General Discussion

BklnDem75

(2,918 posts)

70. Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 11:35 AM

Jul 2014

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is 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]

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.

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

177 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

He didn't "kill a baby" [View all] kiva Jul 2014 OP

Whew, glad to see someone else noticed this glaring hypocrisy. nt Bonobo Jul 2014 #1

Look up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #76

Doesn't mean that there isn't hypocrisy Bonobo Jul 2014 #78

Don't really see the hypocrisy in this case BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #88

What hypocrisy? Per the murderer, the mother begged for her "baby"'s life. moriah Jul 2014 #93

This: CrispyQ Jul 2014 #106

Glad you agree. That being said, the CHOICE to be a mother is a beautiful one. moriah Jul 2014 #109

Language matters. kiva Jul 2014 #154

But it's irrelevant to the point that he shot a person who was running away, in the back. Twice. MH1 Jul 2014 #111

If he gets charged with two counts of murder, I won't cry any. moriah Jul 2014 #115

I wouldn't cry for him at all, but there is a troubling aspect for the reproductive rights movement. MH1 Jul 2014 #121

I support the UVVA because it's more about the protection of pregnant women, not the baby, to me. moriah Jul 2014 #124

Good point. edgineered Jul 2014 #2

I have no dog in this hunt. Separation Jul 2014 #3

I was wondering about this too, kiva Jul 2014 #4

Agree on all points. MH1 Jul 2014 #112

Very important distinction. enlightenment Jul 2014 #5

It wasn't the gunman's choice to kill the future baby cpwm17 Jul 2014 #6

No it's not a double murder. kiva Jul 2014 #7

Abortion is the woman's choice cpwm17 Jul 2014 #12

Which still doesn't make the fetus a person. gcomeau Jul 2014 #18

So if a man slips something to a pregnant woman Union Scribe Jul 2014 #14

of course it is TorchTheWitch Jul 2014 #19

What do you charge him with? nt Union Scribe Jul 2014 #25

Assault. Brickbat Jul 2014 #37

Really. To a woman who WANTS her child, it's a child. Way to undervalue her feelings. moriah Jul 2014 #103

There are a lot of men who'd take an assault charge.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2014 #156

"nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy" nt cyberswede Jul 2014 #62

for slipping the pills at all is assault TorchTheWitch Jul 2014 #120

Yes. Assault and battery against the woman. (nt) jeff47 Jul 2014 #29

And she could recover financially Ilsa Jul 2014 #56

For the purposes of qualifying for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, it was a person. moriah Jul 2014 #101

No, he did not "kill the future baby". enlightenment Jul 2014 #9

It wasn't his body. Thank you! kcr Jul 2014 #49

In some states a fetus has the same status as a baby IF pnwmom Jul 2014 #8

Didn't the gunman say she couldn't run fast because she was pregnant? No Vested Interest Jul 2014 #20

No, what he said was that SHE claimed she couldn't run as fast as her boyfriend because she was PG Hekate Jul 2014 #22

AS OF TODAY, AUTOPSY SHOWS SHE WAS NOT PREGNANT. Like I said, not one shred of evidence... Hekate Jul 2014 #173

He murdered a woman. Shooting a fleeing person in the fucking back is murder. moriah Jul 2014 #10

Like others, I wonder how far along she was. But your overall point still stands. n/t nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #11

So now its a decision between a woman, her doctor and any gunman in the immediate area? Sen. Walter Sobchak Jul 2014 #13

+HUGE!!!11!!! PowerToThePeople Jul 2014 #39

regardless, he shot someone in the back... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #15

Rick Santorum says it's a baby mwrguy Jul 2014 #16

I don't know why this is so hard a concept to grasp MurrayDelph Jul 2014 #17

I'm sorry, will does not change science whatthehey Jul 2014 #36

You are technically correct, and socially so fucking wrong MurrayDelph Jul 2014 #137

No. A person does not require anyone's stamp of legitimacy. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #71

This ^^ kiva Jul 2014 #95

If fetuses were outside of another person's body, you'd have a point kcr Jul 2014 #99

Feticide is still a homicide BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #105

So it's a person whom only mom is allowed to kill? nt lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #138

According to California Penal Code 187 BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #144

So, the answer is yes. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #145

Did you read it? BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #147

I sure did. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #150

Where does it say a fetus is a person? BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #151

