The Real Agenda of the Pro-Abortion Crowd

April 23, 2003

A woman is murdered.   A pregnant woman, at that.   She’s eight months along.   Naturally, the assailant is charged with killing two people, right?   Well that’s what the police say but some are objecting.   It’s interesting how a high-profile murder case can help shape the abortion debate – especially the partial-birth abortion debate.

Scott Peterson is charged with the murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son.   But pro-abortion groups like the National Organization for Women are throwing a fit over Peterson being charged with two counts of murder.   Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark told a local newspaper in New Jersey, “If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder.”   Isn’t this the same crowd that says the whole partial-birth abortion argument is a fabrication of the right wing?   Understand what she’s saying.   In her eyes it’s OK to abort a child at eight months.

Here’s the problem.   Most states have fetal homicide laws on the books.   They vary as to exactly when the fetus is a human but they all agree that at eight months there’s no question.   Reasonable people understand that killing a baby at eight months gestation is murder.   However, if that mother were to decide that she no longer wanted that baby, the NOW crowd would call it an abortion.   At that late date it’s called a late-term or partial-birth abortion, due to the nature of the procedure.   Now, what’s the difference in Scott Peterson killing that child, if that proves to be the case, and the mother killing that child?

There, of course, is legal precedence in this area.   According to Court TV, “In Pennsylvania, where a woman was convicted [last month] of murder for causing a romantic rival to miscarry her 15-week-old fetus, the 1999 law applies to any stage of pregnancy.”

Ms. Stark of NOW says Laci “had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent.”   You see, Ms. Stark and the radical left see their argument beginning to crumble and they’re willing to sacrifice what reasonable people all agree is a human life in order to further her political agenda.   They’re more worried about precedent than a little baby.   Their total disregard for human life is frightening.

Reasonable people can disagree on exactly when life begins.   As Ronald Reagan used to say, he wasn’t sure when life began but preferred to err on the side of life.   Does it begin at conception?   Is it when the baby first has a heartbeat?   Is it at the moment of “quickening” – when movement is first felt in the womb?   These are reasonable questions in the abortion debate.

What is the undisputed truth is that a child that can clearly live outside the womb is a human being.   There is no question about that.   Still, the pro-abortion crowd wants abortion-on-demand at any point before birth.   This has led to the brutal death of thousands of babies each year in partial-birth abortions where unwanted children are murdered under the guise of legal abortion.   Both our United States House of Representatives and Senate have voted twice to ban such barbaric and atrocious procedures only to have that vote vetoed by former President Clinton.

We now have a president in the White House who understands this issue.   The unfortunate death of Laci Peterson has exposed the defenders of partial-birth abortions for who they really are.   Perhaps some good can come of this tragedy.   Perhaps the eyes of a nation will now be opened to the point of outrage and countless innocent lives can, at last, be saved.