Letter Emailed to All NC House Members about UVVA/Ethen's Law-H215

March 23, 2011

Dear Representative:

North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL) supports the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law (H215) which will be heard on the House floor tomorrow afternoon. We ask you to support the bill and oppose any amendments to the bill which would weaken or gut it; NCRTL plans to include these votes in its scorecard of votes taken this session.  

We urge you to support the bill because North Carolina is one of only 15 states that currently does not recognize the unborn child as a second victim when the unborn child is injured or killed by an assailant.  The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act does recognize the unborn child as a second victim in those parts of North Carolina that are under federal jurisdiction (the Blue Ridge Parkway, military bases, and federal buildings).  Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law H215 would correct this inequity.

Additionally, the victim's families have petitioned the NC Legislature over the last several years to pass legislation like the bill that will be before you tomorrow.  Effie Steele, the mother of Ebony Robinson and grandmother of Elijah Robinson both killed in 2007, gave an impassioned plea before the Judiciary B Committee for the legislature to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law.  Like other victims' families, she spoke as a grieving mother and grandmother in favor of a state law to acknowledge what her family and the other victims' families know, that there were two human victims, not just one, when her unborn grandson and her daughter were killed. 

Some opponents of the bill have argued that the assailant should have to know the woman to be pregnant in order to be charged for the injury or death of her unborn child.  Court decisions in California and Minnesota have ruled that it is not necessary for the assailant to know the woman to be pregnant in order to charge the assailant with a crime against the unborn child. In writing for the majority in the California case, Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote: "Had one of Fansler's other children died during defendant's assault, there would be no inquiry into whether defendant knew the child was present for implied malice murder liability to attach.  Similarly, there is no principled basis on which to require defendant to know Fansler was pregnant to justify an implied malice murder conviction as to her fetus.  In battering and shooting Fansler, defendant acted with knowledge of the danger to and conscious disregard for life in general.  That is all that is required for implied malice murder.  He did not need to be specifically aware how many potential victims his conscious disregard for life endangered." 

(Source: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/CASupremeCourtruling040504.html)

In its document "Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act," National Right to Life wrote the following about the Minnesota case: "As the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in upholding the Minnesota unborn victims law, "The possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude." [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)]. To read the entire document of Key Facts, go here.  The majority of these key facts are as germane to the debate which will take place tomorrow on the House floor regarding H215 as they were in the debate about the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

The majority of citizens support recognizing the unborn child as a second victim. 79% (69% of whom are pro-choice) in a 2003 Fox News poll said that prosecutors should be able to charge an attacker with the murder of an unborn child if the pregnant woman was physically attacked and the attack led to the death of her unborn child.  You can see the complete poll results here. It is noteworthy that these same people do not support our current one victim law, "Injury to a Pregnant Woman," which H-215 repeals.

Finally, the opponents of the bill have offered various types of hypothetical situations in arguing against the bill.  There are 25 states with laws like the one you are being asked to support tomorrow and 10 additional states with partial coverage; none of these states to my knowledge have needed to amend their laws because of any unintended consequences associated with their laws.  

Please support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law with your votes on Thursday, March 24.

Respectfully, 

Barbara Holt
President
North Carolina Right to Life, Inc.
POB 9282
Greensboro, NC 27429-0282
336-213-2211 (cell)

Vote on H215 Expected March 23

First Vote on Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law Expected on Wednesday, March 23

Last Wednesday, the House Judiciary B committee heard testimony from various individuals, but none of the testimonies could compare with Effie Steele's impassioned plea for  justice for her 21 year old daughter Ebony Robinson and her unborn son Elijah who were murdered only weeks before Ebony was due to deliver Elijah.

With photos of both Ebony and Elijah in front of her and facing the committee members, Effie pleaded with the committee to recognize that when Elijah died, she lost her only grandson who should have been recognized as a victim just as his mother was by charging the murderer with two murder charges.  She finished her testimony in tears as she begged the members to set aside their abortion biases and recognize that the bill is not about abortion but about charging assailants with two crimes when they kill or injury a mother and her unborn child.

