H.R. 1094 would provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Detailed Summary
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 3/19/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Deb
August 16, 2007, 7:37pm (report abuse)Thsi bill completely takes away the rigths of women as American Citizens, they are no longer citizens covered under the constitution. You cant give rights to one born person over and above another born person, why do they think they can give rights to a piece of flesh over and above the born human being?
Lewis
September 20, 2007, 4:28pm (report abuse)Of course, the woman always has the right to not get pregnant. Nobody's taking that from her. What gives any woman the right to decide she can take a life because she was careless or selfish?
Steve
October 27, 2007, 1:44am (report abuse)"Take a life"? A zygote is not a human being. If you choose to believe that what differentiates man from animal is the 'soul' and it's imputed at conception that's your right. But until you can prove that to be the case you have no right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
Linda
November 2, 2007, 8:58pm (report abuse)Thank your mom for having a different view of her zygote & piece of flesh. Elementary biology: Zygote is a name given to one developmental stage- we were all zygotes at one time & we were & still are pieces of flesh- no reason to allow death based on terminology. There are many of us who are not religious zealots out to change anyone’s faith or lack there of; we just know & respect the science of human beings at all stages of development whether or not there is a soul yet. All babies born after 1977 are abortion survivors- our rights under the constitution were taken from us before our birth; it’s time we get them back. Born human beings can talk & say “NO” to sex. Preborn human beings need someone to say “Yes” to life. No one is forced to have sex or if so, no one is forced to raise their own child - adoption is wonderful. Nine unplanned months of a woman's life is a drop in the bucket compared to 80+ years of life for her unexpected offspring & his/her new family.
Hilary
November 7, 2007, 5:29pm (report abuse)Is it right to assume, that the baby, or "piece of flesh" should pay for mistakes its mother made? Should consequences of an action be placed upon an innocent bystander? If you owed money to your credit card company, would you make your neighbor pay for it? 1/3 of my generation is not here today because of that choice.
Ed
December 2, 2007, 2:58pm (report abuse)A woman is not born pregnant. To say that an unborn child is "her body" is ludicrous.
Melissa
December 2, 2007, 11:07pm (report abuse)I understand that events happen in life that we don't plan for. But when these events involve a new life, it seems outrageous to assume that we as American citizens are given the "right" to end a life that we all began as. There are WAY too many women out there who completely overuse this privelege, recieving up to five or more abortions in their life, which shows complete and utter irresponsibility and quite frankly sickens me. When it all comes down to a controversial issue, we must examine the facts, and this is the fact: an abortion is the removal of a developing fetus. This fetus has already started to become just like you and me, so can we honestly say that we can continue to permit abortion-on-demand? There is no reason for an individual to recieve an abortion now since birth control is widely available, and there is also the morning-after pill.
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." - Mother Theresa
Jen
December 5, 2007, 4:18pm (report abuse)Hmm, Melissa, you do realize that the morning-after pill - as well as the IUD and the BC pill - would have to be outlawed under this legislature, since one of its functions is - in the event ovulation and fertilization DOES occur - to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus?
This is one reason this legislature terrifies me. Also, what happens if the woman has a miscarriage? Does she get arrested for involuntary manslaughter?
Ridiculous.
Oh yes, and for those of you claiming a woman has the right to choose to get pregnant - you might to well to remember that sexual assault is still widely prevalent in this country. How barbaric to legislate for prolonging the suffering of a rape or incest victim.
Linda
December 8, 2007, 8:12am (report abuse)Informed people know that many types of birth control end life.
MORE & COMPLETE INFORMATION is something to be legislated. This is one reason legislation for informed consent pleases to me.
Thanks, Jen, for letting folks know some of the birth controls that kill; those who promote abortion do not.
Legislation to recognize the life of the American citizen spending its earliest 9 months in a woman’s body is next . . .
We all know about miscarriage & many of us have experienced one. Nothing is going to make natural death in a womb “involuntary manslaughter”. Ridiculous.
Linda
December 8, 2007, 8:17am (report abuse)Sexual assault pregnancies are rare, no excuse & another abused issue involving no legislation for LIFE. Manner of conception doesn’t determine worth. When/if it happens, a baby is the only good thing that comes out of rape. S/he will bring someone joy.
