Fetal homicide laws protect life, choice

RALEIGH -- Adding another bizarre twist to the death of Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, Onslow County sheriff's investigators are trying to determine whether Lauterbach's baby was born and then killed by murder suspect Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean.

Lauterbach was due to give birth to a girl between Jan. 8 and Feb. 14. The crucial question is whether the baby took a breath outside the womb. If she did, Laurean may be charged with two murders instead of just one. The sheriff's office is being forced to conduct this strange inquiry because North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that does not have a fetal homicide law.

If convicted of first-degree murder Laurean will either be sentenced to death or imprisoned for life without parole. Under North Carolina's "injury to a pregnant woman" law, the death of Lauterbach's unborn child is essentially treated as an aggravating factor that would make Laurean guilty of a "felony one class higher than the felony committed."

Because no crime is more serious than the Class A felony of murder, it doesn't seem to matter whether Laurean is charged with a double homicide. At least that's what state Sen. Julia Boseman, D-New Hanover, says. Convicted murderers are "going to go away forever or die, and adding another charge to it is not going to make them die twice or spend two lives in prison."

But by that logic, anyone charged with first-degree murder should not be charged with any other crime. Think of the time and expense to be saved if we dispensed with multiple convictions. Take, for example, Gary Hilton. Hilton is accused of murdering a hiker in the north Georgia mountains. He is also a suspect in the murder of two hikers killed near Asheville. But why bother? Hilton has already been charged with one murder. What good will it do to charge him with two more -- not to mention another murder in Florida?

l l l

IN ADDITION TO INCREASING THE ODDS OF A CONVICTION, the primary reason prosecutors pursue multiple murder charges -- and judges give concurrent life sentences -- is because the law is about more than simply meting out punishment. As President Bush explained when he signed the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004, "Justice demands a full accounting under the law."

A full accounting requires that every life and every victim be recognized under the law. Setting aside the much-disputed question of whether the child in utero is a person under the law, she is certainly alive -- and when she is murdered, she becomes a victim. Justice requires that this victim status be recognized and that the murderer be punished accordingly.

The parents and grandparents of these children understand this. Kevin Blaine, father of Jennifer Nielsen, who was eight months pregnant when she was murdered last June in Raleigh, was quoted as saying, "For us, as families that have had this tragedy happen, we just can't understand why the state doesn't recognize an unborn child." Blaine didn't say he wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. What he wants is what every victim wants -- to be recognized. And with this recognition, to be protected.

Some people fear that laws protecting the unborn victims of violent crime will be used as a precedent for reversing Roe v. Wade. Speaking on behalf of colleagues in the General Assembly who blocked the passage of a fetal homicide bill (HB 263/SB 295) last session, Sen. Boseman warned: "This [bill] is looked at as a back door way of going in and taking away a woman's right to choose, and right now the General Assembly supports a woman's right to choose. Many of us do, and given the makeup, I don't think a bill like that would have any chance right now."

l l l

IN THEORY, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT SUCH A LAW could be used to question the rationale of Roe v. Wade. In theory, though, fetal homicide laws provide just as much support for the presupposition that only the mother has the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Maria Lauterbach, a rape victim, had many reasons to abort her baby. She chose not to. What right did Lauterbach's murderer have to take this choice away from her?

Yet under current state law, if Lauterbach's attacker had only assaulted her, causing her to miscarry, her assailant would likely have been convicted of a Class I felony, which usually results in community service or probation. Would this have been just? If we can't all agree that abortion should be illegal, can't we at least recognize that the murder of an unborn child should be treated as more than just a legal footnote?

Fetal homicide laws protect both life and choice. This is why such laws have passed in at least 36 states, weathering several constitutional challenges along the way. It's a shame that even as North Carolina legislators espouse their commitment to protecting a woman's right to choose an abortion, they deny legal protection to the pregnant mom who chooses to carry her baby to term.