Armed Fetus Mug
$12.99

Unborn Baby Ornament - US Troop Model
Protect our troops - from the womb to the war. What if the fetus you were going to abort would grow up to be a soldier bringing democracy to a godless dictatorship?
Our price: $ 14.95

- source: Jesus’ General

No, actually, that’s not all it means. A very big chunk of that statment means “walking incubator.” There are a great many ways to say “this applies to underage females,” all in perfectly respectable legalese, without ever referring to reproduction.

It’s naive to think that this definition comes with the implicit guarantee that it will not and cannot be used to harm women in general and transgenders in particular.

How does that preclude the same definition being used in another bill?

well, all people have X chromosomes, so that wouldn’t help.
in fact, there are even men who have two X chromosomes (in the pattern XXY), so a genetic definition is not helpful. (as any transexual could also tell you.)

since the bill is about fertility, a functional definition seems appropriate. the lawyers have a convincing argument here than narrow definitions for narrow laws are completely expected.

Moreover, the definition makes sense for this bill. The bill is the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005.” What the Act requires is that “[b]efore any part of an abortion involving a pain-capable unborn child begins, the abortion provider or his or her agent shall provide the pregnant woman involved, by telephone or in person, with the information described in paragraph (2),” namely the information that the fetus might experience pain and that the woman has the option of choosing anesthesia.

Now look at the definition of “Woman”: “The term `woman’ means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.” All that this means is that the Act applies to minors.

If this definition weren’t in the bill, some abortion provider somewhere would probably argue that “I didn’t have to get informed consent, because the law only says ‘woman,’ whereas a 12-year-old isn’t a ‘woman.’” At least, that’s what Congress’s staff lawyers think might happen. So they write the definitions so as to preclude that possibility.

Seriously, someone should assassinate your president ^_^

No Linnet, it does not. It’s a narrow definition crafted by the writers. Both parties in Congress employ hordes of lawyers on their personal and committee staffs because the members don’t want legislation struck down over technicalities about the meaning, scope, and applicability of terms.

And, in bills, they generally don’t create a definition that isn’t already accepted as the meaning of the word. -

This statement is not true. Start with Title 1, Chapter 1, Subparagraph 1 of the US Code. It defines persons - “the words “person”? and “whoever”? include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;” but subparagraph 8 adds to this definition “shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. ” Do a search on just the US Code of “persons” or “secretary” - you’ll get a sense of why writers often use specific definitions for certain narrow sections of legislation. If you’re into mind numbing search, look at Title 21 or Title 42 (which this legislation would amend) for all kinds of narrow definitions.

Bills that narrowly define a group of people, organization, or the characteristic, trait, attribute of something include definitions specifically because the sheer volume of codes and laws generally means a definition exists. Only females can get pregnant and this legislation is about someone seeking an abortion. I do agree, KMarissa and Maureen, that given most of the language speaks about pregnant woman, the inclusion of “capable of being” seems superfluous. The writers could have simply shorten the definition or used “pregnant woman” instead of “woman” in the opening.

Kim - I agree you can have disgust toward multiple parts of this proposed legislation depending on your beliefs, but still maintain the thought that focusing on the narrowly construed, for this act only, definiton is a phyrric tactic. But I think your next statement is a non-sequitur. Men and women are not the same in terms of reproductive capabilities so just because a narrow definition does not (I’m not sure, but I’ll take it as fact) exist for men, does not mean one for women is discriminatory. After all, the Preganancy discrimination act applies only to, well, pregnant women (actually, to women with childbirth or related medical conditions as well). That has a narrow scope of “women, but only in this specific act.” And surely, you would not want to argue that if we did define men in some cases by reproductive capabilities, that logic should necessarily carry over to women.

Perhaps somewhere there is a definition of at least white man, because Title 25, USC contains this restriction - “No white man, not otherwise a member of any tribe of Indians, who may after August 9, 1888, marry an Indian woman, member of any Indian tribe in the United States, or any of its Territories except the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory, shall by such marriage after August 9, 1888, acquire any right to any tribal property, privilege, or interest whatever to which any member of such tribe is entitled. “

And there’s no real reason why the bill wouldn’t need to use a different definition of woman, one that didn’t define our gender solely based on the ability to become pregnant.

Hence,

A. A female human being who is not capable of becoming pregnant does not qualify as a woman under this definition. - TRUE..under this definition because a woman who cannot become pregnant would (at least directly as far as I can imagine) not be subject to the requirements of the act.

B. This definition implies that a woman is not, as any dictionary will tell you, an ‘adult female human.’ A thirteen-year-old female child is a woman if she has reached puberty. Fertility is the sole measure of womanhood, not maturity and the capacity to make one’s own decisions…Again, only for the purpose of the act. The act makes no reference to this definition have any application or standing outside the title.

C. This definition could be used in other laws if this bill is passed and signed….Well, any definition COULD be used in other laws. That’s not a significant observation. If one means will, instead of could, again, read the proposed text.

Kyra - I think you’re wrong about the loopholes. The operative word in this phrase - The term ‘Woman’ means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant - is capable. If a woman is pregnant, she has demonstrated the capacity (Capable - first entry from dictionary on my desk - Having capacity or ability;) to become pregnant. There is no guarantee she will again (or as you note, become at that moment). It’s not about becoming, it’s about being able - and if a woman is pregnant, she’s certainly shown an ability to become pregnant. I think you should read the definition of abortion closer as well (”with an intention other than”).

Of course most pro-choice people will object to this bill as the intent is to make getting an abortion harder. But if you’re focusing your energy and emotions on the definition of “woman”, you’re really taking your eye of the ball. That draft language states “To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child. ” I suspect if the writers used a general definition of “woman” , then others would complain about how the act covers people whom the act will never affect directly.

Just a suggestion - focus on the merits (or lack of if you believe) such as whether Congress can mandate into law “findings” as opposed to complaining about a definition that is specific to the proposed legislation. When one omits certain text (such as “in this title” in the case), whether on purpose or just inattention to detail, the argument becomes less compelling.