A little background on this case is probably in order. The woman was 21 weeks into her pregnancy when the car in which she was a passenger was hit by the allegedly drunk defendent's car after it crossed the centerline of the road. Six weeks later, the mother went into premature labor and delivered a baby boy. Twenty-four days later, the baby died of intestinal problems and pneumonia attributed to his premature birth. A forensic pathologist testified that the trauma the mother suffered as the result of the crash caused her to go into premature labor. The defense's argument is that the mother's behavior/living arrangements caused the premature labor. The mother has admitted to smoking up to two packs of cigarettes a day for the first fifteen weeks of the pregnancy as well as using cocaine the first six weeks. She is also a recovering crack addict and has admitted (during a trial in which she sought a protection from abuse order) that she was hit and kicked while she was pregnant by the man with whom she was living. (Facts about this case were gleaned from the article that appeared in the Tribune-Review.)

Don't get me wrong. The fact that the mother is in recovery for her crack addiction is fantastic and I applaud her strength and courage at facing her addiction. Her past should not be used against her in terms of her character, but it most certainly can't be ignored either as a contributing or even primary cause for the premature labor. If in fact the defendent was drunk, he should be convicted of drunk driving. But there's no way this man should be on trial for vehicular homicide because unborn children should not have legal rights in this country (and this law is one of the few that gives them any sort of rights)-- and that's the way it must remain unless we want to undermine the entire US Constitution. I know that sounds harsh and/or ridiculous, but think this through with me before you brand me a radical liberal and move on to the next article.

Pregnancy is, at best, a very risky experience for both mother and child. I have personally experienced a spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) and I know the emotional trauma that can accompany that event. I spent hours on end for months wondering what I might have done/not done that caused the miscarriage. After much soul-searching, I finally came to the conclusion that there's no way I'll ever be able to know why it happened. Or what, if anything, I could have done to prevent it. I have known women who have had a wonderful pregnancy from day one. Have had excellent medical care, eaten properly, exercised in moderation, did everything they possibly could to insure that they gave their child the best possible start in life. Pregnancies that were complication-free-- only to have the child stillborn upon delivery with no medical explanation why. On the other hand, I've seen women who smoke every day of their pregnancy, who drink alcohol, don't exercise, miss doctor's appointments, eat lots of junk food, have high-risk pregnancies full of complications and have perfectly healthy babies. Maybe they "beat the odds". But those same odds allow for the reverse to be true too-- healthy babies die unexpectedly for a reason that medical science has yet to understand.

Prenatal medicine is in its infancy. We can say with some degree of certainty that certain behaviors by the mother increase the chances of having below average birth weights or of causing birth defects, for example. But an increased chance does not guarantee low birth weight or birth defects. An increased chance is not a direct cause. Even if these do occur, there is no way to determine with any degree of certainty, that the behavior of the mother is the direct cause or even the primary cause. An as yet not understood combination of factors might create the same results and those results may not affect every pregnant woman or affect every one in the same way. Different people react differently to the same things. For some people, taking penicillin can cause death. For others, it can prevent it. There are too many variables involved, especially when dealing with prenatal medicine. We're still not sure what can and what cannot cross the placental barrier. Or what effect the mother's state of mind has on a baby. Or how environmental factors such as loud noise, pollution, stress-filled workplaces, lack of sleep, etc. effect that baby's chances of survival to full term. Why are some babies born to HIV positive mothers also HIV positive while others are not? We have our theories, we have our speculations. But until we can predict with 100% accuracy which pregnancies will result in a healthy baby and which will not, they will remain just that-- theories and speculations. That's not to say that we should simply ignore warnings about well-established risk factors, such as smoking, drinking and stress. But are those theories enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance of evidence that the two glasses of wine a pregnant woman had with dinner caused the brain damage her child was born with? Or that her high stress job caused her to go into premature labor? Is speculation or best guess enough to prove that going to the gym three times last week instead of her normal two caused the placenta to detach? We can speculate, we can guess, but can we be certain enough to convict someone of taking another's life? Certain beyond a reasonable doubt?

There is absolutely no way to know whether this baby boy would have survived to full term. And there is no way to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that an accident six weeks prior to his birth caused the premature labor. Or whether the mother's smoking during that first fifteen weeks caused her son's lungs to develop more slowly than normal, thereby increasing the danger of contracting pneumonia and decreasing his chances of fighting it off. Or that the cocaine she used for six weeks didn't contribute to the damage to his intestines since we know drug use-- especially early in the pregnancy-- can increase the chance of birth defects. Certainly there can be no doubt that being in a car accident increased the chances of complications, but to suggest that it is the direct cause of this baby's death is another matter completely. Unless it can be proven to be the direct cause-- or even a primary cause, any conviction would be a travesty of justice.