The bill is expected to come up for a vote in the Judiciary Sub Committee B, chaired by Reps. Paul Stam and Sarah Stevens, on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, at 10:00 am in Room 421 of the Legislative Office Building.  It is important for the members of the sub committee, especially the Democrats, to hear from their constituents.

The committee members should be urged to support the bill with their vote in committee as well as on the House floor. To see a list of the members of the committee, click here. By following this link, you can get to the web page for your particular legislator who is on the committee.  Phone calls are preferred to emails.  If you can only send an email, be sure to put Support H215 in the subject line of the email.  

If you live in the districts for Reps. Bordsen (Alamance), Bryant (Halifax and Nash), Glazier (Cumberland), Haire (Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain), Martin (Wake), and Michaux (Durham) and can come to the committee meeting, you should try to be there early enough to introduce yourself to your representative as a constituent who supports recognizing the unborn as a second victim.

H215 recognizes the unborn child as a second victim when the unborn child is injured or dies during the commission of a crime.  Currently, if an unborn child dies or is injured on federal property located in North Carolina, the criminal can be charged for the injury or death of the child; yet, the same person could not be charged for the injury or death of the unborn child if the same crime was committed any where else in North Carolina. 

Passage of H215 will correct this inequity.  The victims’ families are seeking and deserve justice for their families and recognition that two of their family members have been affected when their pregnant daughters and grandchildren have been killed or injured.

North Carolina Right to Life supports the passage of The Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law (UVVA), H215, which is modeled after the Federal UVVA passed in 2004 and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Other Resources:

Press Conference

News & Observer

WRAL

Winston-Salem Journal

NRLC's UVVA Resource Page

 

 

First Hearing on Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law Slated for Wednesday, March 16

North Carolina Right to Life supports the passage of The Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law (UVVA), H215, which is modeled after the Federal UVVA passed in 2004 and signed by President George W. Bush.

The bill will come up for “discussion only” in the Judiciary Sub Committee B, chaired by Reps. Paul Stam and Sarah Stevens, on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 10:00 am in Room 421 of the Legislative Office Building.  It is important for the members of the sub committee, especially the Democrats, to hear from their constituents.

Even though they are not supposed to be voting on Wednesday, the committee members need to hear from constituents urging them to support the bill when it comes up for a vote.  To see a list of the members of the committee, click here. By following this link, you can get to the web page for your particular legislator who is on the committee.  Phone calls are preferred to emails.  If you can only send an email, be sure to put Support H215 in the subject line of the email.

H215 recognizes the unborn child as a second victim when the unborn child is injured or dies during the commission of a crime.  Currently, if an unborn child dies or is injured on federal property located in North Carolina, the criminal can be charged for the injury or death of the child; yet, the same person could not be charged for the injury or death of the unborn child if the same crime was committed any where else in North Carolina. 

Passage of H215 will correct this inequity.  The victims’ families are seeking and deserve justice for their families and recognition that two of their family members have been affected when their pregnant daughters and grandchildren have been killed or injured.

Other Resources:

Press Conference

News & Observer

WRAL

Winston-Salem Journal

NRLC's UVVA Resource Page

Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law introduced in NC House Today

Greensboro, NC – State Representatives Dale Folwell (R-74), Mark Hilton (R-96), Edgar Starnes (R-87), and Fred Steen (R-76) have introduced the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA)/Ethen’s Law.  The UVVA recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims.

Modeled after the federal UVVA which passed Congress April 1, 2004, the bill corrects the inequality of having parts of North Carolina, under federal jurisdiction, recognize the unborn as a second victim while the remainder of the state, not under federal jurisdiction, does not.

Currently, there are 35 states with complete or partial coverage of unborn victims.  If passed as introduced, the UVVA will make North Carolina the 26th state having complete coverage, like Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.

