this makes me sick. - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

aexchange · 04-22-2003, 08:46 AM

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm

Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate

By Rob Jennings, Daily Record

The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.

"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.

Prosecutors in California announced Friday their intention to charge Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, both with killing his wife and their unborn son. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared Dec. 24.

Both bodies were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.

More than two dozen states, including California, have adopted "fetal homicide" statutes, and prosecutors often will seek a double-murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed.

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.

"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."

Fetal homicide laws have been opposed by some pro-choice organizations that fear they will undermine a woman's right to choose an abortion, even though the statues exempt legal abortions.

After watching news reports of Peterson's arrest, Stark expressed concern with the tone of the coverage.

"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."

Some pro-lifers hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Laci Peterson's due date was Feb. 10, and she already had picked out a name -- Connor -- for her unborn son. Stark said that added to the tragedy of the case, but shouldn't result in an additional murder charge.

"He was wanted and expected, and (Laci Peterson) had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent," Stark said, adding that the issue was "just something I've been ruminating on."

There is no fetal homicide statute in New Jersey, considered one of the nation's most pro-choice states. Under California law, murder charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks.

To convict Peterson of murdering his unborn son, prosecutors would have to prove either that he intended to kill the fetus or knew that it would die as a result of Laci Peterson's death.

"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."

The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought.

Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek the death penalty against Peterson, who will be arraigned on Monday. He is being held in the Stanislaus County Jail.

Stark said that despite her opposition to the double-murder charge, she is not sympathetic to Scott Peterson. "I'd like to see them string him up," Stark said, "any way they can."

what a bunch of idiots!!!

Dooby · 04-22-2003, 08:54 AM

Can't not comment.

If you have ever read the actual Roe v. Wade opinion, you will see that this is actually a very big issue. Without getting into the actual outcome, Roe is a terrible opinion based on terribly flawed, almost bizaare, legal reasoning and legal manuevering. For example, one of the cases frequently cited in Roe is Griswald, but actually Griswald was heard and decided after Roe, the Roe opinion was held back until after Griswald was published, so that Roe could be based on some case authority.

aexchange · 04-22-2003, 08:58 AM

the difference here is that peterson did want to have the child.

in addition, the child was 8 months along term. medically, a child can survive outside of the womb at 8 months.

sturm und drang · 04-22-2003, 09:37 AM

Agree with Dooby on one point, at least: this is indeed a huge issue legally.

Bush and Republican legislators are actively trying to imbue fetuses with legal rights-- a small, but effective, step in rendering the fetus a human being. As such, abortion would then be murder. As with a majority of women, I am adamantly pro-choice and am thus violently opposed to current and pending legislation that pushes the fetus closer and closer to legal personhood. (See the recent "Defense of the Fetus" act that serves to protect the fetus from external harm, a la the Peterson case. It is widely regarded as the first step down the path of establishing legal personhood.)

It is myopic to look at the Peterson case and simply see that this fetus was wanted-- and thus claim that the abortion issue isn't relevant. By establishing the fetus as an autonomous homicide victim, it is yet another step in establishing any fetus as an autonomous human being.

Dooby · 04-22-2003, 09:43 AM

While I am sure that Sturm and I disagree on a lot of things about this issue, what she is saying is accurate.

Except for the part that a majority of women are adamantly pro-choice and violently opposed to current and pending legislation that pushes the fetus closer and closer to legal personhood. Opinion polls just don't bare that out under any interpretation.

southern_sweets · 04-22-2003, 09:57 AM

I agree with Sturm on this too. Not to start a debate on a very emotional issue, but it is sad to me that some that strongly oppose abortion will use this case and Laci Peterson's murder as a way to promote their views and push their politcal agenda.

Also, I believe from what I've read that the majority of women in the U.S. are pro choice.

sturm und drang · 04-22-2003, 10:05 AM

Dooby, every poll I've ever read has said that a majority-- albeit a small majority-- of Americans support a woman's right to choose. And women are slightly more prone to be pro-choice than men.

Indeed, A 1999 New York Times poll showed that most people (almost 60%) felt the government should stay out of decisions on abortion, and 75% are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

Interestingly, socio-economic and educational backgrounds are extremely influential in how a woman views abortion. A 1998 Gallup data show that women who have completed four years of college have the highest level of support for abortion rights -- 73% were pro-choice. Women who have attended some college but less than four years were pro-choice by a margin of 59%. Of women high school graduates, only 37% were pro-choice. Conversely, men's attitudes on abortion remain stable regardless of educational attainment. Interesting, isn't it?

Similarly, I'm sure you could reference an array polls that refute those above, though I tried to utilize non-biased sources. How you can "lie" with statistics is quite another topic altogether! Not trying to open Pandora's box here, but just wanted to verify that the statement I made about the majority of women being pro-choice was rooted in research I'd read; whether or not it's the actual truth, I think, is very murky. With issues like abortion, I think it is particularly difficult to get a true reading on the public's opinion.

