NOW and Laci Peterson
If you've been following the news at all lately, you are no doubt very familiar with the Laci Peterson case. The pregnant Modesto woman vanished on Christmas Eve, and the remains of her and her unborn child were discovered on April 14, having washed ashore in California.
Scott Peterson, Laci's husband, was arrested four days later by San Diego police. Peterson had grown a beard, died his hair blonde, and reportedly had a large sum of cash on him. Police had feared he would flee to Mexico. All in all, he looked very, very guilty.
Understandably, not many people lined up to defend Scott Peterson. In fact, about the only people who have defended him are his family. His family, and the National Organization for Women (NOW).
In fairness to NOW, they have not claimed Peterson is innocent. However, they are lobbying that the charges against him be reduced, which could, in effect, get him off with a lighter sentence, perhaps even a slap on the wrist. NOW is insisting that Peterson not be charged with the murder of the unborn child. Marva Stark, president of the New Jersey chapter of NOW, states "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder."
The absurdity of this demand should be obvious, regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. Obviously, NOW supports a "woman's right to chose," and fears that any court case which recognizes a fetus as a viable person might give an edge to pro-lifers. However, the very fact that they support "a woman's right to chose" should make them all the more hostile to Scott Peterson. After all, Laci Peterson didn't choose to have an abortion. Instead, her life and the life of her child were aborted, likely at the hands of her husband. If NOW truly cared about the rights of women, they would insist that he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Instead they, in effect, rally to Scott Peterson's side, a man who probably brutally murdered his wife.
If this were an isolated case, perhaps we could overlook it. But alas, it is not. In 2001, NOW defended another murderer: Andrea Yates. The Houston area chapter of NOW established the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition, which held vigils for Yates, provided courtroom supporters, and raised money for a legal defense fund that Yates' lawyers had set up.
The partisan nature of NOW is exposed when we look at whom they have taken on, and who they have not. Though they took on Clarence Thomas, a conservative Supreme Court Justice, and former Sen. Bob Packwood, an Oregon Republican, they said little to nothing during President Clinton's philandering and sexual harassment. In fact, then-president Patricia Ireland said of the Clinton/Lewinsky episode, "É consensual sex is not illegal harassment and it is not an impeachable offenseÉnor is it in the best interest of our country for the president to resign." One wonders why Thomas and Packwood didn't get the same treatment.
NOW was also very reluctant to criticize O.J. Simpson, even though there was no doubt he was guilty of domestic violence. Everyone became familiar with Nicole Brown Simpson's 911 calls during the Simpson trial, but NOW remained silent. Selective moral outrage is now the name of the game at NOW.
Will things change at NOW? Sadly, the answer is almost certainly no. NOW has become deeply entrenched with left-wing ideologues that care more about politics than women's rights. NOW did much good for women it the early days, but long ago it sold out to partisan politics. Today, you can find it defending murderers, sex obsessed presidents, and athletes who brutalize women. These actions fall well short of the ideals of NOW's Statement of Purpose, which was to bring equality for women. They have failed. If you are a woman and want justice, the crime committed against you had better not include any crimes against a child you are carrying, or have been committed by anyone who is ideologically in line with NOW.
Fortunately, many women recognize the hypocrisy of NOW. Tammy Bruce, a pro-choice and openly gay feminist has written two books, both of which include scathing indictments of what NOW has become. Even Patricia Ireland, former president of NOW, went on television to declare that the case against Scott Peterson was double murder. Predictably, NOW wants no part of these views. Susan Konig of The National Review reports that NOW is distancing itself from Ireland's statement, reminding us that Ireland is no longer NOW's president.
When we look at the kind of people NOW has defended, whether it be through silence or outright lobbying, it becomes obvious the type organization they have become. The next time you hear about the National Organization for Women ask yourself, how is defending a murderer advancing the cause of women's rights?
- John Brown is a senior in political science and history at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com, or visit www.johnnorrisbrown.com. This column was first written in May, 2003.