Unborn children; constitutionally guaranteed rights. (HB112)

Introduced By

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Constitutionally guaranteed rights of unborn children.  Provides that persons, including unborn children at every stage of development, enjoy the inherent rights to the enjoyment of life and liberty guaranteed by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and the right to due process guaranteed in Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/05/2010Committee
01/05/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101394D
01/05/2010Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/13/2010Assigned Courts sub: Civil
01/15/2010Assigned Courts sub: Civil
02/02/2010Assigned Courts sub: #5 Constitutional Law
02/10/2010Subcommittee failed to recommend reporting (2-Y 5-N)
02/16/2010Left in Courts of Justice

Comments

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Interestingly, this bill would seem to be inapplicable to any genetically malformed fetus, since Marshall's bill applies to:

any organism, including an embryo, who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with a member of the species Homo sapiens

Anne Haynes writes:

This is medically and clinically untenable not to mention morally. Why do men in the State legislature feel they can pass laws that impinge on women's bodies?

Patrick Graydon writes:

Wouldn’t a tumor qualify as an “organism … who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with a member of the species Homo sapiens”?

Chris writes:

So when will I be able to claim an unborn fetus on your taxes?

Kelli Hertzler writes:

Anne Haynes writes: "...pass laws that impinge on women's bodies?" This law concerns the fetus's body, not the woman's.

Patrick - an organism is defined as "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently." A tumor can't do that.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

This law concerns the fetus's body, not the woman's.

Clearly, it concerns both. Otherwise a woman could make an appointment for a checkup on her fetus and have a friend take it for her.

Pat writes:

I wish all states had this. It's called Love of neighbor. Thou shalt not kill!!

Rev Donald Spitz writes:

Unborn children deserve to be protected just as born children. Women that want to murder their unborn children are no different than women that murder their born children.

robert legge writes:

Rev writes: "Women that want to murder their unborn children are no different than women that murder their born children."

I can only conclude that you think the punishment for killing one's unborn child should be the same as killing a born child. Killing a born child usually gets a person life in prison or the death penalty. If the "triggerman" rule is rescinded I guess that would mean the woman, the doc, assistants and all the accomplices would be subject to the same sentence. Oh, and don't forget the get away driver.

Do I have your views about right? If not how would you punish these suspects?

matt f writes:

I'm with the rev. as you characterized his views, legge. this bill + triggerman repeal = deserved punishment for all involved in abortions. this bill should be named the Personal Accountability Act.

Bob Marshall is my kind of statesman.

allie orunan writes:

i think those fetos should have the right to live what if your mom told you that she was thinking of aborting you how would you feel probably mad right thats what i thought anyways if you aborted you have already broke one of the rules of GOD which is NO ONE SHALL KILL and by aborting you just killed a person.