The crime is the assault, not the life. Prosecution is a start. Let’s get the criminals behind bars, including incestual step/parents.
Women deserve better. Read more from Feminists for Life. Get help from Fortress International South Bend IN and/or Life After Assault League Appleton WI.
Steve
December 9, 2007, 7:43pm (report abuse)Gotta say you've all made me see the light. I've joined a church that says all life is sacred but that the soul resides in the male gamete. As a matter of fact, masturbation is not only a sin but is, in fact, genocide. At least as ar as males are concerned anyway. Be thankful that your father didn't consider you 'just excess sperm'! I pray that ya'll may someday accept the truth of this revelation.
Liz
December 15, 2007, 8:11pm (report abuse)If God, or the Higher Power you choose to call other wise, did not want us to know that we had a choice to carry a child, this Higher Power would not have let the knowledge into our minds.
Linda
December 21, 2007, 9:04am (report abuse)If God, or the Higher Power you choose to call otherwise did not want us to know the science of human development, S/He would not have let us acquire the knowledge and technology of radiology, ultrasound, intrauterine photography, in vitro fertilization, & other medical means to see what our otherwise secret life in the womb looks like. We now know & cannot pretend anymore. It was a few ill-informed or self-centered people who let the "choice" happen before enough information was available, not God or a Higher Power - a typical human mistake that can be rectified with HR 1094.
Linda
December 21, 2007, 9:08am (report abuse)Back on-topic: H.R. 1094 would provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
When do you believe YOUR life started?
Before your physical birth out of your mother’s body, were you not alive, not human, not you?
At what age/stage could YOUR mother choose to end your life?
When should your father have a choice?
When should your constitutional right of the "pursuit of Life, Liberty, & Happiness" begin?
Who should protect your inalienable rights when you are too young to do it yourself?
HR1094 knows you are a United States citizen at your earliest stage of development.
And no, a sperm is not a HUMAN BEING yet, nor is an unfertilized egg. Placed in a petri dish individually they do not continue to grow into a human being without the other. After conception they will.
Rich
January 1, 2008, 10:35pm (report abuse)"'Take a life'? A zygote is not a human being. If you choose to believe that what differentiates man from animal is the 'soul' and it's imputed at conception that's your right. But until you can prove that to be the case you have no right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term."
Ok. Wanna get technical, do you? If I use the existance of the 'soul' as a standard of measure, then no I can not prove that a zygote is a human being. I can, however, prove that a zygote carries 48 chromosomes, which is what seperates human beings from every other animal on the planet. Therefore, a zygote is human, even if not fully developed.
Linda
January 4, 2008, 9:25am (report abuse)Thanks, let's get some more SCIENCE OF LIFE input. With all due respect to those with religious reasons, law cannot be biased towards any one religion but science can and should be the basis. Intelligence and knowledge overrides choice, which is just another feeling and opinion. Science is legitimate.
Renee
January 6, 2008, 9:15pm (report abuse)If the federal government decides when "life" begins is just as unconstitutional and repugnant to me as Roe vs. Wade. If this bill passes and life is legislated to begin at conception, you have:
a)States cannot pass pro-abortion laws since you can not legislate FOR murder-the federal government already legislated a zygot IS human life. b)If a state does OK abortion, it has opened the door to other terminations" of life such as elderly, retarded, catatonics, chronic drug users. c)It justifies further federal legislation to prevent abortions in ALL states. Also, which of the 18 things in the Constitution the federal government is allowed to do relates to giving it the authority to determine when life begins? The only winners with this legislation are the tyrannical elite whose plan is to cut the population down anyway because we're pretty worthless and they are really the only things that counts. Operative word here is “THINGS”:-)
a non American
January 9, 2008, 6:12pm (report abuse)You Americans really live in a different world. How can such an advance nation be so backward sometimes? How can so many of you support a woman suffer for 9 months after she was raped? Why to cause so much pain for a child to be raised knowing his father was a rapist and he might have a genetically mental problem that would make him more likely to become one too. And how can you say a bunch of human cells are a person, it’s less a person than a piece of your skin, it take a fetus few months to resemble human and more to have basic conscious. Anyway the only countries you may find similar opinions are in the fanatic Muslim countries such as Iran and Afghanistan before you came there so you are not in a good company…
Diana
January 11, 2008, 2:56pm (report abuse)Women: we would be taking an enormous step back if we were to allow our CHOICE be taken away. Any law that forbids us as women to make informed decisions about our bodies is dangerous.
