Does Laci Peterson's baby count?

bruinaphi · #40 04-25-2003, 05:42 PM

I am very concerned about Roe v. Wade as well but I don't think the California pro-life faction will do anything. This law is a result of the 1969 case mentioned by madmax (was added to the statute in 1970) and SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES abortion.

I copied the text of CA Penal Code Section 187:

Quote:

§ 187. Murder defined
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

It is important to note that viability is NO LONGER an element of fetal homicide in California. In the case of People v. Davis (1994) 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 50, 7 Cal.4th 797, 872 P.2d 591, the court stated, "'Viable' fetus, under prior California case law required a showing of viability as prerequisite to convicting defendant of fetal murder, is fetus which has attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus. Viability is not an element of crime of fetal homicide; third-party killing of fetus with malice aforethought is "murder" under statute, as long as state can show that fetus has progressed beyond embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." People v. Davis (1994) 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 50, 7 Cal.4th 797, 872 P.2d 591.