HR 1997, the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (recently dubbed "Laci and Conner's Law" in reference to the murder of the pregnant Laci Peterson) allows for criminal charges to be brought against acts of violence against the unborn. While the law in its current state excludes abortion, it does apply to the death of a foetus "in any stage of development".

Opponents of the bill feel that it paves the way for future legislation and/or court rulings which could overturn Roe vs. Wade. Several reactions can be found here.

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, for example, feels that "This is one of their strategies - to ascribe legal rights to the fetus separate from the woman. 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."

Sen. Rick Santorum on the other hand, claims that the bill is "not intended to undermine [Roe vs. Wade nor to] criminalize physicians or women for the choices they make." Sen. Orrin Hatch, however, told Newsday, "They say it undermines abortion rights. It does."

Others on the anti-choice side of the debate feel that the bill is a half-measure. Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, feels that the bill says "It's not OK for the husband to kill his wife's child, but it's OK for the mother."

Janet Crepps of the Center for Reproductive Rights seems to get what Orrin Hatch is implying: "It doesn't overrule Roe vs. Wade, it undermines Roe vs. Wade in other ways. It shifts the balance of rights between a fetus and a woman."


How do you feel? Is this legislation necessary for prosecuting those who take two lives when killing a pregnant woman? Or is this just a means of chiselling away at Roe vs. Wade by recognizing the foetus "in any stage of development" as an independent life?

Also, as a sort of side issue, how ethical is it to exploit emotional headline news stories like the Peterson murder in an effort to "sell" a piece of legislation?

A very interesting topic, and your introduction to it is so well written that it is difficult to respond in a way which might be worthy of it. However, I shall try.

Let's note first of all that the law is very clearly worded to exclude the possibility of anyone being prosecuted under this law for taking part in an otherwise legal abortion. (In fact, if I read it correctly, it seems to state that a woman could not be prosecuted under this law for taking part in an otherwise illegal abortion.) So, this law does not directly threaten to change the legal status of abortion.

However, it seems that there is an attempt here to create a legal precedent for considering the fetus to be an "unborn child" when it is at "any stage of development." While there are many persons who certainly hold with this position, there are many who do not.

I note that there has been an attempt to propose a similar law, called the Motherhood Protection Act (HR 2247) which would provide for added penalties when a crime results in harm to a fetus, without raising the question of the legal staus of the fetus. It seems this law would produce the desired result, without having any effect at all on the legal status of abortion.

On your side issue, the naming of laws after dramatic events leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't like the fact that HR 1997 actually states, in Section 1, that it may be cited as "Laci and Conner's Law." (Instead of just being a nickname, this is one of the official names of the bill.) This is clearly an emotional appeal. "How dare so-and-so vote against the memory of Laci and Conner!" This seems to me to be an unpleasant tactic by the right or the left (the Brady Bill, for example.)

This bill is bad for everyone (except ambulance chasing lawyers, who are probably foaming at the mouth), with potential ramifications that even the anti-abortion crowd should be very wary of. I see an endless stream of lawsuits if this were to pass. A women is tripped on the stairs and loses her 8 week old fetus, a women’s brawl breaks out and one punches the other in the stomach, ect. All potential murder charges, with enormous civil awards.

Laci Peterson was very heavily pregnant, and murdered by a person who obviously knew he was killing two individuals. The basis for wanting to charge her husband with double homicide was to obtain the highest form of punishment under law (death penalty). This bill, on the other hand, specifically states that the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section. . Furthermore, this law offers fetal 'protection' for even the earliest stages of development, and subsequent prosecution regardless of knowledge or intent.

There’s absolutely no question the purpose of HR1997. It is the first step towards personifying the fetus and eliminating surgical abortion. I see very little commonality between the Laci Peterson case and this, aside from its suggested name. It is a flagrant, short-sighted and misguided attempt to use a tragic situation to gain sympathetic support.

You bring up an important point which should, perhaps, be made even clearer: HR 1997 specifically mentions that an offense "does not require proof that the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim... was pregnant" or that the death was "intended". What has that got to do with Laci Peterson? The examples you mentioned are scary possibilities under this legislation.