Laci and Conner's Law

The U.S. Senate last week passed The Unborn Victims of Violence Act by a vote of 61-38. The law criminalizes acts of violence against pregnant women that harm the unborn child. The bill has been dubbed "Laci and Connor's Law," after Laci Peterson, the California woman and her unborn son who were murdered in 2002.

The bill was widely supported, but did have its share of critics. Most of those who oppose it are pro-abortion zealots such as Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and her allies at the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). These groups believe this law is part of a covert conspiracy to overturn Roe v Wade. Such paranoia is unhealthy to say the least, but it is common among these pro-abortion crusaders. They tend to make up a fairly strong voting bloc, as evidenced by presidential candidate John Kerry showing up to vote against the bill, despite having missed almost two-thirds of Senate votes this year.

The great irony of these politicians' and political group's opposition to Laci and Connor's Law is that they are, in effect, defending individuals such as Scott Peterson. If Peterson is indeed guilty, and is convicted, he would receive a less severe sentence if the opponents had their way. One would think that as advocates for women's rights, they would support punishing those who harm women as harshly as possible. Unfortunately, even the punishment of killers takes a backseat to protecting abortion, which appears to be the most important issue in their lives.

Pro-abortion groups have plenty of blood on their hands, even if you do not include the over 30 million abortions since 1973. Take for instance NOW's support of Andrea Yates. You may remember Yates as the Houston women who drowned her five children in a bathtub in 2001. Almost everyone was appalled by this gruesome act. Everyone, that is, except NOW. 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. I find it difficult to believe any group that could defend someone like Adrea Yates could care about the rights of anyone.

Abortion is a divisive issue that has been debated for years. Everyone has an opinion about it, and because we may disagree does not mean that one of us is automatically evil. But it is perplexing that groups such as NARAL hold "Pro-choice parties." According to NARAL's website, "nearly 300 parties were held from coast to coast, and everywhere in between; from Fargo, ND to Lafayette, LA; from Louisville, KY, to Reno, NV." It is one thing to believe abortion should be legal, it is quite another to celebrate it with parties.

By way of comparison, let's say the state of Tennessee executed a criminal, a rarity in this state. Let's say groups of death penalty supporters across the state met and held pro-execution parties. It's hard to imagine anyone regarding these parties as anything other than what they would be: grotesque celebrations of death. The fact that the execution was against a particularly notorious criminal and was justified would be irrelevant. Such celebrations would be roundly condemned. Why should it be any different for pro-abortion parties?

What makes people so preoccupied with abortion to the point they view just about anything as being an attack on the sacred "right to chose?" How can this obsession lead people to defend killers like Andrea Yates? Or to disregard murdered women like Laci Peterson?

The answer is an unhealthy obsession with a procedure all rational people would agree is brutal. How individuals can be led into such a cause is anyone's guess, but history is replete with examples of huge numbers of people using generic causes like "equal rights" and "social justice" to justify the unthinkable. Using a woman's "constitutional right to chose" (though, try as I might, I can't find abortion mentioned anywhere in the constitution) to defend murders is no different. Pro-choicers love to tell us abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." In that case, it should be discouraged, not promoted with parties and endless marches.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a group that exploits Christianity (and other religions) to promote its pro-abortion agenda, informs us "Radical Right political groups like the Christian Coalition have been so vocal that it sometimes seems they've drowned out moderate and mainstream views such as ours." Apparently, pro-abortion parties and support for killers is now considered "moderate and mainstream."

If that's the case, I think I'll cast my lot on the fringe.

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 originally appeared in the April 1, 2004 edition of The Daily Beacon, available here.