“The many North Carolina families of unborn victims of violence should not have to wait any longer for North Carolina to recognize that they have lost two, not just one, members of their families,” stated Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life. “We urge the legislature to make these families’ wishes a reality by passing the bill quickly.”

ACTION: Contact your State House member to support the bill if his or her name is not listed as a Primary or Co- Sponsor of the bill.  To read the bill, see the list of Primary and Co Sponsors, and find contact information for your State House member, click here. If your State House member is one of the sponsors, please be sure to say thank you.

 

NRLC and NCRTL Commend U.S. House for Vote to Cut Federal Funds from "Bloated Abortion Mega-Marketer  Planned Parenthood" WASHINGTON (February 18, 2011) -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of state right-to-life organizations,  and its state affiliate North Carolina Right to Life  (NCRTL) express strong approval that the U.S. House of Representatives today adopted, 240-185,  an amendment offered by Congressman Mike Pence (R-In.) to cut off federal funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and 102 named PPFA affiliates. "This landmark vote demonstrates that most House members now recognize Planned Parenthood is a hyper-political, under-regulated, out-of-control mega-marketer of abortion as a method of birth control," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. In a letter to House members, NRLC said, "PPFA is the nation’s largest abortion provider, reporting 324,008 abortions in 2008. . . . According to press reports, PPFA has recently mandated that all of its regional affiliates must provide abortions by the end of 2013.  Recent media reports regarding abuses associated with PPFA-affiliated clinics in multiple states provide additional justifications for the amendment." The allegations regarding abuses, uncovered by independent journalists posing as sex traffickers, have received substantial coverage in mainstream news media in recent weeks, including this story in the New York Times. The Pence Amendment does not affect the funding level for any federal program.  Instead, it disqualifies PPFA and its named affiliates from receiving any type of federal funds. (In a 2010 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected a claim that a similar law, cutting off federal funds for the organization ACORN and its affiliates, violated the Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause.)  PPFA affiliates receive about one-third of their aggregate clinic-level income from selling abortions.   PPFA has a total annual budget of about $1.1 billion, of which about one-third comes from various levels of government, including at least $88.7 million in a year (2008) from the federal government. The Pence Amendment was added to H.R. 1, a measure to fund all federal agencies through September 30, 2011.  The bill contains a number of other pro-life provisions supported by NRLC, including a provision to restore a policy (overturned by President Obama) denying U.S. foreign aid funds to certain organizations that promote abortion as a method of birth control, and a provision restoring a previous ban on the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion on demand in the Federal district (Washington, D.C.), where abortion is currently allowed without any limitation. The abortion-related provisions will next be considered in the U.S. Senate -- where 33 seats, 23 of them currently held by Democrats or independents who caucus with the Democrats, will be on next year's general election ballot.  "Now senators, too, will go on record on whether to push the snout of this bloated abortion mega-marketer, Planned Parenthood, out of the U.S. Treasury feeding trough," said NRLC's Johnson. Any differences that emerge between the House and Senate versions of the funding bill will become subjects for negotiations between the two houses, and with the White House. Recommended further reading regarding PPFA's accelerating efforts to increase its abortion "market share":  "Planned Parenthood:  Building an Abortion Empire," by Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., here; and "Planned Parenthood's Unseemly Empire:  The Billion-Dollar 'Nonprofit'," by Charlotte Allen, here.

NC Members of Congress voting to "De-Fund" Planned Parenthood:

Reps. Renee Ellmers (R-2), Walter Jones (R-3), Virginia Foxx (R-5), Howard Coble (R-6), Mike McIntyre (D-7), Sue Myrick (R-9), Patrick McHenry (R-10), and Heath Shuler (D-11).

N C Members voting to continue to "Fund" Planned Parenthood:

Reps. G. K. Butterfield (D-1), David Price (D-4), Larry Kissell (D-8), Mel Watt (D-12), and Brad Miller (D-13).