So how does this tie into abortion rights? The key term in the law here is "viable". "Viable" means able to survive outside the mother's womb. Just when a fetus is "viable" has been pushed back as medical technology advances. It used to be that parents feared for a child born even four weeks prematurely. Now children born that early are often released from the hospital within days of their birth. Medical technology now allows a child born at 26 weeks to have an 80-90% chance at survival-- although extensive and very expensive medical intervention is often needed and many such children have permanent medical problems for the rest of their lives. In fact, for babies born as early as 24 weeks (that's a little over halfway into the normal 40-week pregnancy), there's a 40-70% chance of survival. (Survival rates taken from Chances for Survival.)

If the defendent in the above trial is convicted of vehicular homicide, the courts are setting a precedent that an action in the past that has no direct cause/effect relationship is grounds for conviction on charges of homicide. Now let's say a woman who had several abortions gets pregnant. She loses the baby to a spontaneous abortion. The women then sues the doctors who performed the abortions in her past for wrongful death, citing the previous abortions as the reason she couldn't carry a baby to term. The courts have already allowed that no direct cause need be proven, only that an increased risk has occured. The increased risk to a woman's chance of later successfully carrying a baby to term is already established. (Because abortion is legal now and no crime was committed, no criminal charges can be filed, but civil charges are another matter altogether.) Or a doctor is sued for wrongful death by a woman who becomes wracked with guilt for having an abortion and claims coersion on the part of the doctor. Once that happens, a woman's right to choose will effectively be removed, even if such a suit is unsuccessful. What doctor is going to ever perform an abortion if there's even the slightest chance he'll end up defending himself from a wrongful death suit?

The law in Pennsylvania has essentially given unborn babies some of the same rights as those who are already born. In so doing, it has effectively defined when life begins as that time when a baby becomes "viable". There can be no doubt that once a child is out of the womb, that child has all the rights of any citizen of the US. But by giving those same rights to some unborn, anti-choice advocates can now argue that those unborn children who are "killed" before birth but not during the commission of a crime deserve the same protection as those "killed" during a crime (equal protection under the law.) How soon will it be before someone who accidentally bumps into a woman who is 24 weeks pregnant (a viable baby), knocking her against a wall perhaps, will be sued in civil court for wrongful death if she later loses the baby? How long will it be before women who suffer spontaneous abortions at five or six months will be prosecuted for homicide because they smoked or had a couple drinks with dinner?

The argument can then be made that if some rights are given, all rights must be given. After all, we don't just give newborn babies some of their constitutional rights, but all of them. The above mentioned doctors might then actually be charged with manslaughter or murder under current laws. If legal rights are extended to the unborn, any pregnant woman who suffers a spontaneous abortion would find herself the subject of a police investigation into the unexplained death of the fetus. It would be something that couldn't be avoided-- it would be just like any unexplained death of a child or adult that must be investigated by police. Do these women really need/deserve that added emotional trauma?

The position of anti-choice forces is that life begins at conception and therefore all fetuses deserve the protection of the law. But this position is based on a religious belief and because we in the US have the right to freedom of religion, such an argument won't (theoretically, at least) hold up in a court of law. But laws like this one that effectively establish when life begins will work just fine for anti-choice forces since further advances in medical science continue to push back when a fetus is viable. It is inevitable that someday, medical science will reach the point where fetuses can be nurtured in artificial wombs, thereby making every fertilized egg "viable" and effectively eliminating a woman's right to choose. By setting a legal precendent that allows the state to establishes when life begins-- which is a religious belief-- it will also force all citizens of Pennsylvania to live by a belief that may not agree with their own religious beliefs.

The ramifications extend well beyond simply abortion rights and religious freedom. In vitro fertilization procedures, where a fertilized egg is frozen for future use would become illegal. Doctors who discarded unused/unwanted fertilized embryos could be charged with murder. Pregnant women would become like lepers in society: no one would want to touch them or even be around them for fear of a possible lawsuit should the woman lose the baby. Did telling that joke that led to her laughing hysterically cause her to go into premature labor? The IUD, "morning after" birth control and perhaps even birth control itself might become illegal if a fertilized egg has the same rights as a newborn baby.

On the surface the law appears to provide justice for grieving parents when a tragic accident results in the death of their unborn child late in the pregnancy. Especially since it happened while a crime was being committed against them or the driver of the car that hit them was drunk. I doubt the authors of the law intended to undermine the First Amendment or a woman's right to choose or cause society to view pregnant women as social lepers. I can understand how someone could support this law if they didn't take the time to think it through. The real question is how many will still support this law even after reading this article, claiming that the chances of any of this happening are so remote-- about as remote as a completely complication-free pregnancy ending in the birth of a stillborn child.