Family Matters: Protecting Marriage, Defending the Unborn Among Congress' Focus in 2004
by Jason Collum
January 20, 2004
(AgapePress) - At least three important pieces of legislation tied to family values will be in front of Congress in 2004. And, with this year being an election year, it is more than likely presidential candidates and others will weigh in heavily on these issues.
One of these bills would protect and define the meaning of marriage, while two other major bills focus on rights of the unborn and abortion.
The bill at the forefront of many Americans' minds is presently working its way through the House of Representatives, with a similar measure introduced in the Senate in late November. The Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res 56), sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman. In light of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that that state cannot ban same-sex marriages, and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, backers of the amendment say its ratification would preclude state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages.
The proposed amendment states, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
The Senate's measure, introduced November 25, 2003, by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), is very similar. In order for either measure to become an amendment, it would need to garner two-thirds of the vote in both houses, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states within a set time, usually seven years.
It's a tedious process to amend the Constitution, and Republican Rep. Roger Wicker of Mississippi thinks that's exactly how it should be. But, he says, this is a case where an amendment is needed.
"The number-one issue, in my opinion, for 2004, is the Federal Marriage Amendment," Wicker said. "Conservatives are generally reluctant to alter our basic document, the framework of our government. I think we ought to have a compelling reason before we amend the Constitution of the United States. But as it becomes more and more evident that there is an assault by some courts on the American family, it's clear the time has come to amend the Constitution to make certain everyone knows that marriage is still an institution between one man and one woman."
Wicker said if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling were carried to its logical conclusion, it would not be a far-fetched leap for polygamy to be reinstated as legal. (See Related Article)
The Massachusetts ruling followed the June 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling. In that case the high court ruled states cannot legally ban homosexual sex. Many pro-family activists said that decision would lead to the destruction of marriage and the family, and would lead to all kinds of definitions of marriage. In prophetic fashion, just days after Wicker made his statement to AFA Journal, a Utah man filed suit to have his bigamy convictions thrown out, using the Lawrence case as his defense.
Such actions give further credence to pro-family activists' calls for the marriage protection amendment. As of December 3, H.J. Res 56 had 107 co-sponsors. (For a status update on the measure, go online to thomas.loc.gov and enter "HJR 56")
Protecting the Unborn
Wicker said two other important measures facing Congress in 2004 focus on the rights of the unborn and on abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) seeks to give protection to the unborn in the event an unborn child is killed during the commission of a federal crime, while the Child Custody Protection Act seeks to make it a crime for an adult to assist a minor in getting an abortion without the minor's parental involvement.
According to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), "the Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims.
The bill would establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child -- the exact charge depending on the degree of harm done to the child and other factors. The bill would apply this two-victim principle to 68 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These laws affect federal geographical jurisdictions, the military justice system, protection of federal officials, and specific acts defined by law as federal crimes (such as certain terrorist bombings)."
The UVVA is sponsored in the House (H.R. 1997) by Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA), and in the Senate (S. 1019, previously S. 146) by Sen. Mike Dewine (R-OH). The same legislation was approved by the House in 1999 and again in 2001, but was not acted upon by the Senate. President Bush, in April 2003, urged passage of the bill.
The bill's opponents argue against the "child in utero" verbiage in the bill. Opinions on the websites of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL Pro-Choice America), National Organization for Women (NOW), and the American Civil Liberties Union argue the measure is another attempt to end abortion by recognizing the unborn as living human beings with rights.
"It passed the House before," Wicker said. "We hope to bring it up next year, and perhaps this time the Senate will take it up."
Parental Rights
Another measure Wicker and others hope to see become law in 2004 is the Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 1755). Introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the measure would move to prevent any adult other than a parent, except in the case of judicial authorization, from taking a minor across state lines to circumvent laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
According to the NRLC, one case that helped spur the effort to launch this law happened in 1995, when "a 12-year-old Pennsylvania girl became pregnant after sexual involvement with an 18-year-old man. Pennsylvania law requires parental consent (or judicial bypass) for an abortion to be performed on a minor. However, the man's mother took the pregnant girl for an abortion in New York, which has no parental involvement law. (The girl's mother did not even know that she was pregnant.) When Pennsylvania authorities prosecuted the woman for interfering with the custody of a child, she was defended by attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, the major national pro-abortion litigating organization. They argued that the woman's actions were like those of 'thousands of adults who each year aid young women in exercising their constitutional right to an abortion,' and that such 'aid' is protected by Roe v. Wade."
"In a time when a parent must consent to his or her child taking an Advil at school, it is unconscionable that a minor could receive assistance in getting an abortion and not involve the parents of that pregnant minor," Wicker said. "I would hope that I would never face that situation, but in trying to imagine such a thing, I would be fit to be tied if another adult assisted my daughter in getting an abortion without allowing me to be involved in that decision."
Like UVVA, this measure is opposed by NARAL, NOW, and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Will it pass legislative hurdles this second go-around?
"[We tried this same measure in the House] in 2002, but it died in the Senate," Wicker said. "We hope to take it up again in 2004."
Jason Collum, a frequent contributor to AgapePress, is a staff writer for AFA Journal, a monthly publication of the American Family Association. This article appeared originally in the January 2004 issue.
