The conviction of Scott Peterson for killing his unborn child, Connor, presents a fresh example to highlight a major inconsistency in the law’s recognition of the rights of the unborn child.  The law allows abortion as the mother’s choice to end her pregnancy.  At the same time, the law in many states allows others to be prosecuted if their actions injure or kill this unborn child, even though that child has no legal defense if its mother decides the child is unwanted.

This disparity gets further emphasized in a Michigan case.  A pregnant teenage girl instructed her boyfriend to hit her stomach with a souvenir baseball bat to achieve a miscarriage.  The boyfriend complied, and it took daily beatings for two weeks to achieve the miscarriage.  Once this heinous act was discovered, the boy was charged under the law to protect unborn children from outside attack.

However, the girl cannot be charged because she has the right to abort the child, so a provision in the law exempts her from prosecution.  Thus, the law recognizes the rights of the child, but gives the mother an unlimited pass to violate those rights.

Can equality be reinstated in our laws?  Only overturning Roe v. Wade will make that possible.  Otherwise, for all nine months of pregnancy, the mother gets the “right” to declare her unborn child non-human and dispose of it.  That is what the so-called “right to choose” actually refers to.

On the other hand, if the mother wants an abortion, but the father wants to protect his child, he has absolutely no rights.  Even if the father of the child is the husband of the woman who intends to abort the child, he has no right to prevent the abortion, or even to be notified that it will take place so he could plead his case for the life of his child. 

Denial of the father’s rights is another example that demonstrates why making abortion legal was bad law, violating not only the right to life of the unborn child, but also the rights of the father to protect that child, and the rights of the mother to be protected from a procedure that can have serious impacts on her physical and mental health.  Why are these blatant violations of rights so hard for some people to recognize?

The law became inconsistent and unequal following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision, but maybe these recent cases applying laws to protect the child from outside attack will allow more people to recognize the disparities created by that infamous decision.

Bill Beckman