ucmpage.gif (9365 bytes)


N.O.W., Roe v. Wade and Laci Peterson (Part II)

by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Ret.

Rather than decide Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would have served the nation best by sustaining the provisions of the Tenth Amendment, which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

But, "we are where we are" and the issue refuses to go away. The murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn baby once again focuses the nation's attention on whether or not a pregnant woman's unborn child should be accorded protection of the law. N.O.W. argues that a fetus does not merit protection, but California law states in Section 187 (a):

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

Does that make California's law unconstitutional? How can California enforce the provisions of Roe v. Wade and simultaneously make killing an unborn child, murder? It is this writer's opinion that this part of California law is legal schizophrenia and is unconstitutional on its face. Either Roe v. Wade is Constitutional or it is murder to kill an unborn child, it cannot be both. In the purely logical context N.O.W.'s argument is correct, that is, given Roe v. Wade a fetus is unprotected. But in defending its logic, N.O.W. puts itself at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans and in the process, marginalizes itself even further. It has been well established by medical science that an unborn child is a living being. For N.O.W. or anyone to argue otherwise may make legal sense under Roe v. Wade, but it denies biological and objective fact, which itself raises serious questions about the veracity of the "Law."

In a May 6th, 2003 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court in a logically tortured argument stated,

"We are persuaded that a five week old fetus constitutes a part of the mother's body and, therefore, is a ''member'' of her body."

then proceeds to dash its own argument by stating,

"we are unwilling to presume that the legislature, in enacting 53a-70a (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (2), sought to protect a person's ear, tongue and skin but not a developing fetus living within, and physically attached to, the mother."

If the "developing fetus living within, and physically attached to, the mother" is real and alive, which it irrefutably is, then it is not a part of the mother's body, and the court even accedes to the fact that it is "living within" the mother. Therefore, since the "fetus" is living and developing within a mother, and since it possesses different DNA than that of the mother, and thus has its own identity, the court belies its own statement that it is a part of the mother's body. The only logical and also irrefutable conclusion that can and must be reached is that the "fetus" within the mother is a living, developing being which a narrow segment of society through the Courts and absent Legislative courage to change, condemns to death by summary abortion. To be continued.

Semper Fidelis

What do you think about this article?
Write a letter to the editor at: http://www.bulletinboards.com/view.cfm?comcode=gulf1msw
Please do not replyto this E-mail.
Comments should be sent to <mailto:cheetah@gulf1.com>
If you do not wish to receive these editorials from Bob Pappas please use the form at: http://www.gulf1.com/remove.htm

Copyright May 9th, 2003, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed.


<Back to News