Unborn baby ruled a body part

[BobK]

Conn. Supreme Court Rules Unborn Child Is Body Part
(CNSNews.com) - The highest court in Connecticut Wednesday handed down a decision that an unborn baby is a part of the body - like teeth, skin and hair - that is eventually shed. The ruling came in the case of Edwin Sandoval, who attempted to cause a miscarriage by giving his girlfriend ulcer medication to induce labor and was convicted of aggravated assault - even though he claimed the unborn child was the target, not the mother. While the woman later gave birth to a healthy son, the Conn. Supreme Court unanimously upheld Sandoval's conviction, stating that the child was part of the woman's body. In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice William Sullivan wrote that "a fetus" might have "its own independent existence" and therefore may be entitled to legal protection. "In other words, the fetus may both be a part of its mother as well as its own individual being," Sullivan added. "Any time I hear about giving rights to fetuses, I get concerned," said Elaine Werner, executive director of the state chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "That's the slippery slope to eroding Roe v. Wade." The ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If an unborn baby is a body part, how can they call it a double murder if a pregnant woman is murdered?

Won't this give an unborn baby a superhuman status in society?

I thought all people were supposed to be equal under the law?

Seems to me they're openning up a new can of worms with this.

[schplurg]

Seems to me they're openning up a new can of worms with this. Yup.

One of these cans is the fact that a fetus has different DNA than the mother, which makes it more than just a body part. I think it's a pretty stupid ruling myself.

Edwin Sandoval argued he could not be charged with attempting to commit aggravated assault because the fetus was the target, not the mother. It seems silly that they had to rule a fetus as a body part just to get an assault charge. Wouldn't introducing a substance to an unwilling person in at attemp to cause a miscarriage be assault on its own since the mother is also affected, and perhaps put in danger by the miscarriage? Isn't the mothers body affected or traumatized during a miscarriage in some way as well as that of the fetus?

It's an interesting legal tactic, but I question whether or not it'll hold up to appeal.
Defense attorney Paula Waite said if the fetus is its own life form, the state's abortion laws are in question. If the fetus is a body part, laws increasing the penalty for assaulting a pregnant woman could be jeopardized.

[BobK]

Good point about the DNA. I hadn't gotten as far as to consider it.

The ruling just seemed patently absurd to me.

I also wonder why the assault couldn't be on the woman. I really don't know anything about the case itself.

[renata]

Originally posted by BobK


If an unborn baby is a body part, how can they call it a double murder if a pregnant woman is murdered?



I assume you are thinking of the Peterson case. California is one of 20 or so states that has laws about fetal homocide. I assume Connecticut is not one of those states

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-laci26apr26,1,1756737.story

... White House urged Congress to revive legislation that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus during a violent crime against its mother.

Known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the bill was first introduced in 1999 and again in 2001.

"The president calls on the House and calls on the Senate to again pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher.

The last time the bill was aired, it passed the House but died in the Senate after a coalition of pro-abortion rights groups crusaded against it, arguing that it was aimed at undermining the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that legalized abortions in all states.

More than half the states, including California, already have laws that allow murder charges to be filed when a fetus is killed during the commission of a violent act. In California, the law also applies even to fetuses that are not viable.

[reprise]

In US States where someone can be charged with the murder of a viable foetus, does that provision only apply if the mother also dies as a result of the act or does the charge of killing an unborn but viable foetus still hold up if the mother survives the event?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I personally don't think it makes sense to think of the fetus as its own person and a body part.

And the DNA argument is very problematic. According to that, does an identical twin count as one person?

What if the fetus was a clone inside the mother? Same DNA and inside then.

I'd simply consider the fetus a body part(as it hasn't attained personhood) but then charge the guy with assault and mayhem. The guy is attempting to remove a body part and that is mayhem.

[Dancing David]

Aren't you assuming that legislation makes sense?

Peace

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by schplurg
It seems silly that they had to rule a fetus as a body part just to get an assault charge. Wouldn't introducing a substance to an unwilling person in at attemp to cause a miscarriage be assault on its own since the mother is also affected, and perhaps put in danger by the miscarriage? Isn't the mothers body affected or traumatized during a miscarriage in some way as well as that of the fetus?
I don't understand, either, why this would not constitute an assault (or technically, a battery - both a crime and a tort) against the mother anyway - and I'm a lawyer. A battery simply involves the unwanted application of force against another person ("force" defined to include the introduction of chemical substances into her body), and this act would seem to qualify. Especially when you consider that the reaction the offender was attempting to provoke (i.e. a miscarriage) is a physiological response of the mother's body (not the fetus' body) to the drug.

I'd have to look into the facts of this case further in order to get a better idea.