Unborn Victims of Violence Act - A Speaking Out Essay

At long last, the Democrat and Chronicle has fulfilled its commitment to publish this essay on legislation disguised as pro-woman:

The bill's intent is "that the affirmative right of the pregnant woman to carry her child to term be protected, and that perpetrators of crimes against pregnant women and their unborn children be held accountable." (Sen. Maltese, primary sponsor)

but which is in fact anti-choice:

"The real mission of such legislation is to undermine women's right to choice, by giving legal status to the unborn, undermining the recognized and established legal basis for Roe v Wade" (Sen. Liz Krueger)

Read the April 1, 2008 Speaking Out Essay as printed in the D&C, or keep reading for a longer version, which contains a more detailed explanation of the impact of such legislation on women who have already made their first choice (to have a baby) and are discovering that they are losing their right to make a host of other choices for themselves and their families.

The Ultimate Victimization of the Victim Act (UVVA) by Willa Powell

Early in 2007, a bill called Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) was introduced in the NY State Senate. In January of this year, it was reintroduced as bill S3117 by Senator Maltese. Upstate co-sponsors include Senators Robach, Maziarz, and Rath. Companion bill A5777 was sponsored by Michael Benjamin in the NY Assembly.

Thirty-one states already have some language conferring person-hood on a viable fetus. Ten states have such laws as extreme as this bill. (The sponsor memo lists nine, but Kansas, not on the list, passed such legislation in June 2007.) In existing New York law, homicide is defined as “conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks”.

The bill’s stated intent is “that the affirmative right of the pregnant woman to carry her child to term be protected, and that perpetrators of crimes against pregnant women and their unborn children be held accountable.” The bill would confer legal person-hood on “an unborn child at any stage of gestation” in order to create a second victim. Fetal person-hood is not a valid articulation of a woman’s “right” to carry to term.

What are the results of existing laws? In recent years, violent crime has dropped for male victims, according to a US Justice Department report, but has remained constant among women. The leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder, and women who are abused while pregnant are more likely to have been abused before pregnancy and more likely to be abused after pregnancy.

Consider that if a perpetrator is identified and prosecuted for violence against a pregnant woman, ample justice will be mete out for crimes already on the books. High profile cases cited by Assemblyman Benjamin (in a City Hall News OpEd) and Senator Krueger (www.dailygotham.com blog, January 14, 2008) testify to the effectiveness of existing laws. (February 2005: Steven Schiovone; July 2003: Sean Brown; June 2003: Anthony Puglia; March 2003: David Elesic; April 2000: Dr Stephen Pack)

Senator Liz Krueger wrote, “The real mission of such legislation is to undermine women’s right to choice, by giving legal status to the unborn, undermining the recognized and established legal basis for Roe v. Wade.” We can see the incremental march. First, an unborn child more than twenty-four weeks; then, any stage of gestation. Next step: eliminate the exception for legally performed abortion.

This isn’t just bad news for abortion rights or civil rights activists. It is very bad news for birthing women. Good Morning America recently (January 8) aired a segment called “Do-It-Yourself-Birth”. Dr. Frank Chervenak, Director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at NY Presbyterian Hospital, used just such person-hood language to put fetal rights ahead of maternal rights: “The few hours of labor are the most dangerous time during the entire lifetime of that soon to be born child. Because of this, I would argue, all soon to be born children have a right to access to immediate cesarean delivery and women who insist on denying this right are irresponsible.”

Full person-hood of a soon to be born fetus means that birthing women might be considered hostile to her own baby whenever she asserts her right to informed consent / informed refusal decisions around the birth of that baby. A woman’s right to autonomy, privacy and bodily integrity will be subordinated to someone else’s idea of what is good for the baby, actually pitting a pregnant women’s existing human and civil rights against her own baby’s “rights” in every situation a third parties might seek to interject themselves.

Obstetricians, making value judgments about the mother’s lifestyle or parenting ability, sometimes involve the courts even before the baby is born, in order to enforce their own judgement against the mother’s wishes. Doctor-patient conflicts are conveyed to a judge as mother-baby conflicts, from which the baby must be “rescued”.

A prime example of this is when a woman who has given birth via cesearean section requests a subsequent birth be vaginal (vaginal birth after cesearean or VBAC). VBAC had become an accepted option over the last two decades, but the current trend, quite without basis in research, has swung back toward “once a Cesearean, always a Cesearean”. There have been instances across the country where hospital administrators have obtained court orders requiring that the mother submit herself to surgery.

Never mind that what is good for the mother is invariably good for the baby and the rest of the family as well. To appreciate the extremity of this demand, consider that there are no standing precedent’s for forcing someone to undergo surgery for the benefit of another (organ donation for example), not even if that other person would die without it. This right to bodily integrity can’t be found in the US Constitution, but it is considered a fundamental human right around the world.

Dr. Howard Minkoff, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn New York said, “That’s saying pregnant women have fewer rights than anyone else, including a fetus.” (December 2004 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a review of the Rowland case where mother was charged with murder because one of her twins was stillborn after she delayed consent to surgery.) Dr. Mark Rosen says, “to concern ourselves only with the welfare of the fetus is to neglect the humanity of the pregnant woman.” (January 14 New York Times)

Women have literally fled the hospital while in labor, or gone into hiding so that the process server couldn’t find them. Sometimes, they were simply unable to escape. The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) organization was formed to ensure that women, upon becoming pregnant, don’t lose their civil rights. While NAPW could not prevent those particular incidents, it has gotten many of those decisions vacated, thus preventing legal precedent. (NAPW joined NYCLU to vacate the O’Connor, Monroe County Family Court, “No more kids” decision.)

Laws like this in others states prevent women from seeking treatment for drug addiction for fear of prosecution on assault charges. And not being able to get help, those same women are afraid to get prenatal care, for fear of getting caught. Someday, mothers may face assault charges anytime she makes decisions while pregnant that the larger society disagrees with, even if those actions are otherwise legal (smoking, drinking alcohol, a home birth, or working in a toxic environment).

Imagine “A Handmaids Tale” (1985 novel by Margaret Atwood), where women are stripped of their autonomy and civil rights simply because they can become pregnant. Now, understand that is already happening. Full person-hood of the soon to be born denies full person-hood of the mother whenever the woman’s decisions are overruled in favor of someone else’s idea of what is good for my baby, each and every time I have the temerity to become pregnant.

If I am also a victim of violence, I find no solace in this legislation, because it doesn’t make me or my baby safer. I conclude that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is misnamed. It should be the Ultimate Victimization of the Victim Act.

Oppose S3117, and affirm S5839, the Governor’s Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP) instead.