It is the unborn victims of violence act, pertaining to crimes under which the united states federal government has jurisdiction, such as when a federal law is broken. In this case the acquisition and use of illicit narcotic substances. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841 (a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. (2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. offense under this section does not require proof that— (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child. (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section. subsection (a) are the following: (1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title. (2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283). (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) 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, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. (Added Pub. L. 108–212, § 2(a), Apr. 1, 2004, 118 Stat. 568.)
""(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) 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, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.""
A. A human fetus is human (adjective) and NO one ever said anything different. B. A fetus is not A human being (noun) as in "born person with rights".
Such does not extend to preventing the prosecution relating to the acquisition and use of an illicit narcotic substance, however. The felony activity supersedes the protection provided by the act with regard to the abortion of a fetus, as the termination of the fetus pertained to the commission of at least one felony offense.
I am not arguing what a fetus is. I am arguing that the person in question is not guilty of murder. Unless abortion was also murder. You can't have it both ways.
Nope! Read the OP where is says "...she gave birth to a stillborn child...". No abortion occurred. The UVVA does not apply either since she did not INTENTIONALLY cause harm to her fetus for the express purpose of aborting it. There was NO abortion and NO murder and NO intent to cause harm! Being stupid is not a crime!
It's like when a guy kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with a double homicide So under the majority of the states a fetus is a baby/human being
Depends on the state and the age of the fetus... Just once I'd like those who say, ""well, what about if a guy(always a guy for some reason) kills a pregnant woman and he's charged with double homicide" do some research on the laws instead of .just repeating what they saw another Anti-Choicer post No, that isn't true. The UVVA does NOT give, nor can it give, a fetus personhood. It cannot make a fetus into a "baby".
Dismissal of personal responsibility duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons. The individual is indeed being blamed for her deliberate decision to engage in felony activity. Just as an individual would be blamed if they made the conscious decision to plow a motor vehicle into a crowd of pedestrians at the crosswalk. Just as an individual would be blamed if they made the conscious decision to engage in a mass shooting. One may fall victim to the consequences of their own decision, but such does not actually make them a victim.
But should he be? If a fetus is not a person under the law and not protected from harm from the mother why should a person be charged with murder for killing one?
I have no idea what you're on about. Do you think women should be able to go around having sex and doing drugs, is that what this is about?
Do you think women should be able to go around having sex and doing drugs, is that what this is about? You think it's acceptable for pregnant women to heavily do drugs, and when the late-stage fetus mysteriously dies, the mother should be given the benefit of the doubt and we shouldn't assume her actions had anything to do with it? Even though the levels of meth in the baby were sky high.
So you want to make it ILLEGAL for women to have sex? How do you propose to STOP women from having sex? Are you going to FORCE them to wear chastity belts? Is that your "solution"?
Another reason that law does not apply is because it clearly requires INTENT to kill. Without proof of that intent there is no crime.
Perhaps such would be the case, if not for the fact the death of the fetus occurred as a result of the commission of a felony offense. In which case the felony murder rule applies and overrules that protection.
Perhaps it is time for the united states to force individuals to choose between addiction and parenthood. They can have one or the other, but they cannot have both.