The local NOW chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby:

“If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder,” Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.

Prosecutors in California announced Friday their intention to charge Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, both with killing his wife and their unborn son. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared Dec. 24.

Both bodies were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.

More than two dozen states, including California, have adopted “fetal homicide” statutes, and prosecutors often will seek a double-murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed.

Stark, is, of course, correct. If a fetus has no rights if a parent wants it dead, then Scott Peterson is guilty–if he is indeed guilty– of nothing more than excercising his right to choose. Or, maybe practicing medicine without a license.

(Hat tip: Drudge)


FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Professor Kaos says:

    This is a classic example of the left proving what hypocrites they are. NOW is allegedly an organization promoting the rights of women and children, yet they have basically given Scott Peterson a free pass on murdering his son.

  2. James Joyner says:

    Yep. But if they admit that it’s murder, than how can they be for “choice” when it’s the mother doing it. So, they have to pretend that he just murdered his wife–again, assuming he did (I really haven’t followed the case)–and that he had no son, just an prospective one that didn’t make it to term.

  3. PoliBlogger says:

    Clearly you have been avoiding Fox News, as it has seemingly become the Peterson Channel.

    It does appear rather likely, I must say, that the man is guilty. I initially (back in December) thought that the speculation about him was unfair given the situation. However,there does appear to be a great deal of circumstantial evidence that makes we think that the probability is quite high the police have the right guy.

    And in regards to NOW, they are being intellectually consistent, although I find their position rather repugnant (to say the least).

  4. James Joyner says:

    By and large, I avoid these “human interest” stories on murdered children and the like. I didn’t even follow the Ramsey case. And, fortunately, the “All-Stars” haven’t talked about this one very much.