The bill to be debated on the Rhode Island Senate floor next week that supposedly “codifies” Roe vs. Wade does more than that.

The place where this is most clear is in its decriminalization of fetal homicide. Section 4 of the Senate abortion bill removes the killing of an unborn “quick child” from the definition of manslaughter — including cases where an unborn child is killed as the result of a violent assault on a pregnant woman, and no “choice” to end the pregnancy by the mother was made. There is nothing in court precedents on abortion requiring that RI’s fetal homicide law be repealed in order for Roe v. Wade to be “codified”.

Below are three possible strategies that could be pursued during the Senate floor debate next week, one procedural and two in the form of amendments; that would remove the decriminalization of fetal homicide from the Senate abortion bill with no impact (for better or for worse) on the sections concerning the legality of abortion.

1. A Senator could simply make a motion on the floor to divide the question, and have section 4 of the bill voted on separately from the others.
    
2. A Senator could introduce an amendment to strike the sections of the quick child law related to the legality of abortion that are superseded by the rest of the bill, while leaving the definition of fetal homicide during an assault on a woman in place. It would look something like this:
    

   11-23-5. Willful killing of unborn quick child.

   (a) The willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of the child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of the mother; the administration to any woman pregnant with a quick child of any medication, drug, or substance or the use of any instrument or device or other means, with intent to destroy the child, unless it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother; in the event of the death of the child; shall be deemed manslaughter.

   (b) In any prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that any necessity existed.

   (c) For the purposes of this section, “quick child” means an unborn child whose heart is beating, who is experiencing electronically-measurable brain waves, who is discernibly moving, and who is so far developed and matured as to be capable of surviving the trauma of birth with the aid of usual medical care and facilities available in this state.
    

3. A Senator could introduce an amendment leaving the repeal of sections (a) and (b) of the current law in place, but inserting a new section (a) that reads something like:
    

   11-23-5. Willful killing of unborn quick child.

   (a) An act that injures a pregnant woman which would be murder if it results in her death and causes the death of an unborn quick child shall be deemed manslaughter.

   (c)(b) For the purposes of this section, “quick child” means an unborn child whose heart is beating, who is experiencing electronically-measurable brain waves, who is discernibly moving, and who is so far developed and matured as to be capable of surviving the trauma of birth with the aid of usual medical care and facilities available in this state.

Introducing one of these amendments (or making the motion to divide) is the right thing to do. Voting for one of the amendments, or supporting the motion and then voting against Section 4, is the right thing to do, obviously in line with pro-life principles, and an absolute must for any politician who would try to explain how his or her support for sending the bill to the floor or for “codifying” Roe vs. Wade is not pro-abortion radicalism.