Why is it called "choice" and "legal" when a mother hires a professional serial killer to dismember her unborn baby; but "murder" and "criminal" if someone else were to kill that same unborn child as the mother is on her way in to the abortion mill?
Posted on 11/25/2004 8:05:49 PM PST by cpforlife.org
Louisville, KY (LifeNews.com) -- A Kentucky man is being charged under a new law after beating his pregnant wife so severely that her unborn child died as a result.
Eric Adam Trask was arrested Tuesday in the assault of his wife Samantha E. Trask and the death of her 5 month-old unborn baby. He was also charged with violating a protective order prohibiting him from having contact with her.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects pregnant women and allows prosecutors to charge criminals who kill or injure an unborn child in an attack on a pregnant woman with two crimes instead of just one.
Officer Dwight Mitchell, a Louisville Metro Police spokesman told the Louisville Courier Journal newspaper that this is the first time an area resident has been charged under the new law.
Rep. Bob Damron, a Nicholasville Democrat, confirmed that he believes this is the first person to be subjected to the new provision statewide.
A representative of the state's pro-life organization said he was happy the law is on the books to give Samantha Trask additional justice and fully prosecute her husband's crime.
"While the law cannot bring back her child, it serves an affirmation of her child's human dignity and a deterrent for crimes against unborn children and pregnant women," Kentucky Right to Life assistant director Michael Janocik said.
According to the Courier Journal, Mrs. Trask contacted police yesterday indicated she had been beaten and said he was hit six or seven times in the head and stomach by her husband.
She was taken to University Hospital where an ultrasound performed by doctors confirmed that her baby had died.
The couple married in July, separated in August and had filed for divorce.
"As we gather with our families over Thanksgiving weekend, we hope all Kentuckians will keep the Trask family in their prayers," Janocik added.
The state legislature passed the unborn victims law and Governor Ernie Fletcher signed the law on January 30, 2004.
Related web sites:
Kentucky Right to Life - http://www.krla.org
Why is it called "choice" and "legal" when a mother hires a professional serial killer to dismember her unborn baby; but "murder" and "criminal" if someone else were to kill that same unborn child as the mother is on her way in to the abortion mill?
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
I hope he gets life. I hope the "professionals" get the same.
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Mark 10:14
Yep,it's a puzzlement!
If the mother wants the baby dead it's okay but if the mother doesn't want the baby dead it's murder.
Imagine trying to explain this to someone using simple logic----it can't be done.
I understand your feelings on the matter.
How's little clee?
Remember folks... Kerry voted AGAINST this bill...
There is a simple explanation for the schizophrenic state of current law ... the fools sitting the subpreme court aren't capable of understanding basic science, science that proves the aliveness of the individual humans the court has protect the serial killings of ...
It's called hypocrisy.
You don't need to be a lawyer for common sense to tell you that murder is murder. But, our High Court has seen fit to classify the murder of an unborn child according to the mother's whim not according to the Constitution.
There's nothing constitutional about abortion, but there's something very unconstitutional about our activist judiciary.
BTW, if asked, I would bet fools like O'Connor, Stevens, etc. would say that the unborn child is 'part of the mother' .. which foolishness is clearly debunked by science. Believing the unborn are part of the mother is the only way a fool sitiing on a judicial bench can reconcile serial killing of alive unboirn children as a 'privacy' issue.
BTW, excersising one's second ammendment rights trumps a restraining order every time.
Great! She seems happy and cheerful, and has started to eat like a horse.
She had a little trouble the first day; she was not taking up enough oxygen, so the doctor had her in a low volume O2 tent on and off. She also seemed to have a slight infection, so antibiotics were also given.
Today, she is doing fine and the nurses say that they expect she will be released to come home in the morning.
Mrs clee1 is home now with the Grandparents while I'm at work. They are going up to the Hospital (10 mins away) every 3 hours to feed/play with her.
Thank you for asking!
There was also an EPO on the jerk. This tragic incident needs to serve as a reminder that EPO's do not protect you.
I'm afraid I'm too tired to comprehend your obliquity.
Thank you oolatec for reminding us. What a shame! That poor baby! I can't even imagine the hurt the mother is going through.
This poor girl should have depended on a handgun instead of a restraining order.
12 gage Shotgun w/ #2 & #4 pellets
"Imagine trying to explain this to someone using simple logic----it can't be done."
You are correct, it cannot be done.
Very sad story.
I am thankful that the law was signed in time so this murderer can be charged in this precious babies death.
THank you for psoting that beautiful picture. I used to have a poster of it on my kid's wall.
THANK YOU JESUS the tide is turning from the death culture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.