In a local paper in late February was the headline “House passes bill protecting unborn victims.” While skimming through the black and white print, a quote from our president jumped out of the text. “We must continue to build this country, a compassionate society in which every child is born into a loving family and protected by the law,” said Geroge W. Bush after passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) by 254-163. I agree with our pro-war/pro-life President.
However, happily-ever-after only happens in fairytales or perhaps if we lived in between Donna Reed and Father Knows Best. In 2004 America, reality isn’t always white picket fences and two car garages. 18.9 percent of American children are living in poverty.
These 14 million children obviously aren’t all being born into “loving” families-and that is just the poor. Let’s not forget those in the middle or upper middle classes who are battered or ignored.
The UVVA was passed on Feb. 26th, defining an unborn child as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” The fertilized egg is now a “victim,” and the new law states that anyone harming a woman carrying a child should be tried for double murder.
But now our legal system seems to be caught in a contradicting situation. The 1973 Roe v. Wade deemed a fetus not a “person” entitled to protection. But it seems that Roe v. Wade was undermined and the law was passed.
Supposedly this fetal homicide issue has created more of an interest since Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, were allegedly killed by the father. California is charging him with two counts of murder, which organizations such as Planned Parenthood strongly disagree with.
In early January, 28-year-old Melissa Rowland refused advice for a C-section and wound up giving birth to a stillborn boy, while his twin sister survived. It is thought that she refused due to cosmetic reasons. She was put in jail and is now being tried for murder.
Yet, U.S. citizens have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment – and isn’t that what Ms. Rowland was doing? And what is to happen with alcoholic or drug-addicted mothers-to-be? Will they too be charged for harming a fetus, or should I now say unborn homo sapien to be politically correct?
I find myself neither pro-choice nor pro-life. Although I could never handle an unwanted pregnancy by abortion, who am I to judge another’s decision?
It seems as if America is slowly redefining words in our constitution and overriding one law with another. Whether unborn or decades old, lives are being changed. Making abortion illegal is just a hop, skip and vote away.
So while Super Bush is sending more troops over to Iraq, he is saving the unborn here in America. Maybe Bush will eventually rub his sleepy eyes and realize that America is not such a “compassionate society” and every American family is not “loving.”
Dream on, Bush.
Rachel M. Summers can be reached at temple_news@hotmail.com.
Be the first to comment