Dooby · 04-22-2003, 10:05 AM

Do you guys like we are not actually talking about the issue?

There is a difference between hard pro-choice, and soft pro-choice, you would be surprised to see how soft most people who identify themselves as pro-choice are on the issue. At least from the polls I have seen, albeit I admit most were confined to Texas. But there is not a poll in america that shows that a majority of americans are opposed to a ban on what are referred to as "partial-birth" abortions.

And it was the local NOW president that interjected herself into the issue. She has since retracted, BTW. The law in question has been on the books for a couple of years. Pro-life-ers did not interject themselves into the Laci Peterson homicide case, it was the pro-choice-ers. And just so you know the law in question cam about because there were several cases similar to eachother where a boyfriend or husband stabbed or beat a pregnant women in the stomach intending not to kill but to terminate the pregnancy. State legislators thought (rightfully so, IMO) that a maximum charge of assault (carrying a relatively light sentence) was not appropriate.

Also, many people would challenge the notion that the NYTimes is an unbiased source. But I suspect the polls are accurate. BTW, I once helped give a workshop on poll interpretation. Poll interpretation is a topic very dear to my heart.

aexchange · 04-22-2003, 10:16 AM

<< in addition, the child was 8 months along term. medically, a child can survive outside of the womb at 8 months. >>

pretty cut and dry here.

Murphy3 · 04-22-2003, 10:24 AM

i know they can survive as young as 22 weeks..but, the chances at that age aren't that good

Drbio · 04-22-2003, 10:32 AM

Aex- my twins were born 10.5 weeks early. Much earlier than one month. And damn are they hosses now. Eating me out of house and home these days.

The only comment I have about htis is that the Peterson case should not be used for this kind of debate. Poor family. That California law that allows for murder charges to be filed on unborn children "if the mother didn't want it to be terminated" is going to come under great scrutiny.

sturm und drang · 04-22-2003, 10:33 AM

I agree with you that abortion-- with all its different medical defintions and legal shadings-- is probably the most difficult issue to ascertain true opinion. There are just too many shades of gray.

Anecdotally, 100% of my female friends-- I am not exaggerating, strange as it would seem-- are pro-choice. Then again, I went to college in New England and tend to surround myself with rather liberal people. I don't think Texas is a good indication of the way the rest of the nation feels about abortion, as you mentioned... and I do think a slight majority of women, as Sweets said, support a woman's right to make a choice. Now as to when she makes that choice and the options that are available to her... whole 'nother issue entirely.

I read "How To Lie with Statistics" a few years back, and it was indeed eye-opening. I will never again look at polls and surveys so naively and trustingly. It's amazing the sleight of hand that can be attained with clever and or nebulous phrasing, demographic selections, etc.

Dooby · 04-22-2003, 10:34 AM

If you turned your PM's on, I'd tell you an interesting story.

sturm und drang · 04-22-2003, 10:35 AM

RE: Peterson case... can someone explain to me which people in her family support him? I read yesterday that some members of her family "unwaveringly" believe in his innocence, but I saw a press conference this morning with her father that seemed to indicate he didn't feel that way.

I'm confused.

sturm und drang · 04-22-2003, 10:36 AM

<< If you turned your PM's on, I'd tell you an interesting story. >>

I'm too technologically inept to figure it out on my own, believe it or not! How does one go about doing that?

Murphy3 · 04-22-2003, 10:38 AM

it is unfortunate that the vultures would so quickly jump on this case to try and strengthen possible legislature..

OutletPass · 04-22-2003, 10:44 AM

Roe is a terrible opinion based on terribly flawed, almost bizaare, legal reasoning and legal manuevering.

Dooby...one thing that struck me during law school was how many Sup Ct opinions seemed to be result oriented with the reasoning and precedent cobbled together, almost after the fact, to justify the result. Though I agree with the ideas behind ROE, I found the opinion to be as you describe.

Don't you think most decisions from the Supremes have some "legal manuevering" behind them ?

{leaving space for KG to add his .02 on this one)

Like Sturm, the women that I know are strongly pro-choice. Sarah Weddington being one of them.

Dooby · 04-22-2003, 10:46 AM

Click on "Profile"; Go to "Allow Private Messages: On Off"; select "On".

I think HIS family is unwaivering in its support. I think her family is coming to the realization that their son-in-law is a bad liar and a killer.

Dooby · 04-22-2003, 10:55 AM

<< Roe is a terrible opinion based on terribly flawed, almost bizaare, legal reasoning and legal manuevering.

Dooby...one thing that struck me during law school was how many Sup Ct opinions seemed to be result oriented with the reasoning and precedent cobbled together, almost after the fact, to justify the result. Though I agree with the ideas behind ROE, I found the opinion to be as you describe.

