On March 25, the U.S. Senate passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by a vote of 61-38.

The bill, already passed in the House with a vote of 254-163 and championed by President Bush, would classify an attack on a pregnant woman as an attack on two people.

Legislation like this could erode a woman’s choice to have an abortion and make decisions concerning her body.

The bill defines an unborn child’ as “a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

This interpretation goes against the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, as the opinion of the court stated “the word person’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

The references within the landmark decision to the 14th Amendment grants constitutional protection to “citizens,” and “persons born or naturalized in the United States,” pertaining to the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

Justice Blackmun in his opinion in Roe v. Wade stated “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [Roe], of course, collapses for the fetus’ and right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” Thus, denying women the right to choose an abortion.

The legislation itself is narrowly tailored to protect the fetus from federal crimes committed against the mother, such as terrorist attacks, drug-related killings and crimes committed on federal property and military bases.

This narrow tailoring limits the number of people who would be affected by the protections of this bill. Instead, the real reason for the passage of this legislation is to federally establish a fetus’ full legal rights.

In effect, it does very little to punish those who commit crimes against pregnant women or deter people from committing those crimes, but gives rise to other legislation which recognizes a fetus as a person, no matter the length of gestation.

The writers of this legislation had noble aspirations to protect women and the lives they carry in their bodies; however, in the ever growing politicization of women’s bodies, no legislation is free from deeper interpretation and stronger political implications.

Those supportive of women’s choice issues are not opposed to protecting the unborn, because it would go against the basic ideology of choice.

A woman makes a decision to carry a child, and that right should be protected as much as possible. But for the protection of all aspects of choice, laws that set boundaries to the status of a fetus have the potential to do more harm than good in protecting a woman’s right to make decisions about her body.

Some have argued that if legislatures begin the process of granting legal rights to a fetus, they will begin to take away abortion options, which will instigate a slippery slope.

Although it is a good point to make, it fails to address real legal arguments on past interpretations of fetal status and the implications for other legal arguments.

Granting this legal status nullifies previous statues and therefore removes the very backbone of Roe v. Wade.

Democratic legislatures attempted to pass amendments to the bill that would not denote a fetus as a person, but increase the penalties against those who commit acts of violence against pregnant women. This would still grant protection of pregnant women and the choices they have made with their bodies. Unfortunately, these amendments did not pass the House or the Senate.

As laws, cases and legislatures evolve the definitions of fetus, zygote and choice, a woman’s body is becoming more and more political instead of a personal and private entity.

Cara Harris is a senior in liberal studies from Richland. She is a member of the ISU Democrats.