[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E699-E700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. JOHN N. HOSTETTLER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 26, 2001

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, 
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and oppose the Lofgren one-victim 
substitute.
  This bill is really a simple one. It states that if a criminal, in 
his attack on a pregnant women, injures the child also, than that 
criminal should be held responsible for his attack on both individuals.
  As a father myself, I have witnessed people's reaction to my wife's 
pregnancy. They do not ask if we hope that our product of conception 
will continue in pregnancy without interruption. No, they ask questions 
like ``Is it a boy or a girl?''; ``Have you picked out a name for your 
baby yet?'' ``Are your other children looking forward to their new 
brother or sister?''
  You see, Mr. Speaker, they recognize what should be obvious to all. 
They recognize what our Founding Fathers thought obvious. In fact, they 
called it ``self evident'' that our Creator has endowed everyone with 
this unalienable right.
  Its inconsistent and hypocritical that federal law fails to recognize 
crimes against the pre-born as just that . . . crimes. I see no valid 
legal or moral difference between committing a crime against an 
individual one day prior to birth and one day after. We hear stories 
like that of Ms. Pace, who was assaulted one day before her due date. 
Her boyfriend had paid hit-men $400 for the express purpose of killing 
the child, not her. Did he hire them to kill a ``product of 
conception''? No, he hired them to kill a baby for whom he did not want 
to be responsible.
  Rightfully, we find ourselves outraged at stories of child abuse and 
neglect . . . Stories of babies being beaten and abandoned by their 
parents. Yet those on the other side would have us believe that an 
assailant should face no penalty for the willful killing of the same 
child before birth.
  If an assailant, while in the commission of a federal crime, harms a 
baby then he should be responsible for the harm caused to that baby. 
Its really that simple. For most Americans it's common sense. 
Unfortunately, what would otherwise make perfect sense gets lost here 
in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and 
reject the Lofgren amendment.

         Constitutional Challenges to State Unborn Victims Laws

       (All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were 
     based on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, 
     unless otherwise noted.)
       California: People v. Davis, 872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994).
       Georgia: Smith v. Newsome, 815 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1987). 
     Related state supreme court decision: Brinkley v. State, 322 
     S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 1984) (vagueness/due process challenge).
       Illinois: U.S. ex rel. Ford v. Ahitow, 888 F.Supp. 909 
     (C.D.Ill. 1995), and lower court decision, People v. Ford, 
     581 N.E.2d 1189 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991). People v. Campos, 
     592 N.E.2d 85 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992). Subsequent history: 
     appealed denied, 602 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. 1992), habeas corpus 
     denied, 827 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D.Ill. 1993), affirmed, 37 F.3d 
     1501 (7th Cir. 1994), certiorari denied, 514 U.S. 1024 
     (1995).
       Louisiana: Re double jeopardy--State v. Smith, 676 So.2d 
     1068 (La. 1996), rehearing denied, 679 So.2d 380 (La. 1996).
       Minnesota: State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990), 
     cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931 (1990). Re establishment clause--
     State v. Bauer, 471 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. App. 1991).
       Missouri: State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 
     1997).
       Ohio: State v. Coleman, 705 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio Ct. App. 
     1997).
       Wisconsin: Re due process--State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132 
     (Wis. 1994) (upholding earlier statute).

                                  ____
                                  

 Statement of Michael Lenz Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
Hearing on H.R. 2436; the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, July 
                                21, 1999