Don't you think most decisions from the Supremes have some "legal manuevering" behind them ?

{leaving space for KG to add his .02 on this one)

Like Sturm, the women that I know are strongly pro-choice. Sarah Weddington being one of them. >>

Yes, most supreme court decisions have a lot of legal manuevering behind them and are result oriented. But Roe is an extreme example. Blackmun's notion that a fetus is not a person because it isn't counted in the census as described in the constitution in 1789 is laughable. And I find the notion of Griswald as precedent to be infuriating.

OP, I think I am closer to law school than you are. I don't know what you remember, but my Con-law class drove me nuts. I am a pretty big Hofheld fan (which I picked up in my Contracts course) who believes in corresponding rights and duties and privileges and no-rights of individuals. I deplore penumbras and the "ratchet theory".

sturm und drang · 04-22-2003, 11:03 AM

Okay, I am now PM-enabled! Yay!

I can't wait for law school. Sigh.

OutletPass · 04-22-2003, 11:12 AM

Totally agree with the problems that you have with Roe, Dooby...and yes, you're closer to law school, as I did my time in the early 70's.

I had the good fortune of studying under Charles Alan Wright who was not only my prof...but my "football coach" for the UT law school intramural team (at the time that he represented Nixon, for a very short time, as Watergate was unfolding...and I can call him a good friend. I'm sure that you've heard of him...he died relatively recently and had written the hornbooks on conlaw.

Since I still do legal analysis on a consulting basis, I do keep up...and can't say that I disagree with you. Roe was a bit more bizarre than most decisions in it's use of Griswald and in Blackmun's invention. My point was simply to stress that so many opinions seem to have odd reasoning behind - with the result reached ahead of time and later justified.

And it still seemed to me to be that way after 20+ years of trial practice.

Just wondering what you thought.

Lindahl has always seemed a bit more rich to me than Hofheld, but that's for another day and time...not sure many here would be interested in that discussion !

I think the Peterson prosecution re: the unborn child is going to be VERY interesting to us lawyer types...and to the factions on both sides of the choice issue.

Strange that no one is talking about the evidence against him...you'd think something would be leaked by now. I keep looking and see nothing...but I'm sure that will come soon enough.

Dooby · 04-22-2003, 11:42 AM

And when we are done, we can have a hate-crime legislation discussion! Party! Party! Party!!!

OutletPass · 04-22-2003, 11:44 AM

Doobs, you are TOO funny !! I can't top that one, brother !

Murphy3 · 04-22-2003, 11:57 AM

hate crimes are overrated

LRB · 04-22-2003, 12:06 PM

Wow just wanted to add my 2 cents on this topic. This is incredibly horrible that the Pro-choicers would choice to put up a major fight here to protect a murderer. I can only believe that this will hurt their cause in the long run. I don't think that most Americans are on the extreme ends of the abortion issue but somewhere in the middle. Although I am much closer to the Pro-life than Pro-choice end, I find my self sliding more to the middle whenever nutjobs start blowing up abortion clinics and another inane activities. I think the same will be for people who are more on the Pro-life end. Certainly many mothers will be offended by an organization which fights to keep from fully punishing a man who murdered the mother and her viable fetus.

BTW I would certainly condemn Pro-lifers for using this case to better their ends as well.

LRB · 04-22-2003, 12:07 PM

<< hate crimes are overrated >>

BTW how many "I commited the crime because I really like you" crimes have you heard of?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

MavsFanFinley · 04-22-2003, 12:58 PM

<< RE: Peterson case... can someone explain to me which people in her family support him? I read yesterday that some members of her family "unwaveringly" believe in his innocence, but I saw a press conference this morning with her father that seemed to indicate he didn't feel that way.

I'm confused. >>

I'm a little too close to this subject as I'm from Modesto. And there are some connections between my family and Laci's.

I won't even comment about the first topic, but wanted to clear up what Sturm was asking.

At first, Laci's family was in full support of Scott and claimed he wouldn't have a thing to do with her disappearance.

But, when it came to light that he wasn't helping in finding Laci, that he cut himself off from Laci's family, that he wasn't being truthful with the police, when it came out he was having an affair with a woman in Fresno, CA, and that he had taken out a $250,000 dollar life insurance policy just a few months before...Laci's family started pleading with Scott to be upfront, to help the police. To tell them everything he knows, etc...

The only support Scott has right now is his parents. Who have claimed that the police are framing Scott, that we ran him out of Modesto, went as far as to say a seriel killer is responsible for Laci and her son's murder.

So, no Laci's family is not in support of Scott at all. And if you heard the press conference yesterday from the family, you would know just how Laci's mother feels about Scott.

Ummmmm Ok · 04-22-2003, 02:16 PM

For those that have not seen it.

CBS NEWS FOOTAGE