Unborn Victims of Violence Act
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]
See also: Feticide § Laws in the United StatesLong title
An Act To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.
Laci and Conner's Law
18, 10
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism. Due to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual U.S. states, although 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution... of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child". The reluctance of a federal law to authorize federal prosecution of a particular act committed under federal jurisdiction does not prevent states from passing their own laws against the act committed under their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the definition of all unborn babies as "members of the species homo sapiens" in section (d) says what proposed "personhood" laws say.[3] Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the collapse clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what they suggest Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end.[4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe,[5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the suggested triggering of its collapse clause by section (d).
The legislation was originally advocated by Senator Lindsay Graham, then later on the legislation was introduced in the house as H.R. 1997 by Melissa Hart in May 7, 2003. The enactment of the legislation was found to be essential, since it would make it a separate offense to harm a fetus.[6]
The legislation contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. Her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.[5]
Background[edit]
Bill H.R. 1997 was sponsored by then-representative Lindsey Graham who first sponsored the bill in the 106th Congress. Lindsey Graham is now a U.S. senator.[7] Graham was a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1993 until 1995. He served South Carolina's 3rd congressional district, which is located in western South Carolina and borders Georgia and North Carolina, from 1995 to 2002. Graham was elected to the United States Senate in 2002 and was re-elected to a fourth term in 2020. His next reelection is being held in 2026 in which will serve until January 2027. Graham serves as a member of the Republican Party.[6]
The past experiences Lindsey Graham that has given his expertise on this topic is his long anti-abortion rights voting record which includes record of Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Graham’s record of achievements include being named Legislator of the Year twice for the South Carolina Citizens for Life, receiving an ‘A’ rating from the Susan B. Anthony List National Pro-Life scorecard and receiving a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. Lindsey Graham was indicated to have worked for over five years to criminalize those who assault pregnant women and those who cause harm to an unborn child.[8]
Prior to enactment of the federal law, the fetus in utero was, as a general rule, not recognized as a victim of federal crimes of violence. Thus, in a federal crime that injured a pregnant woman and killed the fetus in utero, no homicide was recognized, in most cases.[9]
Support[edit]
Anti-abortion organizations strongly supported the act. On July 3, 2003, the U.S. Judiciary Committee heard testimony for and against passage of the UVVA. Feminists for Life president Serrin Foster submitted her own testimony, as well as that of Sharon Rocha. In addition, Foster argued against passage of an alternative bill by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, which would have provided "additional punishment for certain crimes against women when the crimes cause an interruption in the normal course of their pregnancies" but not treated the unborn child as a second victim. "We are asking our elected representatives to honestly answer the question in the case of Laci Peterson and baby Conner," Foster asked. "Was there one victim or two? Those who support the single-victim substitute would deny women justice."[13]
Opposition[edit]
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most abortion-rights organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person", then they would have a constitutional right to life.[4] The laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide and often, other violent crimes during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states).[14] Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.[15]
Senator John Kerry, who was a main opponent of President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."[16]
Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade.[17]
A principle that allows language in law to not conflict with Roe, which logically should trigger Roe's "collapse" clause, was explained in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Until such language becomes the basis for laws that specify penalties for abortion, the issue is not even before the court, of whether or not such language conflicts with Roe, and if so, which should be struck down.[18]
Representative Jerrold Nadler made a statement in voicing his opposition to a proposed federal law giving prenatal entities certain legal rights. The bill appears to contradict an important premise behind the constitutional right to seek an abortion: prenatal entities are not persons.[19]