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Future of Abortion Jurisprudence

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Future of Abortion Jurisprudence 
Part One of Five

By Mary Spaulding Balch, JD
NRLC Director of State Legislation

Mary Spaulding Balch, JD

It would be difficult to overstate the historic importance of Nebraska's 2010 Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the first state law to present the Supreme Court with the opportunity to bring its abortion jurisprudence into the 21st Century. The law is grounded in a moral empathy that resonates with the American people: "You don't kill unborn children capable of feeling pain." Basing its conclusion on an enormous body of medical research (literally hundreds of studies), this first-of-its kind law conservatively sets the demarcation at 20 weeks.

So why, after publicly hinting it was just a matter of time, have pro-abortion organizations not challenged the law in court? Quite probably because pro-abortionists appreciate that when abortion's brutal realities overcome the gauzy generalities about "choice," the public opinion needle moves in the direction of life. That is precisely what happened in the long, long debate over partial-birth abortion. Better than most, abortion advocates understand that you don't need coursework in fetal anatomy to sense that at twenty weeks babies will suffer excruciating pain as they are being torn apart. Furthermore they understand that the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act could not have passed had today's scientific understanding about and public awareness of the unborn child not advanced leaps and bounds from 1973 when the United States Supreme Court handed down its infamous Roe v. Wade Decision. Sonograms of the once nearly invisible unborn child are now plastered on refrigerators all over the world.

There are ironies galore, but none more stark than this. Pro-abortionists forever tell us that pro-lifers want to "take us back." In fact what makes the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act so dangerous to Roe is that it demands preciously the opposite. Rather than freezing our understanding of fetal development at what was available to the High Court 38 years ago, the law says, "Come, let's see what we know now that we didn't know then." And seeing is believing, which is why abortion proponents are so dead-set against the passage of laws which make it possible for abortion-vulnerable women to see an ultrasound of their unborn babies. "Informed choice" is the last thing abortion clinic personnel are looking for.

Forty years ago, the unborn child virtually did not exist in medicine. "Fetal medicine" was an oxymoron. Our understanding of pain was so primitive that even a newborn undergoing surgery did so without anesthesia! They received only a paralytic to keep them still.

The use of ultrasound was introduced in the late '70s. The possibility of literally seeing the unborn child opened the eyes not only of parents but of doctors, allowing them to diagnose problems that heretofore were only known in newborns. The concept of the unborn child as a patient was born. It was the beginning of a subspecialty that we know today as fetal medicine. With the ability to see this new patient came in utero surgery--the ability to save premature unborn children at earlier and earlier intervals. Once highly experimental, fetal surgery is now a frequent occurrence at several hospitals around the country.

As recent as last Wednesday night, ABC News ran an important investigative piece on fetal surgery which is likely soon to become standard care for some conditions such as spina bifida.

We can see in retrospect that two lines of investigation were intersecting. On one axis doctors were observing that when pricked by a needle, even the most premature babies grimaced. On the other axis, physicians saw that unborn children could experience pain, due to the ever-increasing use of fetal surgery. The question arose: at what point in fetal development is the child capable of experiencing pain?

In 2005, Congressional hearings were held on the issue of unborn children's pain. Expert witnesses included Jean A. Wright, M.D., MBA, and such as Dr. K. J. S. Anand. Dr. Wright testified "an unborn fetus after 20 weeks of gestation has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain." Subsequently Dr. Anand, currently a Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, & Neurobiology at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, said in a document accepted as expert by a federal court, "It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and that pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by newborns or older children."

Is there evidence that the Supreme Court is aware of all this? There is clear evidence Justice Kennedy is. Justice Kennedy has described the gruesome nature of the most common abortion technique used in the second trimester, dilation and evacuation or D & E, in terms that make clear that it would be extremely painful: "[F]riction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus . . . ." he wrote in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart. Justice Kennedy used even more graphic descriptions of D&E abortions in his dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart, "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb."

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions, Justice Kennedy also dealt with two other issues germane to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. He wrote

"In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. . . . It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. . . . It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."

What Justice Kennedy for the Court stated to be true with regard to partial-birth abortion--its impact on the mother, and the State's interest--may equally be applied to those abortions performed when the unborn child is capable of experiencing, and does experience, pain from the abortion technique.