"A child is the only good thing that comes out of rape"?
Are you insane?! A child that was born from violence, pain, and shame?? A child who was not intended and may possibly now be foreced to grow up with a mother who was not ready financially, emotionally or physically to care for him or her?
Yes, there will always be individuals who abuse the system and elect to have numerous abortions for the wrong, irresponsible reasons. But they are in minority. Pro Choice is just that. The freedom to choose.
Melissa
January 14, 2008, 2:49pm (report abuse)Does anyone else know that Norma McCorvey, also known as Jane Roe, who helped make abortion legal in the first place in now a strong pro-life advocate? Hmmmm....doesn't that tell you something?
coronado
January 14, 2008, 2:52pm (report abuse)So when will a man be given the choice to abandon his duty a father?
A woman has the option to terminate her pregnancy regardless of the fathers feelings, women don't get pregnant without the participation of a male counter part, so the decision of abortion should also be decided by both parties.
A man who fathers a child has no choice weather or not the child is terminated during pregnancy, and will be prosecuted as a dead beat dad if he tries to escape his duty as father.
The current abortion laws are biased, un-fair, and sexist. If women can terminate the life of their developing child, men should be given the right to abandon his responsibility as father.
Charlotte
January 15, 2008, 8:00am (report abuse)This bill does not allow for abortion of a fetus with extreme and painful handicaps. Those that could be determed through ultrasound, DNA tests, etc.
How much federal or state involvement would be given to raising these children?
Nothing is more horrible for a mother who wants a child than having to abort her fetus but sometime it is truely in the best interest of the child. There are worse things in this world than death.
Let the mother decide.
God has given mothers the best instincts regarding their babies. This bill is clearly against God's will. It is cruel and unusual punishment for the most innocent in our society.
Stephanie
January 21, 2008, 10:31am (report abuse)FYI A "zygote" doesn't remain a "zygote" for long. Most, if not all, babies that are aborted are past the "zygote" stage. If you really think that a fetus is just a "piece of flesh" you really need to do some more research. The number of abortions done in connection with rape/abuse is a very small fraction, somewhere around or under 1%. If you really think abortion is OK you NEED to look at the 4D ultrasound pictures at: http://prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/
You should also look at some photographs of aborted babies/fetuses (or developed "zygotes" as you may call them) I couldn't stomach seeing only a few these and had the gag reflex and nearly vomited at the atrocity of it. Here is the link, you "pro-choice" people: www.100abortionpictures.com
A A Wulf
January 22, 2008, 9:53pm (report abuse)Those who don't understand law do not understand this bill properly. The bill states that reason and science have lead us to believe with some likelihood that there MAY be a case to say that human life begins at the moment of conception. Thus we must protect unborn human liberties as much as we protect the liberties of a 2 year old or 14 year old for that matter. The way to do so is to define by law the moment of the beginning of life to be conception, to ensure that any POTENTIAL liberties of that human are not being violated.
The courts may continue to use R.v.Wade as a precedent means to protect the rights of individual EXCEPTIONS to this law, such as those aforementioned by various pro-choicers in opposition to this bill.
Learn how law works before you go ranting about your choice. This is America, not anarchy!
Klay Northrup
February 17, 2008, 5:54am (report abuse)I would wonder if anyone that has commented here, that is "pro-choice"....has any problem feeling guilty about the decision? I would find it very difficult to believe that somebody would have no remorse or regret the morning after. Misery loves company...don't encourage someone to do something you know id completely wrong all the wat the core!
Ritz
February 18, 2008, 8:25pm (report abuse)I agree with both sides of the table, but there is one thing that stays in my mind. Personally, I would never ever do that to my own child, but I would rather have the right to say no then not have the right at all. It doesn't matter if abortion is illegal or not, if a woman wants to abort her fetus, she is going to find a way no matter what. Maybe people should start teaching the mothers who are thinking about abortion about the different routes they can take and that they are not alone. And as for the "feeling guilty about the decision", that is on a person's own conscious if they decide to even go through with the abortion. Women should have the right to decide whether to end it or not and fully understand the magnitude of what they are about to do.
