Could a Personhood Bill Pass in Virginia?
Delegate proposes a law defining personhood as beginning at conception.
RICHMOND – Now that Democrats no longer control the House or the Senate, Delegate Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, is hoping the General Assembly will pass his bill defining a human embryo or fetus is a person under the law.
House Bill 1 would provide that “unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth.”
The bill, which is before the House Courts of Justice Committee, says that this “personhood” status starts “from the moment of conception.”
Marshall, who is running for the U.S. Senate, said HB 1 is significant for several reasons.
“We have a situation in Virginia where a pregnant woman can be shot, and if you kill the baby, it’s feticide. But she can’t recover damages separately in a civil lawsuit,” Marshall said. “That’s kind of an anomaly.”
Democrats have criticized HB 1 as an attempt to revoke a woman’s right to have an abortion. In past years, when Democrats controlled the Virginia Senate, such bills usually died in the Senate Education and Health Committee.
“This committee kills all abortion bills,” Marshall said. “In 21 years, I have seen only one bill go through the Senate Education and Health Committee.”
But Marshall is hopeful this year will be different. The Republicans not only control the House of Delegates, but last fall, they won two previously Democratic seats in the Senate. Now the upper chamber is equally split between the two parties.
That increases the chances that anti-abortion legislation will make it out of the Senate Education and Health Committee and to the Senate floor for a vote.
“Right now, it’s a swing issue.” Marshall said. “There’s a swing vote in that committee, and I can’t predict which way it will go.”
Democratic legislators have been quick to voice opposition to HB 1.
Sen. A. Donald McEachin, chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, called the bill “an attack on women’s rights.”
Del. Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, agreed. She said there is “overwhelming and legitimate concern” because the full ramifications of Marshall’s proposal have not been determined.
“The patron assumes many things with his legislation, in which the language is not consistent with scientific or medical terminology related to the process of becoming pregnant,” Herring said.
Herring said HB 1 could make certain forms of birth control illegal.
“It may outlaw some forms of the birth control which are FDA-approved, which in addition to acting as birth control also has uses such as treatment of endometriosis,” Herring said.
However, HB 1 states that “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.”
Marshall said his bill is not detrimental to women’s health rights. He says that he doesn’t understand how his critics can say such a thing.
“As far as they know, roughly half of the kids aborted are females. How is saying that a mother can sue for the wrongful death of a female child an attack on women’s rights? They need to explain that.”
Michele
10:40 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
One other side effect not mentioned above is that this could also make any woman who has a miscarriage into a criminal. Since miscarriages happen all the time , mostly for unknown reasons, that is a pretty scary concept.
Mary S.
6:36 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012
I agree with MIchele. So many situations can fall under this law. Why are all of these OLD MEN interested in this subject? Can we find a way to control Viagra? Stop this and let's work on something like GETTING JOBS back into this country!!!
Michele
8:03 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012
They get away with these stances because there are not enough women in elected office! We need more women to step up to the plate and run for office....
Joy Mowry Schwartz
12:00 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
If I am pregnant and my baby and I are harmed (or killed), I think this would give me and my family more rights to hold the person responsible for the harm done to us. I am in favor of this.
Michele
9:51 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Joy, Laws are already in place to fully prosecute someone for the harm of both you and your baby in such a case. That is the excuse they are using to push this law. What this would do is give them the ability to prosecute you if you, for example, were in a car accident that induced a spontaneous miscarriage. Your "negligence" in driving safely would become a criminal act. Or if, for a reason unknown to you, your body decided to miscarry. Or if you were taking a drug, such as an antidepressant which carries some risk to the fetus but most doctors tell you to continue taking anyway. It happens all the time. I know several women who have had miscarriages that could somehow be related to their working on their feet all day, antidepressant use, smoking, etc. No doctor would tell them that they caused the miscarriage. Even if the docs were fine with their medication use, activities, etc. under these laws they could still be prosecuted.
Joy Mowry Schwartz
10:59 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Michele, From what I understand, the current laws allow prosecution in a criminal court but not in a civil court. While a family would (hopefully) get justice for their pain in a criminal court, they do not receive anything else. So this law would enable the family to file a lawsuit for damages.
I highly doubt that the bill's intention is to prosecute women for negligence as in the cases you describe, but I do not have facts to back that up. That is just my opinion. I would imagine this bill would go through many revisions and would have a lot more detailed language than as currently written before it would even have a chance of being passed.
Michele
10:11 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
Joy, the problem is that while the "intent" of the bill may not be to crimialize women, that is what the effect would be. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to give the government any more control over my body for the sake of possibly being able to recover a few dollars in a civil case....
Jim Daniels
10:32 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
That is right Michele. While the bill attempts to make some vague exception for women who neglect their health and fail to get prenatal care, it does not address a whole range of potentially prosecutable actions, including the use of certain forms of birth control and in-vitro fertilization...and can you imagine the millions, and millions in litigation costs this would cause...?
Jim Daniels
8:43 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
It should say something about how radical and ridiculous this proposal is that it was rejected by voters in Mississippi. The consequences, besides the unconstitutional attack on women's reproductive rights, is staggering. Does this now mean Social Security benefits are calculated based on your age at conception (rather than birth?), a consequence that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Would this now make IUD's and other forms of birth control illegal? Would pregnant women now be able to use the carpool lane? Could women addicted to drugs, or obese women be prosecuted for child endangerment? Could women who get pregnant in their 40s when the risk of birth defects rises dramatically be prosecuted for the same thing? How about In-vitro fertilization? Would this now be illegal as the procedure results in zygotes that are ultimately disposed of? Would freezing embryo's in this procedure now become illegal? Would every zygote that is created get a "non" birth certificate? What if the in-vitro procedure failed..could the woman and her doctor be prosecuted for murder? And would a death certificate then be issued? Would the voting age now be 17 years after birth and the drinking age now be at 20 years after birth? Could pregnant women who miscarry because of an accident she caused be prosecuted for manslaughter? The list goes on. All this is, is an attack by the right wing on women's rights, attempting to define something as something it is not!!
Michele
10:04 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
Jim, these are exactly the reasons this bill has been soundly defeated elsewhere. Thank you for taking the time to put them all toghter! :)
It is not just an attack on women's rights, I would argue, but an atack on women, taking control away from us over our own bodies. How is this different than enforcing Sharia law, which everyone is so afraid of???