Friday, February 03

Oregon Lawmaker Accused of Diverting Money from A Defense Contractor to Bankroll GOP Candidates

A federal lawsuit says Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, misappropriated funds from a military training firm he owns

News State Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) allegedly misappropriated "thousands of dollars" from a U.S. mil... More

Feb 3, 2012 08:34 am by COREY PEIN  | Comments 3
 

Grocery Union Leader and Others React to Anti-Labor Language in New Seasons Market Handbook

News A story in this week's print edition of WW exploring mayoral candidate Eileen Brady's work behind th... More

Feb 3, 2012 08:07 am by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 12
 

Metro Councilor Hosticka Files For House Seat: Updated

News Metro Councilor Carl Hosticka filed last week to run for House District 37, the seat currently held ... More

Feb 2, 2012 06:01 pm by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 0
 

UO Officials Seem to Know Little About $63 Million Athletics Building Going Up on Campus

News Work is underway on the expansion of an athletics building on the University of Oregon campus, only ... More

Feb 2, 2012 12:15 pm by WW Staff  | Comments 0
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · News · Baby-Face Politics
June 17th, 2009 Aaron Mendelson | News
 

Baby-Face Politics

A grisly slaying gives new life to an old idea—criminalizing the killing of a fetus.

11 Comments
     
Tags:
GRUESOME CHARGES: Authorities say Korena Roberts killed a pregnant woman. Should Roberts also face charges of killing the fetus?
IMAGE: Photos courtesy of KATU

The recent slaying of Heather Snively and her 8-month-old fetus reignited a hot-button political issue that’s popped up here and all over America after similar tragedies.

Should Korena Roberts, the woman accused of killing Snively, be charged with a second homicide for cutting out Snively’s nearly full-term baby—a boy who would have been named John Stephen?

State Sen. Bruce Starr (R-Hillsboro) has introduced Senate Bill 982, which would make “the murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or aggravated vehicular homicide” of a fetus a prosecutable offense.

His bill would amend current laws in Oregon that require the fetus to have taken a breath to be considered a victim.

“When there are two dead bodies, then there should be two penalties,” says Gayle Atteberry, executive director of Oregon Right to Life.

Starr, who didn’t return calls from WW, said in a press release announcing his bill: “There is no doubt that there are two victims, two crimes, and two instances where justice must be served.”

But there’s a political subtext here: Such proposals emerged repeatedly from anti-abortion advocates seeking to have the law treat a fetus as a person with rights.

SB 982 is modeled after a measure—which made allowances for lawful abortion and any “acts committed by the pregnant woman”—that passed the then-Republican-controlled Oregon House in 2005. But the measure, House Bill 2020, failed to get through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Starr’s bill is unlikely to pass in the current Legislature, now in its final weeks and controlled by Democrats. But it surely puts Democrats and pro-choice advocates in a tough political spot arguing against criminalizing the death of a nearly-full term fetus under such grisly circumstances.

Women’s advocates fear defining a fetus as a human being will lead to the erosion of women’s rights.

Lynn Paltrow, a spokeswoman for National Advocates for Pregnant Women, says such laws have been misused in the 36 states that have them “against pregnant women who are alleged to have harmed their fetuses.” In Tennessee, for example, Beverly Ferguson pleaded guilty in 2005 to criminally negligent homicide after she delivered a stillborn that tested positive for cocaine.

And Starr’s bill will face opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union, which in 2005 said the fetus-killing bill would “chip away at the legal foundation of a woman’s right to choose abortion.” David Fidanque, executive director of the ACLU’s Oregon chapter, says Starr’s newer proposal would violate due process, as it includes the statement: “It is no defense that the defendant did not know or could not reasonably have known the woman was pregnant.”

While Starr’s proposal troubles many women’s advocates, officials with the local chapters of pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL of Oregon were both reluctant to comment, with NARAL deputy director Laura Taylor saying, “At this point we don’t have any comment out of respect for the family.”

Bill Lunch, a political science professor at Oregon State University, says the bill’s proponents know they’re putting pro-choice adversaries in a bind by trying to use such a high-profile case to establish the legal cornerstone of a fetus being a person.

“The anti-abortion forces have tried a variety of disingenuous tactics,” Lunch says, “to make marginal progress toward their goals.”


FACT: Beyond the 36 states with laws similar to the bill Starr is proposing, there’s also a federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act. But that law is not applicable in the state’s prosecution of Roberts.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
06.17.2009 at 06:26 Reply
No one should be surprised in this day and age of this type of crime and we have the liberal democrats to thank for this. They put no value on unborn life and then wonder why someone would committ such an ugly crime. Furthermore, they scratch their heads when a dad or mom kills their kids in a seemingly random act and I have to ask why are you so surprised? If you allow a parent to kill their unborn kid why should you be surprised when they kill their children after their born. After all in your opinion a child is a choice and has no rights. Why should age make a difference? Until the liberals start valuing all life, this type of crime will continue to happen as they have allowed several generations to grow up with no respect for human life. I hope the libs are proud of what they have done..............I for one am not.

 

06.17.2009 at 10:22 Reply
Oddly I would say that it is because of the people who value "life" be they liberal or conservitve that could have the blame laid at thier feet. The person accused of the crime could have a severe psychological disorder. Had this been know before hand would anyone thought to have this person "removed" for the safety of society? Probably not. There is a wide variety of "life" in the world and not all of it is benificial to the development of socitey as a whole. That which has not had a chance to participate in society and show it's benifit or detriment should not be given any standing in the "life" debate. It exists as people want to think about it not as it is.

This trial should not open an doors on the status of a featus being a "life" or not. It should focus on the one terrible murder and seek to remove the offending individual from society before it can corrupt it further.

 

06.17.2009 at 12:33 Reply
Yep! It's back to the old question of, "When does life actually begin?" To me, it's a "no brainer"--conception. Thus, either way, a "murder" is committed. I'm not judging--just stating my belief that when an egg is fertilized by a sperm and it results in a living organism, by definition is is now "alive." So, should we or should we not value a living organism that just happens to be human as precious? Should anyone have the "right" to snuff out that life (whether it be slain by it's mother's murderer, a mother's doctor, or the mother herself)? Yes. I do believe that HUMAN LIFE IS TOO PRECIOUS TO TERMINATE--unless you are God, of course. - clh

 

06.17.2009 at 07:16 Reply
First off humbleopinion, let's get some grammatical issues out of the way. "After their born" or perhaps more correctly it should be after they're born. Regardless of whether or not abortion is legal or illegal this type of crime would still take place. Show me a statistic that proves murder rates have gone up since abortion was legalized, it's a red herring, a poor argument. I guess that's to be expected from an unthinking conservative like you. As for parents killing their born children, again that is a crime with a history longer than legal abortion.

Dave, not every aborted child is going to grow up to be Mother Theresa, thanks for the levity.

And Carol, what to say about Carol? You have an opinion, however I find it pedestrian.

Bravo Mr. Mendelson!

 

06.18.2009 at 07:31 Reply
......siiiiigh.

Why/how is this MURDER case somehow a "pro-life/abortion" issue? Why the fuck is anyone asking the opinions of TERRORIST groups like OR Right to Life regarding this MURDER case?

And Carol,

If YOU feel that HUMAN life is too precious to terminate, then how about ALL life? All the bugs, the grass you cut, the cows your eat, the bacteria you scrub off your face every moring - airn't THEY"RE lives all precious too?

Didn't your make-believe "God" create all THAT stuff, too?

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close