Crispy
February 19, 2008, 10:39am (report abuse)Before the 14th Amendment, some people were not regarded as "legal persons" and could be treated as though they were mere lumps of flesh. This act would correct a similar injustice with respect to unborn people. Does this mean that a woman could not abort even if her life were in danger? Think about it this way: surgeries are performed to separate conjoined twins, even if it saves the life of one at the expense of the other. This is decided with appropriate deliberation to ensure that the correct choice will be made. This is not the end of choice: it just ensures that the choice is made responsibly.
Jeff
February 19, 2008, 11:19am (report abuse)philosophically speaking, an unborn child, regardless of the age, will have a life like ours, and therefore has his/her own autonomy. Ending that life is to infringe on an individual's autonomy. The human being, in later stages of development, would surely object to his or her life being taken.
Melissa
March 14, 2008, 1:13am (report abuse)I am a maternity nurse in training, and I have seen what an 8 week old fetus looks like and how much it has already developed. What gives us "the right" to choose whether or not a person gets to live or not? Life is a gift, something that shouldn't be taken away.
Rob
April 6, 2008, 3:58pm (report abuse)Complicated issue. But the fact remains that the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people. Therefore, it IS the place of government (representing the will of the people) to determine at what point protection is extended to an "individual." So, we must define, as a people, when individuality begins. There is only one logical conclusion: human life begins at conception, and the government has a mandate to protect that life.
unknown
April 16, 2008, 2:42pm (report abuse)To the non American-
Who is to say nine months of pregnancy is so bad? If you are a victim of rape, carrying a child may possibly be a blessing to your future. My mom had me at an extremely young age, considered abortion, and backed out the same day of the opointment. Now, my mom has turned her life around, has a wonderful family and two kids. She claims that i was the reason her life had such a dramatic turn. Yes the nine months was hell, but taking away of life so you dont have to deal with pregnancy? come on, wake up people..there are many obvious alernatives that have to be considered, adoption is a wonderful thing. There are many families who would love to have a child. There are no excuses, whatsoever to consider an abortion.
Ann
April 17, 2008, 3:15pm (report abuse)RE comment: "Of course, the woman always has the right to not get pregnant. Nobody's taking that from her. What gives any woman the right to decide she can take a life because she was careless or selfish?"
This is a harsh statement in light of incest and rape. Is she to blame for a man's act of hate and violence?
Ann
April 17, 2008, 3:52pm (report abuse)Tetragenic : Any substance or agent that is capable of interfering with normal embryonic development and can produce non-heritable birth defects. Tetragenic substances are most often radiation or chemicals.
Here's a new question: Consider the loose and ever diminishing environmental laws and regulations. Does this mean any government agency that is responsible for the lack of laws, the EPA failing to prevent the numerous chemical and toxic waste by products introduced into the environment and HHS who oversee numerous drug manufacturing laws are subject to prosecution for murder or manslaughter in the event a woman is exposed while pregnant and has a miscarriage? I would think, at the very least, they would be held to the same or higher standards for protecting 'life'-how ever one defines it. I might term this environmental abortion. Those of you who are 'pro-life'...really, or just when it's convenient?
Pablo
April 30, 2008, 6:04pm (report abuse)The cases of rape and incest are legitimate grievances for pro-choice advocates, but why wouldn't it be for babies already born? If a fetus is nothing more than a part of her body to do as she pleases...then why does it not continue to be a part of her body after it's born? This might seem like crazy logic, but in Ancient Rome the practice of Pater Familias gave the legal power of life and death to a father over his children. Granted it was the father, not the mother, but if it were the mother would it be any different. It was evil "Christianity" that abolished this. Google "Pater Familias," if your don't believe me. If a mother decided to have a child and then runs into economic problems and she cannot properly support that child, wouldn't the humane thing to do be to euthanize the child? There are plenty of medical options whereby a person can be painlessly and quietly "put to sleep"?
Mike
May 25, 2008, 6:20pm (report abuse)A zygote is a human being. He/She as a zygote contains all information about that person! If you think a zygote is not a human being--you are an extremist.
