Daschle's Cynicism on Laci Peterson Vote Exposed

Bob Mercer just wrote this story about Senator Daschle's vote on the Laci Peterson law. Excerpt:

U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle came under fire Friday for aligning himself on both sides of the fight in Congress over whether federal criminal laws should apply to acts of violence that hurt or kill an unborn child.

The National Right to Life Committee specifically criticized the actions of Daschle, who is the Senate Democratic leader.

He was among a dozen senators, 10 Democrats and two Republicans, who voted both ways on the issue in the Senate on Thursday.

That group also included North Dakota's two senators, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, and Minnesota's Mark Dayton, all Democrats.

What they did was vote for two completely opposite approaches.

The debate was over legislation known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It applies federal criminal laws to acts of violence against a fetus, or unborn child, the same as against any other person.

The National Right to Life Committee supported the legislation. But groups supporting abortion rights, such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, opposed it because the fetus or unborn child would be treated the same as a born person.

So what was Daschle up to? Why did he vote for two completely different laws? Here's more:

Daschle and the rest in the group of 12 were among the 61 voting for it on final passage, in essence taking the same side as the National Right to Life Committee. But what they did before that vote was take the side of Planned Parenthood and Pro Choice America.

They did that by first voting for a substitute amendment offered by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California. In a nutshell, it increased criminal penalties for violent acts against the pregnant woman, but it purposely didn't extend the criminal laws to cover violence against the unborn child or fetus.

The Feinstein amendment was rejected 50-49.

"When a criminal attacks a woman who carries an unborn child, he claims two victims, but Sen. Daschle voted that the law should say there is only one victim," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson said Daschle and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' No. 2 leader, "cast their votes for Feinstein at the very beginning of the roll call, in order to exercise maximum influence on the other members of their caucus."

So Daschle wanted the Feinstein amendment to pass so he could vote on a final bill which had been gutted, therefore he wouldn't alienate his NARAL allies. The amendment would have had the effect of killing the entire bill because the pro-Laci Peterson bill forces would have withdrawn their support, just like the vote on the gun maker liability bill. It was a cynical move. It exposed how Daschle was working with NARAL to promote an amendment which would gut the bill but then voted against the NARAL position in the final tally because he knew if he didn't it would hurt him in South Dakota. The problem for the Thune camp is that this kind of legislative acrobatics is hard to explain.

Finally, for good measure, note how Daschle explains voting for two diametrically-opposed pieces of legislation:

Asked on Friday about his actions, Daschle portrayed the Feinstein amendment and the original legislation as similar in purpose rather than opposite to each other.

"Both are designed to protect pregnant women," he said about the rival versions of the legislation. "I felt they both had merit, and that's why I supported both."

In his answers, he stressed pregnant women but didn't talk about protection for the unborn child or fetus, which was the bottom-line difference between the two versions. He said neither one was perfect but said he preferred the version "closer" to South Dakota's law.

This doesn't even make sense. The critical part of the legislation involves the definition of when life begins. That's why NARAL and other pro-choice groups were so alarmed. And since when does Daschle take cues from SD state legislature. Remember, the legislature voted to ban all abortions this past session. Also, it should be noted that this is also a fine example of analytical journalism by Mr. Mercer. The Argus Leader hasn't covered this story.