H.R.212 - Sanctity of Human Life Act

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. as introduced.
  • Short: Sanctity of Human Life Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

cmb020 01/27/2011 3:20pm

This is an amazing step toward clearly defining the rights of an unborn child. This would eliminate the ridiculous question of “when do we become human” and keep the focus on the ethical aspect of this issue.

leahabruns 09/24/2012 11:08am

If my fertilized eggs have all of the rights of personhood afforded to them n=by the constitution than I want to claim the child tax credit for them as well.

norascats 01/26/2011 11:39am

This is a gross invasion of a woman’s privacy.

irishmommy83 02/03/2011 6:48pm

I find this positively ludicrous! Just because fertilization occurs doesnt mean a pregnancy will occur. A fertilized egg may never implant! No implantation, no pregnancy hormones, mestruation occurs as normal. What are they going to do if this passes? Put every woman in the country on fertility medication to ensure that every fertilized egg implants?
This positively strips women of any sovereignty over their own bodies. Women are NOT baby factories. The thought that a fetus may gain legal rights is just insane. A fetus is part of the mother until it is viable for self-sustaining life outside the womb.
This debate always boils down to religion. The Bible says this or the Bible says that. Guess what? Seperation of church and state implies that you cannot make laws based off of religious doctrine.
I love my child but I would not DARE attempt to strip choice from the hands of other women. Who am I to judge them?
Michael – Yeah, me too… imagine that, a group of politicians LIED!

fakk2 02/06/2011 4:33am
in reply to irishmommy83 Feb 03, 2011 6:48pm

Why does it have to always “boil down to religion”? Why can’t they just say science says this or science says that?

WhoKnew 02/21/2011 1:54pm

What ever happened to the Separation of Church and State?

This is total crap!

First of all – what does this have to do with jobs?

Second of all – if people want to use the ‘bible’ as some sort of reference, then how do you reconcile the scriptures where God commanded that the Israelites go out and not only ‘smite’ the enemies, but kill their women and children as well? How can you say life is revered by the same God that demanded his people kill other? Didn’t he create them too?

fakk2 02/06/2011 4:32am
in reply to MichaelDSP Feb 03, 2011 9:00am

I thought Obama said that 2 years ago…Oh wait, he said he was going to bring change, like the LACK of jobs

jennyw410 04/11/2011 6:08am

Why do people consider a baby (who is a separate human being) having no rights past the woman who is only carrying it? Who speaks up for babies after they are born? Their parents and society, because technically they cannot speak for their rights until they turn 18. Just because the baby hasn’t been born, doesn’t mean it loses all rights and is not a separate human being from the person carrying it. I do not see abortion as a “woman’s rights” issue but as a child’s rights issue and abortion takes all those rights away. This is a huge step towards bring the rights of those children back. A woman has every right to destroy her body, but the baby is not her body – it is (yet again) a separate human being.

moionfire 01/11/2011 12:01pm

what a silly bill

raichu 09/18/2012 6:49pm

This simply is not something the government should decide upon. There is clearly no consensus amongst the people, morally or scientifically, on how to exactly define a human. The government should not create such a definition when personal views are widely varying. I don’t know what implications this would have for women’s rights, but to me it’s just not an issue for the government to handle at this time.

fakk2 02/06/2011 4:42am

Yeah, it doesn’t mentioin religion anywhere in the bill, it’s all science mumbo jumbo that makes sense logically speaking. So you know, if they don’t mention it, then they REALLY DO MEAN religion, right?

tiffsnyder 06/02/2011 4:32pm

I think this is a great bill. It gives the unborn fetus the same rights as anyone else. If you didn’t want to get pregnant, you should take precautions. If it occurred by other means where it is not wanted, there are plenty of families that are unable to get pregnant that would be more than happy to adopt. It’s way too easy for women to get pregnant and then just get rid of it. Religion does have something to do with it, but it shouldn’t. That’s where the separation of church and state comes in.
You hear that it should be the right of the mother to decide, but who speaks for the unborn baby? It’s about time laws are changed to preserve life.
Some say that it is not human until it can sustain itself. There are grown people that need assistance on a daily basis. Does that make them not human? That’s ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is mine.

conniecrum89 08/15/2012 11:06pm

Please don’t regulate my womb. I am not a birthing machine. I have the right the right to use birth control until I have the means to give my future child a good life. I have the right to not be questioned if my body rejects me unborn child and I miscarry. I want the right to be unbound by someone else’s morality.
I’ll admit, I loathe abortions, but I believe a mother whose life is at risk should have that choice. Do you condemn her to a game of russian roulette just because your morals say an unborn child’s life is worth more than an adult’s life?
Yes, this bill is a step toward’s human rights for the fetus, but it is a step backwards in terms of women’s rights. It’s a delicate issue, and should really be looked at case-by-case instead of a broad-sweeping legislation.

mgoforth 08/24/2012 10:04am
in reply to conniecrum89 Aug 15, 2012 11:06pm

It’s not about “regulating your womb”, it’s about preventing people from murdering other people. You have the choice to abstain from having sex until you’re prepared for the possibility of having a child. Shocking huh? Killing another human being is so wrong, Connie, and that’s what the culture of birth control promotes. Birth control itself is also wrong, because it makes a mockery of the gift that God gave you to create life. I agree, you’re not a birthing machine…but you’re not a pleasure-seeking robot either, right? Birth control is selfish and immature.

MichaelDSP 02/03/2011 9:00am

I thought the GOP said they were gonna focus on jobs?

spalmer8 03/05/2011 12:43am

I believe life begins at conception, but legally defining this is improper. The woman’s life and the life of the fetus are combined and this type of legislation opens a bad can of worms. Why do Republicans and Tea Party Members think they can control a woman’s body and yet make the claim against the Health Care bill saying governement is too intrusive? You can’t have it both ways. Republicans want to eliminate almost all education, nutritional and health care programs to women and children and then want to force women to carry out pregnancies even if it is detrimental to the women’s health or the woman is unable to care for the child. They don’t offer any solutions to ensure a quality life for these children they are forcing into the world. Absolutely no forethought here. Woman will be forced back into the dark ages. Shoot this bill down!


Vote on This Bill

29% Users Support Bill

61 in favor / 153 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments