The unborn child, it seems, is becoming something of a "person". This last year, the Texas Legislature passed a Laci Peterson law -- patterned on California's surprisingly conservative definition of an "individual" in its Penal Code. The Texas version, located in Texas Penal Code Sec. 1.07 (26) defines an "individual" as "...a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."
The law had bipartisan support and was specifically enacted, at least nominally, to prevent or punish murders such as the gruesome Laci Peterson case in Modesto, California. It seems, however, the logical conclusion of such wording has not escaped the attention of one enterprising, and courageous District Attorney. Rebecca King, the 47th District Attorney in Amarillo, Texas has decided to test the limits of Laci's law in an interesting and controversial way.
Ms. King's office recently filed charges against a woman who delivered her 6th "crack baby"; i.e. a baby who was born under the influence of crack cocaine due to the mother's use. King filed charges and the grand jury has returned indictments) on the mother (and 4 others as of this date) for knowingly delivering a controlled substance to a minor under Texas Health and Safety Code -- a 2nd degree felony carrying punishment of up to 20 years in prison. That particular code does not define "individual", but does define "person" as an "individual" -- which under the Texas Penal Code -- includes a fetus receiving crack cocaine from its drug addicted mother. She obviously knew she was pregnant so the mens rea element is satisfied and the ingestion (or inhalation) of crack delivered the substance to her baby while in her womb -- the evidence of which was gathered at the birth of the victim here. That is not the only theory available to prosecutors in this case, however.
The Health and Safety Code also defines "person" as "any other legal entity" THS Sec. 481.002(33). Since, prosecutors argue, the fetus has been given legal rights under the Texas Penal Code "it" is now a "legal entity" and should therefore be granted due rights under the Health and Safety Code.
Either one of these definitions might expand the rights of the unborn from the right to not be murdered (known by some as a "right to life") as well as crimes such as these drug crimes and assaultive offenses. The logical conclusion to all of this is of course, if no one else can kill a fetus, then why can a doctor? Doctors cannot kill my 96 year old Grandmother and neither can anyone else. She has rights under the Penal Code. Is there no Equal Protection under the laws for this fetus -- just as there is for my grandmother? And me? At least can we not agree that is absurd -- on its face -- to allow one "individual" to be intentionally slaughtered while protecting all other individuals? Either all individuals are protected or none are.
The law had bipartisan support and was specifically enacted, at least nominally, to prevent or punish murders such as the gruesome Laci Peterson case in Modesto, California. It seems, however, the logical conclusion of such wording has not escaped the attention of one enterprising, and courageous District Attorney. Rebecca King, the 47th District Attorney in Amarillo, Texas has decided to test the limits of Laci's law in an interesting and controversial way.
Ms. King's office recently filed charges against a woman who delivered her 6th "crack baby"; i.e. a baby who was born under the influence of crack cocaine due to the mother's use. King filed charges and the grand jury has returned indictments) on the mother (and 4 others as of this date) for knowingly delivering a controlled substance to a minor under Texas Health and Safety Code -- a 2nd degree felony carrying punishment of up to 20 years in prison. That particular code does not define "individual", but does define "person" as an "individual" -- which under the Texas Penal Code -- includes a fetus receiving crack cocaine from its drug addicted mother. She obviously knew she was pregnant so the mens rea element is satisfied and the ingestion (or inhalation) of crack delivered the substance to her baby while in her womb -- the evidence of which was gathered at the birth of the victim here. That is not the only theory available to prosecutors in this case, however.
The Health and Safety Code also defines "person" as "any other legal entity" THS Sec. 481.002(33). Since, prosecutors argue, the fetus has been given legal rights under the Texas Penal Code "it" is now a "legal entity" and should therefore be granted due rights under the Health and Safety Code.
Either one of these definitions might expand the rights of the unborn from the right to not be murdered (known by some as a "right to life") as well as crimes such as these drug crimes and assaultive offenses. The logical conclusion to all of this is of course, if no one else can kill a fetus, then why can a doctor? Doctors cannot kill my 96 year old Grandmother and neither can anyone else. She has rights under the Penal Code. Is there no Equal Protection under the laws for this fetus -- just as there is for my grandmother? And me? At least can we not agree that is absurd -- on its face -- to allow one "individual" to be intentionally slaughtered while protecting all other individuals? Either all individuals are protected or none are.
posted by Troy at 11:52 AM
.bmp)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home