True intent of "Unborn Victims Act" opponents revealed

Cal Thomas | Syndicated columnist | Friday, April 27, 2001

True intent of "Unborn Victims Act" opponents revealed

"Reproductive rights under attack" reads the headline in a New York Times editorial. The newspaper, which more than a century ago under different management was pro-life, opposes a congressional bill called the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act." The measure would assess penalties in the event a pregnant woman is assaulted and her baby dies. The Times is all for stronger laws to penalize those who attack a woman, but it wants no protection for the baby. Why? Can't you guess?

The Times writers believe this would be a slippery slope toward overturning Roe v. Wade. But this editorial underscores something I've been saying for years. The real extremists in this debate are on the left.

The left opposes any law that would protect the life of a baby who survives an abortion. The living, breathing baby, they say, should be left alone to die or even killed by an attending physician or nurse because of the intent of the woman to deliver a dead child.

An identical bill passed last year by a 254-172 vote. It included votes from pro-abortion congresspersons. Let's hope they do it again. President Bush has promised to sign the measure. And a few more babies may live because of it.