A Woman's Right to Choose... ?

A Woman's Right to Choose... ?
by Julie Foster

California is such a curious state. We pride ourselves in our tolerance of just about everyone and everything. We accept the homosexual lifestyle, we allow women to have abortions on demand, we give our kids condoms so they can have "safe sex," and we reward underachieving students in inner cities. We make sure that our laws protect the actions and lifestyles of which we are so tolerant. Some of those laws created around tolerance are quite curious indeed.

Right now, California law defines manslaughter as the "unlawful killing of a human being." Murder is defined as the "unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought." You'll notice that "fetus" does not appear in the definition of manslaughter.

Thus someone (like a drunk driver) who injures a pregnant woman without intending to kill her, but does kill her fetus, is not guilty of a homicide in California.

There have been several attempts to create consistency between the murder and manslaughter statutes, but all have failed in California. That fact, however, did not deter Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian (R-North San Diego) from giving it another go.

Assembly Bill 722, authored by Assemblyman Kaloogian, would have added "fetus" to the manslaughter statute. I had the privilege of attending the hearing of this bill in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. I was astounded at the response it was given by the Democrat members of the committee.

The author's arguments centered on the fact that when the police collect enough evidence to charge someone with murder, they can also charge that person with manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is a lesser included offense in murder. Therefore, it is inconsistent to include "fetus" in the definition of murder, and not also include it in manslaughter.

The opposition's response: "a woman has a constitutionally protected right to an abortion."

What?

The author spent the rest of the hearing trying to get the opposition to explain how they got from "consistency in the law" to "a woman's right to an abortion." The very fact that both the murder and manslaughter statutes define themselves as the "unlawful killing" automatically excludes abortions, which are "lawful" killings.

Another argument made by the opposition is that for the first time, California would subject a pregnant woman to criminal charges for actions she may take that inadvertently kill her fetus. I shudder at the thought of what "inadvertent" actions a mother might engage in that would kill her own fetus, but nevertheless, I see their point. Mr. Kaloogian apparently saw it, too, and offered to amend his bill to exclude the mother from criminal prosecution.

"Sounds good," I thought, "they can't argue against that."

I was wrong.

Not only did they refuse the proposed mother's exemption, but they consistently rejected all further amendments offered to appease their concerns.

It's strange to me that this issue should be partisan. But the only members of the committee that chose to question the validity of the opposition's arguments were Republicans.

When the opposition said they did not want to equate the fetus with a human being under the law, the Republican committee members pointed out that this bill says "human being or a fetus," thereby making a very clear distinction.

When the opposition claimed that they cannot support the bill because of its breadth, the Republicans limited it to vehicular manslaughter. When the opposition claimed that even with the mother's exemption, they would still oppose because the woman's husband, mother, or best friend could be driving the car, Republicans said they would exempt the driver of the car in which the pregnant woman is riding.

When it became clear that under no circumstances would the bill be supported by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Association of University Women, Assemblyman Jim Battin (R-El Centro), asked the opposition whether, if they had their druthers, would they support a repeal of the 1970 law that added fetus to the definition of murder. They would not answer the question.

One witness in support of the bill was a woman who, twelve years ago, was one week from giving birth. A drunk driver smashed into her car, instantly killing her soon-to-be born child. Four days later, she gave birth to her dead daughter, Katie. Katie's mother brought poster-sized photos to the committee, showing mother and daughter in the hospital just after Katie was born. Another showed Katie, just shy of seven pounds, lying dead in a pink nightie.

There was not then, and never has been, any justice for Katie and her mother. Katie's killer walks free today, because he is not guilty of any crime against her.

Just before the committee voted on AB 722, the chairman, Assemblyman Mike Honda (D-San Jose), looked Katie's mother in the eye and said that his vote was not a reflection of how he felt about her loss. He said that sometimes we cannot let our hearts rule over our heads. He then proceeded to vote "NO," along with every other Democrat on the Committee, including Assemblyman Carl Washington, a reverend from Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Gloria Romero, also from Los Angeles.

In voting "NO," the committee Democrats told their constituents that Katie's killer and others like him should never be punished, prosecuted, or otherwise held accountable for their actions-actions that kill unborn children.

What is so disturbing to me, as a woman, is that we do so much talking about choice-a woman should be able to choose to have a career, a woman should be able to choose to be married, a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion-and we have managed to protect these choices under the law, but we will not protect a woman's choice to keep her child. Where's the tolerance now?

www.american-partisan.com