Jacob
June 13, 2008, 7:51am (report abuse)"Gotta say you've all made me see the light. I've joined a church that says all life is sacred but that the soul resides in the male gamete. As a matter of fact, masturbation is not only a sin but is, in fact, genocide. At least as ar as males are concerned anyway. Be thankful that your father didn't consider you 'just excess sperm'! I pray that ya'll may someday accept the truth of this revelation."
Steve, your logic is horribly flawed. That is equivalent to calling flour a cake. Just as not all the ingredients are present in flour, to constitute a cake; not all of the ingredients are present in sperm to constitute a human life.
allen paul
August 28, 2008, 12:50am (report abuse)hindiko maintindihan kung bakit ganon.ewan ko bahala na.
Ben
September 4, 2008, 4:22pm (report abuse)If Roe v. Wade was decided to respect the private decision between a woman and her doctor, then why are the taxpayers funding these "private" decisions through entitlement spending????
Joe
September 24, 2008, 5:58pm (report abuse)if this law is about the sanctity of life, then when doesn't it also abolish the Death Penalty?
Joseph
October 10, 2008, 7:19am (report abuse)For those who do not believe it is life but mearly a bunch of cells. Please look at the following websites:
http://www.sciencehelpdesk.com/img/bg3_4/EmbryonicDevelopmentComplete1.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek
The average abortion happens at 10 weeks or less.
This is all scientific data.
Bruce
October 26, 2008, 7:25pm (report abuse)Joseph, just because developing embryos look like humans and will become humans, doesnt mean they are. I dont believe in God or souls or any of that. Life is an on going cycle. Call it a bunch of cells if it makes you feel better. After conseption a zygote can still split into a twin or not or even split and then fall back together to become one person. I think we should leave embryos alone when their heart pumps (after 5 weeks) or when theres brain activity (after 54 days).
By the way, you pro-lifers may have one less thing to whine about. Belgian scientists have managed to remove an embryo for stemcell research without damaging it, and then returing it, on animals so far, but who knows. And theres always abortion.
Have a baby when your ready, and dont wait for sex untill your married just because chritians tell you to.
Claire
October 27, 2008, 10:48am (report abuse)Bruce: what is it about zygotes, embryos, and fetuses that makes them NOT human?
This law has nothing to do with souls, God, or any of that. Before the 14th Amendment, non-whites were pretty much non-people, as far as the law was concerned. Just as the 14th Amendment marked the legal recognition of the rights of people of all races, this law marks the legal recognition of the rights of people of all ages.
If brain activity is the test for protecting life, then is it legal to kill anyone in a coma? If the heart pumping is the milestone, can we legally kill anyone who has received a heart transplant? By definition, their heart is not pumping.
I'm sorry it upsets you that some religions teach their adherents to avoid premarital sex and abortion. If you truly "dont believe in God or souls or any of that", then feel free to ignore them. This law has nothing to do with sex, premarital or otherwise; and it has nothing to do with religion, Christian or otherwise.
unnamed
November 5, 2008, 4:22am (report abuse)Seriously, aborted fetus pictures? Appealing to emotion is a poor attempt to sway opinions and any rational individual will not fall to this trap. I didn't realize pro-lifers dipped down to PETAs level...
Nulono
November 7, 2008, 12:52pm (report abuse)This is what we need! What's the Bush administrationwaiting for‽
Brandon
December 4, 2008, 6:55pm (report abuse)To Ann:
Fetuses aren't the only people sensitive to such dangerous environmental conditions; the elderly are, as well. Therefore, by your logic, murdering elderly people is okay, because if it were illegal, we might have to charge the EPA for murder, too.
To Jen:
By your "manslaughter" argument, it should be legal for me to intentionally give my children cancer through feeding them rat poison, because many other children are diagnosed with cancer NATURALLY.
To Ritz:
Actually, about 4000 children are aborted each day. Prior to Roe vs. Wade, abortion was extremely rare. But, by your logic, the fact that it may occur anyway justifies its legality. Your argument also suggests that nothing should ever be illegal, because people may commit the crime anyway (apply this to drug use, for example: why not make heroin legal for children to use, because if we don't, they might administer it unsafely?).
To Charlotte: So, killing a handicapped one-month-old should also be okay?
Brandon
December 5, 2008, 2:15am (report abuse)*extremely rare, compared to today's standard (taking into account that a small number of states actually did legalize it).