Bill exploits violence for political gain

Imagine a place where people meet a pregnant woman on the street and greet not her, but her uterus. They ask it how it's doing, discuss the weather with it, smile and wave goodbye. \nDon't scoff. This is where we could be heading and where it seems some members of the House of Representatives, including Indiana's own Dan Burton, R-6th, already live.\n "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2001" gained approval by a House subcommittee and is headed toward a full vote in the House to punish people, who, while "engaging in conduct," harm a fetus.\nIt never specifies what "engaging in conduct" entails. You would think if "engaging in conduct" meant physical aggression, they would just say so already, right? Fuzzy wording aside, the text of the bill explicitly classifies a child to include an "unborn child (meaning) a child in utero, … at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." \nWhoa. Come again? Everyone knows you can't just slip that in there. It's like in cartoons when large animals dive under little rugs to hide. A definition of where life starts is just not something to furtively tuck into law and hope no one's awake. Especially a definition many people don't share.\nAre women only worth protecting if they're pregnant? Wait. The bill never said anything about protecting women. In fact, it couldn't even muster the term "violence against women." She's nowhere in the picture. The best the bill could do was "engaging in conduct."\nThe Republican Council grumbled and griped about passing parts if not all of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and reauthorizing it in 2000, but knew they'd look bad opposing it. So they're getting payback with a bill that slyly pushes an anti-abortion agenda but is phrased to make its opponents look like they support the abuse of pregnant women. \nThe bill does nothing to additionally protect pregnant women. In light of this camp's dismal history of disregard for women and their children, what this new bill says is, "Punch a woman anywhere you want, just not in the uterus!" \nThis legislative attitude reflects a more general one, that a woman's worth is compartmentalized into discrete categories, purposes and body parts. How much is Jennifer Lopez's rear end insured for? Tina Turner's legs? Is anyone else sick of hearing about Britney Spears' "supposed" breast implants? These body parts now float as separate entities, raucous symbols of their owners, property of the great gossip collective. Now name a male movie star who claims fame with his pectorals. His legendary glutes? Name the king of calves and his last movie or album. You're right, there isn't one. \nInstead of placing independent value on isolated feminine features, be it Tina's legs, Jennifer's rear or every woman's womb, wouldn't it be better just to blanket all women in protection, the gestalt of their reproductive capacities and the respect all humans deserve? \n"Violent criminals should face the harshest possible consequences when they harm these innocent children," said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, chairman of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told The Associated Press. \nLike so many bills, it's hard to oppose directly. But what about the women on the front lines of this violence, the ones who are being struck? Nowhere in H.R. Bill 503 is the woman's well-being mentioned. Bizarrely missing is the acknowledgement that the womb is just one part of her, not a separate entity walking around and not a state acquisition.\nMost people with a basic notion of what it's like to be poor also define Chabot's "violence against innocent children" as poverty and neglect. This explains why our none-too-deprived president just announced his plans to make it even rougher, more violent to grow up poor. Bush plans to cut The Child Care and Development Block Grant, which helps poor parents -- usually those just coming off welfare -- as well as reduce the funds for child abuse prevention programs and abolish the "early learning fund," which improves child care and early education. \nSo you have to ask, why does this conservative camp harbor such deep, blinding loyalty to the fetus but none toward children? Does a fetus vote or make campaign contributions, while children merely watch "Sesame Street"? Chalk it up to compartmentalization with a dark conservative twist. The implications of that twist are darker still.