Thank you. I got bashed up one side and down the other on that issue. Hekate Jul 2014 #21

How anyone could shoot a person in the back astounds me. moriah Jul 2014 #23

I couldn't agree more, moriah. n/t Uncle Joe Jul 2014 #24

Rage and pain don't stop on a dime, do they? Not justifying her death, just sayin' there's more... Hekate Jul 2014 #26

Anger and adrenaline don't turn off in an instant when one has been fighting for ones life Lee-Lee Jul 2014 #34

Give me a break, please. The man bragged about murdering a pregnant woman. moriah Jul 2014 #83

From what I saw him saying in video clips Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #113

He should have just made them a pot of tea, and then held the door open for them... Hekate Jul 2014 #148

How much of a head start should he have given them before calling "the pigs"? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2014 #158

Should have at least let their car get out of sight. That seems only right and just. Hekate Jul 2014 #170

Or just give them your car ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2014 #175

What's yours is mine. How dare you have more than me? How dare anyone think otherwise?nt Hekate Jul 2014 #176

Reminds me of Capt. Obvious Jul 2014 #38

That episode disturbed me as a child ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2014 #159

I am pro-life Puzzledtraveller Jul 2014 #46

Yes that thread went crazy. kiva Jul 2014 #74

K&R. nt raccoon Jul 2014 #27

"He did not kill a woman and her child " i dont recall you being elected as the decider of these leftyohiolib Jul 2014 #28

Only if you believe abortion is murder. (nt) jeff47 Jul 2014 #30

but it wasnt an abortion per se some gunfreak gunned down a pregnant woman leftyohiolib Jul 2014 #31

Then abortion is murder. jeff47 Jul 2014 #60

well stopped 2 lives is what happened and is the way to look at this situation otherwise leftyohiolib Jul 2014 #100

No, you don't ignore the pregnancy. You charge a different crime. jeff47 Jul 2014 #108

doesnt A&B imply personhood- only people can be murdered.cant only people be A&B"D ? leftyohiolib Jul 2014 #122

The person being assaulted is the woman. jeff47 Jul 2014 #127

ok ..nt leftyohiolib Jul 2014 #135

He ended one life and terminated one pregnancy cyberswede Jul 2014 #61

you just playing word games like when john boner could say the word compromise leftyohiolib Jul 2014 #104

Terminating a pregnancy isn't terminating a life. cyberswede Jul 2014 #110

"Terminating a pregnancy isn't terminating a life." to many it is leftyohiolib Jul 2014 #119

Except she lied to save her ass after her boyfriend ran like a bunny rabbit Hekate Jul 2014 #177

I don't agree. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #32

It's a damn slippery slope Lee-Lee Jul 2014 #35

I don't think it's slippery. Her body, her choice. ecstatic Jul 2014 #43

The law doesn't work that way Lee-Lee Jul 2014 #44

"It can't waver back and forth" kcr Jul 2014 #52

Your making two different arguments Lee-Lee Jul 2014 #57

No, we're just arguing semantics kcr Jul 2014 #58

I didn't say that. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #97

Meh. conservaphobe Jul 2014 #33

Now that is some grade fucking a nonsense right there CBGLuthier Jul 2014 #40

Thank you. This has nothing to do with abortion. redqueen Jul 2014 #41

It has everything to do with abortion. jeff47 Jul 2014 #82

No it isn't always one or the other. It is up to the woman to decide if the pregnancy is wanted. redqueen Jul 2014 #85

You can't be a person sometimes and not a person other times. jeff47 Jul 2014 #87

Thanks ever so much for restating your opinion. IMO it is the mother's decision and no one else's. redqueen Jul 2014 #91

Again, the mother's decision doesn't change "personhood". jeff47 Jul 2014 #96

And IMO it's you doing the fingers-in-your-ears, LA LA LA bullshit. redqueen Jul 2014 #114

Asserting something as true does not make it so. jeff47 Jul 2014 #126

These laws have been in place for decades. redqueen Jul 2014 #128

So were segregation laws. jeff47 Jul 2014 #129

Wrong. TRAP laws are the weapon of choice. redqueen Jul 2014 #130

They are a weapon. Not the only one. jeff47 Jul 2014 #141

Seems folks want to have their cake and eat it too. X_Digger Jul 2014 #140

A fetus is either a person, or it is not a person. jeff47 Jul 2014 #84

It's not about a fetus, it's about a woman's choice leftstreet Jul 2014 #98

Because the law says you can only murder people. jeff47 Jul 2014 #102

Yes BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #157

If she had chosen to carry the pregnancy, then yes, he did. ecstatic Jul 2014 #42

