activity, you are “dead” and to keep a person alive in such a condition by artificial means is interfering with God’s will and unnecessarily bleeding the family of money for medical expenses. Indeed, most Americans, whether they have a living will or not, say they do not wish others to keep them suspended in such a state.

If a person can be charged with murder for pulling the plug on a medical machine keeping another alive in an unconscious state where there is brain activity, how is it we can allow an abortionist to take an unborn child in the second or third trimester? I am not asking this as a pro-life proponent, as I am truly neutral. I am asking this as a simple pondering about this issue. America has seemed kind of two-faced now ever since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was rendered 20 years ago. I have also pondered how such learned men and women of our Supreme Court could not have considered such common logic in 1973.

It is time for lawmakers to determine when life in America “legally” begins as well as ends. It is time for us, as Americans, to show some consistency in purpose. It is time for two distinct groups of Americans to be brought back together by compromise.

Enjoy The Rock River Times? Help spread the word!