This week the Indiana Statehouse voted 95-0 to support a feticide bill which "would impose up to 20 years in prison for crimes that lead to the death of an unborn child at any stage of development." It has previously passed the Indiana Senate on a 40-9 vote. Feticide involves the act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion.
This legislation has been significantly influenced by the incident that happened last summer in which an Indianapolis bank teller was shot causing the premature delivery of her twin babies, both of whom ultimately died. One of the criteria for considering this whole issue of feticide was the viability" question. We won't be reiterating all of those issues again here, but I must say, it's encouraging to see our Indiana leaders taking such a definitive stand against the murder of unborn children.
On a different note, another issue that is gaining much attention in the Indiana Statehouse is the abuses that have been taking place against animals in puppy mills. Now, having grown up in the country and in the Crane family, I would be the first to support the appropriate protection of animals. After all, this junior "Crocodile Hunter" was always bringing in stray dogs, cats, turtles, snakes, rabbits, and anyone else who needed a home. We had the veritable wilderness zoo down at Crane Acres. :)
That said, I was struck by the seeming irony of the whole puppy mill crusade. While we can be heartened to see the recent action taken to protect innocent children, the fact is, that such protections are not always commonplace in the culture today. We are considered in the mainstream if we fight to "Save the whales" or "Save the puppies", and other animal-rights efforts. But if we choose to "Save the babies," we are painted as right-wing fanatics who are less-than-progressive in our approach to such issues. Beyond that, accusations of being one-issue voters are bandied about (as if working to save children should not be of highest priority).
Saving animals certainly has its place (after all, one would be hard-pressed to make a case for the appropriateness of Michael Vick's dog-fighting enterprise). But, let's not misplace our priorities. Can we not pursue the protection of our most vulnerable of human beings with the same, and even greater, fervency that with which we fight for our animals? Shouldn't we? I'm glad to see the our elected leaders took a firm step in that effort. 
Comments