       Committee members, I would like to give you some background 
     on myself and my late wife Carrie Lenz.
       We met in the spring of 1986. I had recently moved from the 
     City of Tulsa to Oklahoma City. Carrie was a high school 
     senior at Moore, OK. We began dating, she graduated high 
     school and went on to College, and I took a job back in Tulsa 
     and then in Ponca City. All the while, we maintained our 
     relationship. I eventually took a job that required extensive 
     travel around the country, and although it was difficult at 
     times, our long distance relationship worked because we were 
     both committed to the same ideas and goals. (Our plan) First, 
     she would graduate from college. I would get promoted over 
     the State of Oklahoma. Then we would get married, and when we 
     thought we were mentally and financially prepared, we would 
     have children.
       While Carrie was attending college, she took a part time 
     position with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under the 
     Stay in School program. As the Oklahoma City ATF office grew, 
     their need for a full time position grew as well. Carrie then 
     transferred to a position with the U.S. Secret Service 
     Administration under the same program until she graduated 
     from college. After graduation, she accepted a position with 
     the Drug Enforcement Administration through EBON, a company 
     contracted with the Department of Justice to assist in the 
     Asset Forfeiture program. Since her first job with Federal 
     Law Enforcement, Carrier and I were always extremely proud to 
     be a part, albeit a small part, of our government.
       Our plans all came together in the fall of 1991 (September 
     14) when we were finally married. Married * * * Yes. 
     Financially ready to raise a family? Not yet. That didn't 
     come until 1993. Seven years after we first met, we believed 
     we were finally ready to start our family.
       I'm telling you all of this to give you some background on 
     our relationship and our goals, and maybe to give you some 
     insight on what it might be like to have a seven-year plan 
     blown up in your face.
       We began trying to have children 1993. After several months 
     with no success, we sought assistance from a fertility doctor 
     who put Carrie on some medication, and we continued our 
     efforts at beginning a family. We no success, in early 1994 
     the doctor recommended exploratory surgery, which she under 
     went. A few months later, she informed me that she was 
     pregnant. We were

[[Page E700]]

     so thrilled, but our excitement would not last long. With 
     weekly monitoring, the doctor discovered Carrie had an 
     ectopic pregnancy and that the fetus had died. In November of 
     that same year, Carrie again informed me that she was 
     pregnant, and we both prayed that this would prove a better 
     pregnancy that the first. The doctor confirmed our hope by 
     telling us everything appeared to be healthy and normal at 
     our first ultrasound.
       In the months that followed, we prepared our home for the 
     new baby. We purchased a
       The next the morning Carrie, who was usually 15 to 20 
     minutes late to work, left the house early to show everyone 
     at work the pictures of our son, Michael. I left for work at 
     about 8:30 that morning, a happy, expectant father of my 
     first child . . . my son . . . Michael. At 9:02 A.M. on April 
     19, 1995, it all shattered, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal 
     Building was blown up. A seven-year plan, gone. Just Blown 
     up. At 9:03 A.M. that morning I was no longer an expecting 
     father or husband. At 28 years old, I was a widower.
       I don't care to go into the details of what happened to me 
     in the months following the bombing, but please ask yourself, 
     ``Would having a part of your loved one in the form of a 
     child would make your grieving easier?'' I think it would. 
     Therefore, the loss of that potential life is worth an 
     immeasurable amount to me. Let's say for the sake of argument 
     that Carrie was not killed by that act of violence, but that 
     shrapnel entered the womb and killed Michael. Is it safe to 
     assume that would have an ill effect on her child bearing 
     capacity, not only physically, but emotionally, for the rest 
     of her life? I am no doctor, but I would have to think it 
     would. In this scenario, a seven-year plan is still gone and 
     possibly any future plans. Should we as people allow that act 
     of violence to remain a victimless crime? No Michael the 3rd 
     ever mentioned? I don't think that would be right. In any 
     case, I lost the two people I loved most that day, and the 
     official death toll for the Murrah Bombing remains at 168. In 
     addition to Carrie, there were two other expecting mothers in 
     the building that day that died. Three babies.
       Passing this bill won't bring my wife and son back to me, 
     but it would go a long way toward at least recognizing 
     Michael's life and the loss of seven years of responsible 
     actions to gain that life. Violent criminal acts that result 
     in the death of a potential life is worth prosecution on its 
     own merits, regardless of the other counts against the 
     defendant. As the only survivor of a family of three, in my 
     case, it would only be right. Regardless of your vote on 
     this, in my mind 171 people lost their lives that day, and 
     three ``Daddies to be'' became widowers.
       Thank You for your time. Michael James Lenz, Jr.

       

                          ____________________