5

Surprise – the bill does nothing positive for unborn babies, which, according to the bill, is the difference of being alive
either inside or outside the womb “at any stage of development.” In fact, Mr. Bush’s “important legislation” strains to
embolden an unborn child’s continued reproach as a mere choice instead of a member “of the human family.”

The Act does nothing for the born child, either. It only states the obvious: the “born alive” child is a human that
“breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.” Mr. Bush’
s apparent philosophical worldview, however, regarding life is so unbelievably dense that he does not consider the
absurdity for the need to define “life.” Life is what it is, inside or outside the womb. Additionally, Bush’s lack of depth
regarding the bill’s harm to unborn children is captured in flagrante delicto pursuant to a statement he made while
signing the bill:

“This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure
– is considered a person under federal law.”

By his signature, president Bush made history: he officially assured a legally binding distinction between the “born-
alive” and the “unborn,” the protected and unprotected, respectively. Previously, this distinction was ill-defined within
the domains of the legislative and executive. Hence, by decree of this Act signed by Mr. Bush, this is now absolutely
clear: an unborn child is not considered a “person” under federal law. In this way, the bill is successful, not by
recognizing life qua life, but by redefining “life” to exclude unborn babies - children within their mothers’ wombs. This is
the true and reprehensible fact of the Act, which incidentally has no other provisions – such as sanctions – which would
serve to protect the Act’s own definition of life, albeit an erroneous definition.

On April 1, 2004, “conservative Christian” George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (HR 1997)
spinning it as another piece of his deified “Culture of Life.” Of course, one is safe in assuming that this bill does
nothing to promote the pro-life movement or its sine qua non, the uncompromising cessation of abortion.   When
actually explored, however, one cannot only support the aforementioned assumption, but also easily recognize
immense hypocrisy within the bill, which can only be construed as schizophrenic madness.

The following is a series of illusory remarks which stray from the realities of the bill courtesy of “conservative
Christian” Bush:

·        Illusion #1: “Those who direct violence toward a pregnant woman will answer for the full extent of the harm they
have done, and for the crimes they have committed.”

·        Illusion #2: “If the crime is murder and the unborn child’s life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the
law.”

·        Illusion #3: “All who knew Laci Peterson have mourned two deaths, and the law cannot look away and pretend
there was just one […] any time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each
deserving protection, and each deserving justice.”

Reality: The “full extent” or “full accounting” according to God’s law – let alone federal law – is not recognized within
the bill. The only acceptable and righteous punishment for murder is the death penalty (Genesis 9:6; Leviticus 24:17,
20, 21, 22). The bill, however, states twice: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not
be imposed for an offense under this section” (Sec. 1841[d]; Sec. 919a.[4]). The bill further specifies, “Any person […]
is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other
than death” (Sec 919a.[a][1]).

The “fullness” of all crimes is murder; yet the Act subverts the “answer for the full extent of the harm” which is the
death penalty, the duty of the government (Romans 13:4). In the event of the murder of an unborn child, specifically,
the death penalty is also required (Exodus 21:22-23). This Act, however, protects murderers from the death penalty!

Further, the law just did not “look away” in the Scott Peterson double-murder trial. This Act was not necessary for the
Stanislaus County District Attorney to file double-murder charges against Scott Peterson for the murders of his dead
wife, Laci, and unborn son, Connor.

Consider this: If found guilty of his unborn son’s murder, Scott Peterson could be sentenced to death under California
law. On the contrary, under Bush’s highly coveted Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if Scott Peterson was tried under
federal jurisdiction he could not be sentenced to death for the murder of his unborn son, Connor.

The Act also contains a back-door clause which precludes the prosecution of an abortionist or the mother: “Nothing in
this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution […] of any person for conduct relating to an abortion” and “of
any woman with respect to her unborn child.” By this clause, the mother and any abortionist may murder her unborn
baby without penalty.