GOP Invokes Laci Case to Push Fetus Bill (renamed "Laci and Conner's Law")

Adding fuel to the already fierce debate over abortion, Republicans in Congress are invoking the Laci Peterson (news - web sites) murder case as they try to enact the first federal law to endow a fetus with legal rights separate from the expectant mother.

Laws similar to the federal bill already are on the books in more than half the states, and with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, the federal measure has a good chance of passing.

President Bush (news - web sites) has pledged to sign the act, which sponsors have renamed "Laci and Conner's Law" in honor of Laci Peterson and her unborn son. Laci's husband, Scott Peterson (news - web sites), has been charged with double murder by prosecutors in California, which has a fetal homicide law.

"In the Peterson case, I've heard no one go on radio or TV and say there shouldn't be an indictment for the death of that child," said Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, the act's chief Senate sponsor. "The fact is there are two victims — it's a fiction to say there aren't."

Abortion-rights activists counter the gruesome murder case is being exploited callously as part of a broad strategy to undermine the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision legalizing abortion.

Read literally, the pending Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not an anti-abortion measure. It explicitly exempts abortion while making murder or injury of an unborn child a separate offense during the commission of certain existing federal crimes.

Abortion-rights groups nonetheless are alarmed that Congress might, for the first time, recognize a fetus as a potential victim independent of the expectant mother.

"This is one of their strategies — to ascribe legal rights to the fetus separate from the woman," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Their intent is to do whatever they can to contribute to the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade and taking away a woman's right to control her reproductive life."

Twice since 1999, the Unborn Victims act cleared the U.S. House of Representatives but failed to reach the Senate floor in the face of opposition from abortion-rights supporters.

The latest version of the bill has been endorsed by Laci Peterson's parents and siblings. In a letter to sponsors this month, they said the measure "is very close to our hearts."

Critics of the bill are upset that its sponsors so readily embraced the link to the high-profile murder case.

Renaming the bill for Laci and Conner "is shameless exploitation of a horrific tragedy," Michelman said. "It sickens me."

Abortion-rights supporters say violence against pregnant women can be combated without recognizing a fetus as a separate person. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., is proposing an alternative bill that would provide a possible life sentence for any assailant who terminates a pregnancy.

"We can protect women from violence without opening the Pandora's box of the abortion debate," Lofgren wrote to her House colleagues.

In an interview, Lofgren expressed dismay that crime victims like the Petersons are used as "the poster child for the right-wing agenda."

She also contended supporters of the Unborn Victims Act were disingenuous in downplaying its potential impact on abortion rights.

"I can deal with people who simply disagree on abortion," she said. "What bothers me are people who aren't honest about what they're doing."

The bill would not permit prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented, or for any act by an expectant mother — even an illegal act such as drug abuse — that harmed her unborn child.

The bill also would not supersede comparable state laws, but would apply to various federal crimes, including kidnapping across state lines, drug-related drive-by shootings, and assaults occurring on federal property.

The measure has strong backing from many anti-abortion groups, including the prominent National Right to Life Committee (news - web sites). Its legislative director, Douglas Johnson, said the act deserves support regardless of its effect Roe v. Wade.

"Whoever killed Laci and Conner Peterson didn't perform an abortion," Johnson said. "It's important to protect unborn children from all threats."

Within the anti-abortion movement, some activists criticize the bill because it exempts legal abortions. But Dr. Joe Cook, vice president of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said "we have to approach this in a way that's doable, a step at a time.

"This bill is aimed at establishing that a fetus in utero is a human being and has human rights."

Homicide Based on the Killing of an Unborn Child -- In this essay, Alan Wasserstrom surveys the history of laws which prosecute feticide--the destruction of a human fetus--as homicide.

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

MURDER : Constitutional Persons:An Exchange on Abortion

One objection to the unborn person interpretation is the lack of precedent to support it. The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court. In Stenberg v. Brown (1970) a three–judge federal district court upheld an anti–abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology." "Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it." Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier! The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

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.