The government's war on women's rights

Our government is in the process of developing a circumspect series of laws whose only purpose is to undermine Roe v. Wade. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a priceless example: it includes the definition of an unborn child as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." To legally define a fetus as a person "at any stage of development" (or, from conception), is, indeed, the sole point of this legislation, and its horrific implications should not be overlooked or ignored because of the law's humanitarian fa?§ade.

As citizens, it is imperative that we educate and assert ourselves to prevent more dangerous legislation from slipping into law. The importance of this law, which was signed into legitimacy by President Bush on April 1, cannot be underestimated. For students who still think that it is actually about protecting pregnant women, there are some things you should know: as this Act was being written, Representative Zoe Lofgren of California drafted and set forth a parallel piece of legislation in the House of Representatives. She proposed an identical increase in punishment against attackers of pregnant women but did not create legal personhood for the fetus. It was outvoted in favor of the current wording.

Even after her less controversial version was rejected in the House, women's advocates in the Senate tried to salvage the Act. An amendment that would have kept the law from legally stating when human life begins was outvoted in the Senate, 50-49. This amendment was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and together with Representative Lofgren she shows us that it is not necessary to create the dangerous legal precedent of personhood for a fetus in order to fully prosecute those who would attack or harm a pregnant woman.

Indeed, so called "fetal-rights advocates" have repeatedly overlooked such truly humanitarian efforts in favor of the loaded wording of the current legislation, and they should be ashamed of themselves for hiding their anti-choice rhetoric behind a law that pretends to be in the interests of women. The language used by advocates of such "fetal rights" legislation is deceptively pro-woman, but it is important to realize the innate contradiction that fetal rights pose to a woman's right to choose.

The pro-choice movement holds that every woman has the moral right to decide if and when she will have a child, but placing the "rights" of a fetus above the decisions of the mother essentially eliminates the mother's choice. As the American Civil Liberties Union states in the 1996 article 'What's Wrong with Fetal Rights,' "A pregnant woman and her fetus should never be regarded as separate, independent, and even adversarial, entities."

Anti-choice politicians use phrasing to suggest that disagreeing with them makes you against feti, or anti-babies. But I am a dedicated pro-choice activist and I believe that a fetus has rights, too: the right to be loved, the right to have a mother who has access to proper medical care for it, the right to be born healthy. These rights cannot be assured by limiting abortion rights or access, and forcing a woman to carry her pregnancy to term. I beg all students who care about preserving women's rights to pay attention, and assert themselves.

Bills both supporting and opposing fetal rights go through Congress every day. See for yourself, go to the website thomas.loc.gov, it's a service of the Library of Congress that shows all the current Congressional legislation in addition to Senate schedules and information on the legislative process. Here are some examples of what is being considered: the "Life Protecting Judicial Limitation Act," the "Child Custody Protection Act," the "Parental Notification and Intervention Act," and the "Late Term Abortion Restriction Act," are only some examples of the many, many Congressional attempts to render Roe v. Wade meaningless.

The Bush Administration is pushing its way towards a choice-free America, and the time to fight back is now. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not the first law worded solely as a means to limit reproductive rights and hidden behind an outrageously inappropriate humanitarian vocabulary. It will not be the last, either, and until President Bush is out of office we must read between the lines of legislation that pretends to help women, and stop further encroachments on our rights. We must educate ourselves on what's going on in our government, and we must vehemently voice our protest. The damage already done is immense.

Melanie Clatanoff is a sophomore French major and member of Tufts Feminist Alliance.