This is a copy of a letter sent by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to members of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 16, 2004, regarding an upcoming House vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997).

Dear Member of Congress:

In the near future, the House of Representatives will consider the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997), soonsored by Congresswoman Melissa Hart. This bill poses the fundamental question: When a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, killing both her and her unborn child, has he claimed one victim, or two?

Over the past year, the American people have considered that question in light of the much-publicized Peterson double murder in California -- and by overwhelming margins, they believe that the law should recognize that such crimes have TWO victims. In three national polls conducted during 2003, respondents endorsed "fetal homicide" legislation by margins ranging from 8-to-1 to 12-to-1. The polls are posted on the NRLC website here: www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/UnbornPolls110703.html.

Unborn victims laws do not affect legal abortion, but they do allow justice to be done for unborn babies whose lives are snuffed out by the actions of violent criminals, and for the parents and grandparents of such victims.

Last year, the family of Laci and Conner Peterson sent a plea to Congress to pass the bill in memory of those victims. In accord with their request, H.R. 1997 bears the alternate title of "Laci and Conner's Law." We urge you to heed their plea and to support speedy passage of this legislation, rejecting all weakening or gutting amendments -- particularly, the "one-victim substitute" of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, which is described below.

Fortunately, California is one of 28 states that has an unborn victims law. The state laws are summarized here: www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html.

It is long past time for reform of the federal and military codes to reflect the two-victim principle. If Laci Peterson had been a uniformed member of the U.S. military, murdered while on a military base, only one homicide charge would have been permitted. Moreover, a man who stalks his pregnant wife across state lines and attacks her, injuring her and killing the unborn child, can be prosecuted under Section 2261 of Title 18 -- but only for the mother's injury, not for the loss of the baby's life. Numerous other such examples could be given, all because the federal criminal code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice in effect separate the mother from her unborn child, and then treat the unborn child as a nonentity. Here are some real cases: www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVAfederalcases.html.

H.R. 1997 would remedy this loophole in federal law. The bill would recognize that when a criminal commits a federal crime against a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two victims. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not create any new federal crimes -- rather, it recognizes unborn victims of crimes already defined in federal law. State laws would continue to govern the status of unborn children for all state crimes.

The House has passed this bill twice, by large bipartisan margins, in 1999 and again in 2001.

HOW THE BILL WOULD WORK

Some opponents have asserted that the bill contains a definition of "child in utero" that could somehow apply to methods of birth control or even in vitro fertilization. These are extravagant misrepresentations that cannot survive scrutiny of the actual bill language, which applies only to a "child in utero," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Thus, under the bill, the government would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that a given woman had an established pregnancy -- an unborn child attached to her own body and thus "carried in the womb," and (2) that a defendant's actions, committed with criminal malice towards the mother and/or the baby, caused injury or death to that unborn child.

Some opponents of the bill have claimed that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is concerned only with violence against unborn children and not violence against their mothers. This assertion completely misrepresents the structure of the bill. In reality, the bill would have no effect except in cases in which federal authorities have a basis under current law to charge an attacker for an offense against a pregnant woman in one of 68 federal crimes of violence. If the authorities determine that in the course of that predicate offense, an unborn child was injured or killed, the bill would allow them to bring a second charge on behalf of the second victim -- a charge appropriate to the circumstances and degree of harm suffered by the unborn victim. Thus, the bill actually references crimes against pregnant women 68 times.

ONE-VICTIM SUBSTITUTE

Sharon Rocha -- whose daughter Laci and unborn grandson Conner were murdered in California -- has written that "adoption of such a single-victim amendment would be a painful blow to those, like me, who are left alive after a two-victim crime, because Congress would be saying that Conner and other innocent unborn victims like him are not really victims -- indeed, that they never really existed at all. But our grandson did live. He had a name, he was loved, and his life was violently taken from him before he ever saw the sun."

Please also consider the testimony of Tracy Marciniak before the House Judiciary Committee on June 8, 2003 (posted here: www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/MarciniakTestimony.htm) She described the brutal attack that killed her unborn son Zachariah. At Zachariah's funeral, a powerfully moving photograph was taken of Mrs. Marciniak holding her son for the last time. The photo is posted here: www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/index.html.

Tracy Marciniak testified, "I have read Congresswoman Lofgren's proposal . . . There is only one victim in that bill -- the pregnant woman. So if you vote for that bill . . . you would be saying to all of the future mothers, fathers, and grandparents, who lose their unborn children in future federal crimes, 'You didn't really lose a baby.' Please don't tell us that. Please don't tell me that my son was not a real murder victim. If you really think that nobody died that night, if you really think there is no dead baby in the picture, then vote for the Lofgren bill. But please remember Zachariah's name and face when you decide."

RELATIONSHIP TO ABORTION LAW

Moreover, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws (including criminal laws) "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had ruled that Missouri's law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," and blocked its enforcement, but the Supreme Court nullified that ruling, allowing the law to go into effect so long as the state did not use it to restrict abortion.

Even Heather Boonstra, senior public policy analyst at the Alan Guttmacher Institute (an affiliate of Planned Parenthood), has acknowledged that the bill "would probably survive a court challenge." (National Journal, April 21, 2001, page 1173)

CONCLUSION

Sincerely,

Douglas Johnson
NRLC Legislative Director

(202) 626-8820, Legfederal@aol.com
www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html

The National Right to Life Committee is the nation's major pro-life organization, representing affiliates in all 50 states.

VSHL is the Virginia affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee.