The gall to hinge your entire argument on the other side not hiring an intern to read through the actual laws in question… I would have loved to be in the room when they concocted that approach and had to convince themselves nobody would double-check their work and find the third paragraph.
Maybe I'm dense but I don't think this is a close question. Whatever legal vacuum may be left by the federal born-alive act is filled, is it not, by the federal unborn victims of violence act? When someone attacks a pregnant woman in a federal jurisdiction, and "thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury... to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." And generally, "the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment
provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother." So, in other words, the punishment for battery, assault, or murder. Equal protection. The attack on Laci and Conner Peterson was a double murder, and you can't murder a non-person. (Note: I'm not a lawyer either, but I can read the law...) That did not, of course, include abortion, and could not have done so under Roe -- nor can an abortion the woman consents to be, in the first instance, an assault or battery upon her (unless a separate law were to make it so). Just sayin'.
Well, we know THAT ain't true of any De Civitate reader!
"The attack on Laci and Conner Peterson was a double murder, and you can't murder a non-person."
I have read this whole case and most of the briefings, but it was a month ago, so forgive me if I any of the details wrong.
The defense's argument was that, by a strict interpretation of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the UVVA did not elevate Conner Peterson's death to murder. Instead (according to the defense), the UVVA actually created a new crime, "causing the death of an unborn child." This crime is punished exactly the same as murder, but is not murder. Moreover, according to this court (in flagrant defiance of the Born-Alive Act's neutrality clause and the dictionary), the victim of "causing the death of an unborn child" is not a person.
If you squint hard enough, and ignore BAIPA and dictionary evidence, you can see where they're coming from. In theory, Congress *could* outlaw, say, camping on federally protected land, and Congress *could* punish that crime exactly the same as murder. (It would be insane, but they could do that.) If Congress did that, it would not turn federal land into a person and it would not turn camping into murder; it would turn camping on federal land into a crime *punished like* murder but otherwise distinct from it.
That's pretty much how the 10th Circuit chose to construct the UVVA. I share your intuition that this is a fairly crazy-pants way to read the UVVA, given its intent, but I didn't really delve into the counter-arguments -- because I think the BAIPA fail should have short-circuited this whole case before any questions about the UVVA were raised.
That's, again, my month-old memories, and I can't recall what I had for dinner two days ago, but hopefully sheds some light on the 10th Circuit's logic.
Thanks! Reflecting on this some more, I don't think it can be the federal UVVA that was used to indict Scott Peterson, as it was enacted two years after the killing -- which is why it could be called Laci and Conner's Law, and Laci's family lobbied for it. That would have been an ex post facto indictment. Maybe another, vaguer law?
One more fun fact: The UVVA does say the killing of the unborn child cannot be punished by the death penalty, and some may say aha! So killing the unborn is not like murder? But no, that was added so that organizations like mine, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, could support it. We had long opposed federal death penalties and couldn't support adding another one. That clause is not because the unborn child is not a person, but because even the perpetrator is one. In 2021, Peterson was re-sentenced to life in prison without parole.
I confess, I recognized your name instantly and texted my mom: "Richard Doerflinger is reading De Civ!" but figured you must get that all the time. Now that you've come out as yourself, though: thanks for all your work bringing this about. At the time, I was often frustrated that "all" we achieved in the Bush years was UVVA and BAIPA (I was a cynical teen), but, now, I see them as crucial foundations for the next steps of the movement.
As for Scott Peterson, I *think* he was convicted under California's state feticide law. It's long enough ago that I'm having a hard time remembering how that got turned into the decisive push for a federal law, but thank God it did.
With regard to 1 USC 8(c), it is possible that Adams’ lawyers violated their ethical duty to bring it to the attention of the court. https://www.appellateinsight.com/2019/12/31/legal-ethics-candor-to-the-courts-adverse-authority/
I did not realize this was in the Rules of Professional Conduct -- once again exposing my extremely narrow knowledge of the practice of law. Thanks!
Is this true nation-wide? Or just in California?
The gall to hinge your entire argument on the other side not hiring an intern to read through the actual laws in question… I would have loved to be in the room when they concocted that approach and had to convince themselves nobody would double-check their work and find the third paragraph.
Maybe I'm dense but I don't think this is a close question. Whatever legal vacuum may be left by the federal born-alive act is filled, is it not, by the federal unborn victims of violence act? When someone attacks a pregnant woman in a federal jurisdiction, and "thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury... to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." And generally, "the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment
provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother." So, in other words, the punishment for battery, assault, or murder. Equal protection. The attack on Laci and Conner Peterson was a double murder, and you can't murder a non-person. (Note: I'm not a lawyer either, but I can read the law...) That did not, of course, include abortion, and could not have done so under Roe -- nor can an abortion the woman consents to be, in the first instance, an assault or battery upon her (unless a separate law were to make it so). Just sayin'.
"Maybe I'm dense"
Well, we know THAT ain't true of any De Civitate reader!
"The attack on Laci and Conner Peterson was a double murder, and you can't murder a non-person."
I have read this whole case and most of the briefings, but it was a month ago, so forgive me if I any of the details wrong.
The defense's argument was that, by a strict interpretation of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the UVVA did not elevate Conner Peterson's death to murder. Instead (according to the defense), the UVVA actually created a new crime, "causing the death of an unborn child." This crime is punished exactly the same as murder, but is not murder. Moreover, according to this court (in flagrant defiance of the Born-Alive Act's neutrality clause and the dictionary), the victim of "causing the death of an unborn child" is not a person.
If you squint hard enough, and ignore BAIPA and dictionary evidence, you can see where they're coming from. In theory, Congress *could* outlaw, say, camping on federally protected land, and Congress *could* punish that crime exactly the same as murder. (It would be insane, but they could do that.) If Congress did that, it would not turn federal land into a person and it would not turn camping into murder; it would turn camping on federal land into a crime *punished like* murder but otherwise distinct from it.
That's pretty much how the 10th Circuit chose to construct the UVVA. I share your intuition that this is a fairly crazy-pants way to read the UVVA, given its intent, but I didn't really delve into the counter-arguments -- because I think the BAIPA fail should have short-circuited this whole case before any questions about the UVVA were raised.
That's, again, my month-old memories, and I can't recall what I had for dinner two days ago, but hopefully sheds some light on the 10th Circuit's logic.
Thanks! Reflecting on this some more, I don't think it can be the federal UVVA that was used to indict Scott Peterson, as it was enacted two years after the killing -- which is why it could be called Laci and Conner's Law, and Laci's family lobbied for it. That would have been an ex post facto indictment. Maybe another, vaguer law?
One more fun fact: The UVVA does say the killing of the unborn child cannot be punished by the death penalty, and some may say aha! So killing the unborn is not like murder? But no, that was added so that organizations like mine, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, could support it. We had long opposed federal death penalties and couldn't support adding another one. That clause is not because the unborn child is not a person, but because even the perpetrator is one. In 2021, Peterson was re-sentenced to life in prison without parole.
I confess, I recognized your name instantly and texted my mom: "Richard Doerflinger is reading De Civ!" but figured you must get that all the time. Now that you've come out as yourself, though: thanks for all your work bringing this about. At the time, I was often frustrated that "all" we achieved in the Bush years was UVVA and BAIPA (I was a cynical teen), but, now, I see them as crucial foundations for the next steps of the movement.
As for Scott Peterson, I *think* he was convicted under California's state feticide law. It's long enough ago that I'm having a hard time remembering how that got turned into the decisive push for a federal law, but thank God it did.