You are skewing "pro-choice" when you make it anyone but the mother's choice. cbdo2007 Jul 2014 #45

I thought they were emphasizing that there was no "child" that was murdered. Puzzledtraveller Jul 2014 #53

Yes, that was my point. kiva Jul 2014 #64

Pretty disgusting to use a dead woman and her unborn child to push your agenda. dilby Jul 2014 #47

Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #48

The unborn was NOT a criminal!! PowerToThePeople Jul 2014 #50

I read the article yesterday. linuxman Jul 2014 #51

There is no such thing as an "unborn" person BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #160

Kick! X_Digger Jul 2014 #54

Tell you what Dreamer Tatum Jul 2014 #55

so true Niceguy1 Jul 2014 #65

Do you believe in a woman's right to choose kiva Jul 2014 #68

I believe that one should assume that a pregnant woman who is murdered Dreamer Tatum Jul 2014 #72

Nice edit. kiva Jul 2014 #90

Yes, my original missive, that you should shove it, was uncalled for and nasty. nt Dreamer Tatum Jul 2014 #92

Thank you kiva Jul 2014 #94

"nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy" cyberswede Jul 2014 #59

^^This!^^ BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #161

That horse already left the barn lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #63

Yeah, that distinction would have totally turned the tide of public opinion Dreamer Tatum Jul 2014 #69

Wow, gun lovers will twist all over this until they are tied in knots. Rex Jul 2014 #66

I tend to defer such characterizations geek tragedy Jul 2014 #67

Thank you for getting it. redqueen Jul 2014 #73

So according to many on this thread Dreamer Tatum Jul 2014 #75

Um, no. nt geek tragedy Jul 2014 #77

Um, yes, actually Dreamer Tatum Jul 2014 #79

I certainly don't think that. nt geek tragedy Jul 2014 #81

No kcr Jul 2014 #86

Where did anyone say anything like that? Kingofalldems Jul 2014 #146

Unborn Victims of Violence Act BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #70

The fact is that he shot a fleeing woman in the back. PDJane Jul 2014 #80

^^^ THIS. But DU has become a surprising place, it seems. MH1 Jul 2014 #116

So will this mean Turbineguy Jul 2014 #89

I subscribe to a progressive pure choice philosophy Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #107

He didn't kill a baby gwheezie Jul 2014 #117

Said no pregnant woman, ever. nt Dreamer Tatum Jul 2014 #118

Yes BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #155

I agree with you. closeupready Jul 2014 #123

That is what I said in my jury comments. Unfortunately, I was in the minority. nt stevenleser Jul 2014 #125

It's what the wonen says it is ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #131

i agree. we really cant have it both ways. nt La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2014 #132

According to California Penal Code SECTION 187-199, it's two murders, baby or not BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #133

She is having a baby...not Niceguy1 Jul 2014 #134

To clarify, kiva Jul 2014 #136

Holy shit, I didn't realize DU harbored so many anti-choice idjits. X_Digger Jul 2014 #139

I had no idea either. kiva Jul 2014 #142

Wow, you are completely misrepresenting a whole group here ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2014 #162

Let me make it simple. X_Digger Jul 2014 #166

And that's a legit argument ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2014 #167

Those were sentiments expressed by DU'ers. Left me gobsmacked to see that shit here. X_Digger Jul 2014 #168

I find it extremely suprising BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #163

It should depend on how old the fetus is. Quantess Jul 2014 #143

There is absolutely no guarantee that the fetus will become a live birth. Lars39 Jul 2014 #149

Thanks awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #152

He killed a human being running away from him who was pleading for her life WI_DEM Jul 2014 #153

exactly Liberal_in_LA Jul 2014 #164

When the Death of a Fetus Is Murder BklnDem75 Jul 2014 #165

BREAKING NEWS: SHE WASN'T PREGNANT! JaneyVee Jul 2014 #169

Thanks for the update... kiva Jul 2014 #171

I said the same thing yesterday yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #172

Yeah that one really brought out the concern trolls. Rex Jul 2014 #174