The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E699-E700 on May 2, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001
______
speech of
HON. JOHN N. HOSTETTLER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 26, 2001
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and oppose the Lofgren one-victim substitute.
This bill is really a simple one. It states that if a criminal, in his attack on a pregnant women, injures the child also, than that criminal should be held responsible for his attack on both individuals.
As a father myself, I have witnessed people's reaction to my wife's pregnancy. They do not ask if we hope that our product of conception will continue in pregnancy without interruption. No, they ask questions like ``Is it a boy or a girl?''; ``Have you picked out a name for your baby yet?'' ``Are your other children looking forward to their new brother or sister?''
You see, Mr. Speaker, they recognize what should be obvious to all. They recognize what our Founding Fathers thought obvious. In fact, they called it ``self evident'' that our Creator has endowed everyone with this unalienable right.
Its inconsistent and hypocritical that federal law fails to recognize crimes against the pre-born as just that . . . crimes. I see no valid legal or moral difference between committing a crime against an individual one day prior to birth and one day after. We hear stories like that of Ms. Pace, who was assaulted one day before her due date. Her boyfriend had paid hit-men $400 for the express purpose of killing the child, not her. Did he hire them to kill a ``product of conception''? No, he hired them to kill a baby for whom he did not want to be responsible.
Rightfully, we find ourselves outraged at stories of child abuse and neglect . . . Stories of babies being beaten and abandoned by their parents. Yet those on the other side would have us believe that an assailant should face no penalty for the willful killing of the same child before birth.
If an assailant, while in the commission of a federal crime, harms a baby then he should be responsible for the harm caused to that baby. Its really that simple. For most Americans it's common sense. Unfortunately, what would otherwise make perfect sense gets lost here in Washington.
Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and reject the Lofgren amendment.
Constitutional Challenges to State Unborn Victims Laws
(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)
California: People v. Davis, 872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994).
Georgia: Smith v. Newsome, 815 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1987). Related state supreme court decision: Brinkley v. State, 322 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 1984) (vagueness/due process challenge).
Illinois: U.S. ex rel. Ford v. Ahitow, 888 F.Supp. 909
(C.D.Ill. 1995), and lower court decision, People v. Ford, 581 N.E.2d 1189 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991). People v. Campos, 592 N.E.2d 85 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992). Subsequent history: appealed denied, 602 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. 1992), habeas corpus denied, 827 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D.Ill. 1993), affirmed, 37 F.3d 1501 (7th Cir. 1994), certiorari denied, 514 U.S. 1024
(1995).
Louisiana: Re double jeopardy--State v. Smith, 676 So.2d 1068 (La. 1996), rehearing denied, 679 So.2d 380 (La. 1996).
Minnesota: State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931 (1990). Re establishment clause--State v. Bauer, 471 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. App. 1991).
Missouri: State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997).
Ohio: State v. Coleman, 705 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Wisconsin: Re due process--State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132
(Wis. 1994) (upholding earlier statute).
____
Statement of Michael Lenz Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution Hearing on H.R. 2436; the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, July
21, 1999
Committee members, I would like to give you some background on myself and my late wife Carrie Lenz.
We met in the spring of 1986. I had recently moved from the City of Tulsa to Oklahoma City. Carrie was a high school senior at Moore, OK. We began dating, she graduated high school and went on to College, and I took a job back in Tulsa and then in Ponca City. All the while, we maintained our relationship. I eventually took a job that required extensive travel around the country, and although it was difficult at times, our long distance relationship worked because we were both committed to the same ideas and goals. (Our plan) First, she would graduate from college. I would get promoted over the State of Oklahoma. Then we would get married, and when we thought we were mentally and financially prepared, we would have children.
While Carrie was attending college, she took a part time position with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under the Stay in School program. As the Oklahoma City ATF office grew, their need for a full time position grew as well. Carrie then transferred to a position with the U.S. Secret Service Administration under the same program until she graduated from college. After graduation, she accepted a position with the Drug Enforcement Administration through EBON, a company contracted with the Department of Justice to assist in the Asset Forfeiture program. Since her first job with Federal Law Enforcement, Carrier and I were always extremely proud to be a part, albeit a small part, of our government.
Our plans all came together in the fall of 1991 (September 14) when we were finally married. Married * * * Yes. Financially ready to raise a family? Not yet. That didn't come until 1993. Seven years after we first met, we believed we were finally ready to start our family.
I'm telling you all of this to give you some background on our relationship and our goals, and maybe to give you some insight on what it might be like to have a seven-year plan blown up in your face.
We began trying to have children 1993. After several months with no success, we sought assistance from a fertility doctor who put Carrie on some medication, and we continued our efforts at beginning a family. We no success, in early 1994 the doctor recommended exploratory surgery, which she under went. A few months later, she informed me that she was pregnant. We were so thrilled, but our excitement would not last long. With weekly monitoring, the doctor discovered Carrie had an ectopic pregnancy and that the fetus had died. In November of that same year, Carrie again informed me that she was pregnant, and we both prayed that this would prove a better pregnancy that the first. The doctor confirmed our hope by telling us everything appeared to be healthy and normal at our first ultrasound.
In the months that followed, we prepared our home for the new baby. We purchased a
The next the morning Carrie, who was usually 15 to 20 minutes late to work, left the house early to show everyone at work the pictures of our son, Michael. I left for work at about 8:30 that morning, a happy, expectant father of my first child . . . my son . . . Michael. At 9:02 A.M. on April 19, 1995, it all shattered, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was blown up. A seven-year plan, gone. Just Blown up. At 9:03 A.M. that morning I was no longer an expecting father or husband. At 28 years old, I was a widower.
I don't care to go into the details of what happened to me in the months following the bombing, but please ask yourself,
``Would having a part of your loved one in the form of a child would make your grieving easier?'' I think it would. Therefore, the loss of that potential life is worth an immeasurable amount to me. Let's say for the sake of argument that Carrie was not killed by that act of violence, but that shrapnel entered the womb and killed Michael. Is it safe to assume that would have an ill effect on her child bearing capacity, not only physically, but emotionally, for the rest of her life? I am no doctor, but I would have to think it would. In this scenario, a seven-year plan is still gone and possibly any future plans. Should we as people allow that act of violence to remain a victimless crime? No Michael the 3rd ever mentioned? I don't think that would be right. In any case, I lost the two people I loved most that day, and the official death toll for the Murrah Bombing remains at 168. In addition to Carrie, there were two other expecting mothers in the building that day that died. Three babies.
Passing this bill won't bring my wife and son back to me, but it would go a long way toward at least recognizing Michael's life and the loss of seven years of responsible actions to gain that life. Violent criminal acts that result in the death of a potential life is worth prosecution on its own merits, regardless of the other counts against the defendant. As the only survivor of a family of three, in my case, it would only be right. Regardless of your vote on this, in my mind 171 people lost their lives that day, and three ``Daddies to be'' became widowers.
Thank You for your time. Michael James Lenz, Jr.
____________________
