the Peterson verdict is the new hammer on abortion rights, friends

You'd better pay attention to what the right is planning in the aftermath of the verdict that Scott Peterson is guilty of second degree murder of his unborn son.

I saw it on FOX Friday afternoon. (Can't find a transcript.) They were giddy. Why?

Immediately after the verdict was issued, right-wing anti-abortion groups sent millions of e-mails out crowing about the new possibilities for politicization using this case as an illustration for their criminalization of abortion.

Prepare for this new attack.

I'm sure they'll try to spin it that way, but Scott Peterson killing the baby at 8 months(?) is different than a woman having an abortion during the first trimester.

....what they said on FOX. I wish I could find a transcript. It was on Brit Hume's report. Kondrake, Barnes, Hume, and one other fellow who looked a little shocked at the others.

Fox = mouthpice for * regime.

Of course * wants to outlaw abortion.

But this statute is not the way of getting there.

Why do you think there was sooo much press coverage?

....like "NOW you know why there was so much press coverage of what is an ordinary murder trial."

And the wingnuts were waiting immediately to blast e-mail to millions as the verdict was announced.

unborn murder will now be all the rage in the fundy set.

that is? Chargeable as a separate crime for killng a fetus? :shrug:

Why are you watching Fox?

Who is going to report on the tactics of the right if no one is keeping an eye on them?

I've been monitoring freerepublic.com for eight years. I've often found important information there that I pass to certain people who have national distribution, and doing so has kept our side ahead of the other side in some instances.

And occasionally I click on FOX.

I'm seasoned and experienced enough to be able to monitor people who don't think like I do. All of us should peek at them now and then, just as a reality check.

...as long as the restrictions take the health of the mother into account.

I'm not sure how this actually changes anything, although I'm sure the enforced pregnancy zealots wish it did.

The beginning of the end of abortion

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41431

can have any effect on Roe v. Wade.

they are capable of marketing this all over to gain support.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2681236&mesg_id=2681236

Many believe that, despite the anti-abortion effort, it will not be an issue.

Laci was pregnant with a viable child that she intended to have. If she had been able to survive the attack long enough for doctors to get Connor out, he would have lived. But SP killed him by killing her. He showed wanton disregard for her life, and thus, the son's. In California that is murder.


"To convict Peterson of murdering his unborn son, prosecutors would have to prove either that he intended to kill the fetus or knew that it would die as a result of Laci Peterson's death.

The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought."


from this article:

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm

I'm still reeling from the abortion/Dred Scott thing.

The country is bollocksed. I'm just biding my time until it's feasible to leave. ;-)

convicted of murdering an unborn child...like someone posted above, it's hardly the same as having an abortion in the first trimester. They can be giddy all they want - it isn't going to be an issue.

killing people via apathy, ignorance, malice, wild-goose-chase, etc. they are far more guilty for more 'abortions' than the left coul ever be in their wildest imaginations.

the reactionary right is anti-life, they support full-birth abortions! scream it from the mountain tops.

So...if any of the innocents in Iraq were pregnant -- then is The Chimp FINALLY a murderer?

If RvW were overturned tomorrow, abortion would be a state-by-state issue. Even the most conservative SCOTUS justices have shown an unwillingness to nationalize an abortion ban.

The state of California is not going to be banning abortion anytime soon (assuming they could). Yet, in California, one cannot kill an unborn child (or fetus, whatever you'd prefer) without being charged with murder. The point being: One has no legal ramification as to the other.

There's nothing to fear from the Peterson decision (and Laci and Connor's Law) other than its rhetorical value, and while strong rhetoric, is not too hard to combat. The key is to not conflate a third-party's bad act which results in the end of fetal gestation with an abortion. (That's a very easy, and understandibly attactive thing to do.) The pro-life voices out there want to conflate the issues. But doing so is ignorant of the realities of the legal system.

So the real question is, what are you so afraid of? Let pro-lifers harp. Counter it with your own rhetoric, of just ignore it.

since we've heard those two words injected into about every political story for the past 10 days...