Equally important, Kennedy (widely understood to be the decisive fifth vote in abortion cases) wrote in Gonzales that "it is inappropriate for the Judicial Branch to provide an exhaustive list of state interests implicated by abortion."

The Justices have never addressed the issue of an unborn child's pain. If/when they do it would be a case of 'first impression,' as lawyers put it. Recognizing a compelling state interest in the unborn child who is capable of experiencing pain would not require the Court to overturn, but only to supplement, its prior recognition of a compelling "state interest" in the unborn child after viability. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was upheld in Gonzales, although it made no distinction based on viability. As Justice Kennedy wrote, "The [Partial-Birth Abortion Ban] Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb."

It is critically important to understand that the interest asserted here is not just one in diminishing or eliminating the unborn children's pain during an abortion.

Rather, it is that the unborn child's capacity to experience pain is a significant developmental milepost, making the unborn child at that point sufficiently akin to an infant or older child to trigger a compelling state interest.

The stage of development at which the unborn child is capable of experiencing pain is at least as "clear" and arguably more "workable" in comparison with viability. While viability is predominately an extrinsic measurement of the capacity of medical science to sustain the life of a premature infant, the capacity to feel pain is an intrinsic, innate feature of the unborn child at a particular stage of development.

While no one can definitively predict how the majority of the Supreme Court, and in particular Justice Kennedy, would rule on the constitutionality of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the evolving development of the High Court's abortion litigation, and particularly its decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, leads us to this conclusion. There may well be receptivity to a well-documented effort to demonstrate the reasonableness of recognizing the reality of fetal pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization, and the justification for acting to minimize it by preventing abortions not necessary to avert death or substantial and long-lasting physical impairment of a major bodily organ from 20 weeks on.

1,500 Pro-Life North Carolinians Rally in Raleigh

Approximately 1,500 pro-lifers from across North Carolina gathered in Raleigh on January 15, for the annual Rally and March for Life. Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh gave brief remarks and the Invocation. The Knights of Columbus Color Guard presented the colors and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life, and the Mistress of Ceremonies Amy Huffman, Chairwoman of Alamance County Right to Life, alternated in reading greetings from United States Senator Richard Burr (R) and United States Representatives Renee Ellmers (R-2), Walter Jones (R-3), Virginia Foxx (R-5), Howard Coble (R-6), Mike McIntyre (D-7), Sue Myrick (R-9), Patrick McHenry (R-10), and Heath Shuler (D-11).

Wayne Cockfield, at-large Board Member of the National Right to Life Committee, spoke about the rationing aspects of the Obama Health Care law, that euthanasia is a threat to all of us, and about the slippery slope created by the legalization of abortion.

Wayne Cockfield, the featured speaker at the 2011 North Carolina RTL Rally for Life checks his notes prior to his compelling speech about the need to repeal Obama's Health Care Law.

"When our top priority, Abortion--Woman's Right to Know, becomes law it will save many thousands of unborn children from abortion every year in North Carolina," said Holt. "The unborn children and their mothers cannot afford to wait any longer for our state to pass such a law. The stage was set for its passage on November 2 and the time is now when the legislature convenes on January 26."

Alyse Player sang "Orphans of God," which was so appropriate to the purpose of the Rally. (You can watch Alyse's 2008 performance of the song at http://alyseplayer.com/videos. She also sang the song at the 2009 NRLC Convention held in Charlotte, North Carolina.)

Reverend Brent Tysinger, Pastor of Mount Pleasant Community Church of Trinity, gave the Benediction.

Immediately following the Rally, the March for Life commenced for an eight block march around the State Capitol, ending with refreshments at Sacred Heart Cathedral parking lot, where marchers were able to purchase CDs by Alyse Player (www.alyseplayer.com) and to get pro-life literature.

This article appeared on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today. To send a comment to Dave Andrusko, write daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like to follow Dave, join him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.