I subscribe to History.com and get daily "on this day" stuff. Yesterday, June 1, there was this entry which piqued my interest:
From the story:
(Note: The story doesn't give detail, but since it says "the bodies" and gives two separate dates, one can presume that the unborn child had been separated from his mother and "washed up" separately and on a different day than his mother. Did Scott Peterson carve out his unborn son from his mother's womb and kill him separately? I'll need to further read the case - or you can do it yourself.)
Since people kill people all the time in California, and crimes of passion are common (Scott Peterson was in an extramarital affair at the time), the story might have quickly been buried but for a debate that was then raging in the U.S. Congress over what was ultimately named UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2004 ("the Act") at the time the Peterson case went to trial.
Congress passed the Act and President George W. Bush signed it into law. In short, the law states:
Whoever engages in conduct that...causes the death of, or bodily injury...to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty...the punishment...is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(The full act can be read here.)
The Peterson case factored heavily into the debate as evidenced by the fact that the new law was nicknamed "Laci and Connor's Law."
Laci Peterson was Scott Peterson's murdered wife and Connor was their "murdered son."
"Murdered son" is in quotes because at the time, pursuant to Roe, a "fetus" was not defined as a human or a person, but only as "potential life."
As you might imagine, pro-abortion groups, including then-Catholic-presidential candidate John Kerry, vehemently opposed the Act since, of course, it opened the door for legal personhood of "the thing" that was inside "the thing's" mother.
Kerry and his pro-abortion gang were right about the danger of such a law. They knew that once legal personhood of an unborn "thing" was codified into law, it would ultimately lead to the unraveling of Roe, which it ultimately did (Dobbs 2022).
The federal law not only criminalized the harming or the death of "the thing," the law codified "the thing" as a "child...in utero." And, in fact, said "child in utero" even had a name: "CONNOR."
GUAM
In 2012, Sen. Frank Blas Jr. introduced similar legislation:
Bill No. 409-31 (COR) - F.F. Blas, Jr. An act to add Chapter 16 of Title 19 of the Guam Code Annotated relative to Acts of Violence against an unborn child. Received: 1/9/12 - 10:13 a.m.
The bill failed. Here is the voting sheet:
GUAM LAW: "UNBORN CHILD"
...unborn child shall mean a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. - 9 G.C.A. § 17.03 (b)
The penalty for murder of an unborn child shall be the same as the penalty for murder defined in Chapter 16 of Title 9, Guam Code Annotated. - 9 G.C.A. § 17.05 (b)
Pursuant to Guam law, the pro-aborts can still murder their own children, but they are doing just that: murdering their own children.
So instead of "my body, my choice," their mantra must needs be: HIS LIFE, MY CHOICE or HER LIFE MY CHOICE. In fact, why not give him or her a name? Like "Connor" or "Connie." The U.S. Congress did.
BACK TO PETERSON
Scott Peterson was found guilty of murdering both Laci and Connor.
In the murder of Connor, Scott Peterson's unborn son, Peterson was convicted and found guilty under California's Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) [which] defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”
What is quite interesting is that the subject section of California's penal code was expanded to include "the unlawful killing of...a fetus" in or about 1970.
California is known to be one of the most liberal states in the nation. Yet, already in or about 1970, even California recognized the "malice" of "killing a fetus" and by implication, that said "fetus" was in fact a human being and a legal person - otherwise "it" could not be "killed."
It would take "Catholic" Guam nearly half a century and two tries to do the same.
And had it not been for The Esperansa Project and its supporters, the second bill would have probably suffered the same fate as the first.
BTW. Here's the Voting Sheet on the bill that became Guam's UNBORN VICTIM'S OF VIOLENCE ACT.
"THERE IS SILENCE IN THE CLERGY..." - FR. STAN FORTUNA
ReplyDelete