The hypocrisy of fetal homicide laws

The hypocrisy of fetal homicide laws

The Laci Peterson murder case highlights the hypocrisy of our justice system and its split personality. Her husband, Scott, is being charged with her death and, what even CNN calls, her unborn child. In fact, what he is particularly charged with is:

“During the commission of the murder of Laci Denise Peterson, the defendant with knowledge that [she] was pregnant did inflict injury on [her] resulting in the termination of her pregnancy.”

So is he being charged with practicing medicine without a license? Or maybe even forced abortion? Nope, he’s being charged in two murders.

Yet, the pro-abort crowd calls abortion “termination of pregnancy”, too. In fact, many states have laws on the books (and there’s now a federal law as well) that provide for fetal homicide laws, that is the killing of an unborn child past a certain time of the pregnancy, presumably without the mother’s consent and outside an abortion clinic. Even the National Organization for Women sees the hypocrisy here.

“If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder,” Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.

Exactly right, Mavra. Well, only partially right. Anytime any fetus is aborted, at whatever stage, it could be called murder. I expect NOW and all pro-aborts to oppose this law. I want them to be vocal about it. I want them to make a stink. I want them to make the vast majority of Americans who are comfortable with abortions being performed down the street from the their own homes to be confronted by the contradiction that when the baby is unwanted by his mother it is okay to kill him, but when the baby is wanted then he is a person and has a right not to be killed. His right to life is entirely dependent on the mother. This is why I disagree with the New Jersey Right to Life spokesman who responded to NOW’s statement.

Marie Tasy, public and legislative affairs director for New Jersey Right To Life, countered that a double-murder charge against Scott Peterson is appropriate. She assailed pro-choice activists for opposing fetal homicide statutes. “Obviously he was wanted by the mother,” Tasy said.

What does it matter that he was wanted by his mother? Being unwanted doesn’t strip a person of his human rights. This is an example of falling into the terminology of those you are battling. She concedes the ground to the pro-aborts by speaking of being wanted or unwanted.

“Clearly groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion.” ... “The argument that (fetal homicide statutes) would interfere with abortion rights is ridiculous,” Tasy said. “These groups are so radical that they would deny recourse to a family for the loss of a wanted child.”

Abortions rights? We want it to interfere with so-called “abortion rights.” (There she goes lending legitimacy to their language again.)

Okay, I know this is all part of the plan to appear reasonable to pro-aborts while we sneak in changes to undermine abortion, but we’re not fooling anyone. (“What, this little thing? It’s not a pro-life law. It’s a .... protection of children law, yeah, that’s right. Don’t worry about your abortion rights. Completely different thing.”) And while we’re working hard at appearing non-offensive and reasonable to the pro-aborts, we’re losing thousands of children a day. The fact is that abortion isn’t going away until Americans are confronted with what it is and what it does and are repulsed by its existence.

  • But how do you reconcile this statement?

    “The argument that (fetal homicide statutes) would interfere with abortion rights is ridiculous,” Tasy said.

    I can’t imagine a context in which this is anything but capitulation. Why worry about abortion rights? There is no right to abortion; we shouldn’t cede that ground.