|
|
Thursday, April 01, 2004
|
|
FROM THE "WHAT THE FUCK? I MEAN, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?" DESK
President George W. Bush is really beginning to piss me off. First there was his wrong-headed support of a constitutional ban of gay marriage. My fury over that was mitigated by two things, 1) The president has no function in the constitutional amendment process and, 2) such an amendment has no hope of getting 2/3 rds support in the Senate, let alone passing the states. So that's a dead issue.
But today the president signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 and gave this speech. This act, passed after being stalled in the Congress for 5 years, makes it a federal offence to harm an unborn child during an assault on the mother. Most people will read my description of the act and think, "well, what's wrong with that? Everybody likes babies." This is because most people are stupid.
There are a number of things wrong with this act. They are as follows.
- Murder itself is only a federal crime in very specific circumstances. That's right, if you say, kill the owner of a liquor store during a robbery, that's a state crime, not a federal one. Under existing federal law, murder is only a federal offence if a federal official is murdered in the course of his duties (which is why Timothy McVeigh was only charged and convicted with 9 counts of murder for the Oklahoma City bombing), or if the victim is killed with a weapon of mass destruction.
As of this afternoon, injuring or killing an unborn child is now a federal crime, yet murdering or injuring the mother of one is not.
- I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that this will be a jurisdictional nightmare. Let's assume that you kill your pregnant wife or girlfriend. Under UVVVA, you will now stand trial in state court for killing the mother and then in federal court for killing the fetus. That's expensive. Not to mention potentially unconstitutional. Under this act, it is entirely possible that someone could be acquitted of murdering the mother in state court and then tried in federal court for murdering the fetus. The facts of the case would be exactly the same, but the rules of evidence are far stiffer and prosecution friendly in federal court. This is double jeopardy, clearly prohibited by the Fifth Amendment which states; " nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
-UVVA puts Roe v. Wade in the most serious danger it has been in since the original ruling in 1973. Between the partial birth arbortion ban and UVVA, fetuses are getting dangerously close to becoming recognized as "persons" under the law. Guess what happens when that recognition is granted, girls? So can we drop the sentimentality for Laci and Conner Peterson, okay? Their murders were tragic but, they are being addressed in California.
- This is going to sound like a harsh question, but can someone please explain to me what makes a babies life so much more fucking special than an adult's. That was sarcastic, yes, but the underlying premise is serious. Why should the full force of the federal government protect a fetal life from violence and not that of a non-government employed adult?
Traditionally, the federal government has only stepped into areas of state law (for example, murder) when the states are unable or unwilling to enforce those laws. This was why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed. Republicans are supposed to be the party of state's rights, remember. This leads to my next point.
- This law is more a political statement than a moral one. UVVA is another play to "the base" (which oddly enough translates into Arabic as "al-Qaeda"), just like the same sex amendment was. Political laws have a long history of being exceptionally bad ones.
- During his speech before the signing President Bush made the following comment,
"This act of Congress addresses tragic losses such as Sharon and Ron have known. They have laid to rest their daughter, Laci, a beautiful young woman who was joyfully awaiting the arrival of a new son. They have also laid to rest that child, a boy named Conner, who was waiting to be born when his life, too, was taken. His little soul never saw light, but he was loved, and he is remembered. (Applause.) And his name is forever joined with that of his mom in this statute, which is also known as Laci and Conner's Law. (Applause.) All who knew Laci Peterson have mourned two deaths, and the law cannot look away and pretend there was just one."
This leads to two points. As I mentioned before, the Peterson case is currently being handled in the California courts. One of the charges laid is specific to the death of Conner. Secondly, sitting presidents should not comment on ongoing criminal cases. Bad things happen when they do. There was once a case you may be familiar with, California v. Manson, et al. During the course of the trial, President Nixon was asked about it at a press conference. In his response, Nixon said that Manson was "clearly guilty." This very nearly resulted in a mistrial. The publicity surrounding the Peterson case is making it hard enough to prosecute. If he doesn't want this case still in trial phase when his second term ends, the president should keep his fucking mouth shut.
- Also from the president's statement;
"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." (emphasis mine) Does that last phrase sound at all familiar? I hope so, because it's one of the mantras of the pro-life movement.
This is what has driven me nuts about liberals for years now. They've been crying wolf in the abortion wars for so long, that no one will take them seriously when a real threat to their agenda arises. In the last 20 years, when even perfectly reasonable abortion measures like parental notification for underage girls were proposed, the idiot left and their moronic confederates in the women's movement screamed at the top of their lungs that, "a woman's right to choose is being destroyed!" This was done so frequently, so loudly and so stupidly that the sane people just stopped paying attention to them.
If I were a woman, I would be fucking horrified about UVVA! Horrified because it places the "life" of my fetus above my own as a matter of federal law and horrified, that if allowed to stand, it is the single most potent threat to legal abortion since 1973. And because of their narcissitic histrionics in the last 30 years, the people most prepared to fight it will almost certainly be ignored.
I believe that George W. Bush will be re-elected in November. I also believe that given what the alternative is, he probably should be. But I'm not excited about this, not in the least. And growing less so every day. In the next few days, I intend to write an extended essay on how potentially disasterous a second Bush administration might be. I might put it up here or I might pitch it to Chaos in Motion. It all depends on how I feel.
|
|
|
| |
