Let me start by saying that this lawyer is a publicity hound, so if he says it, he means it.

Posted on Wed, Sep. 28, 2005

Local case may affect abortions

Lawyers for Matthew Bullock hope to overturn the state’s 1997 Crimes Against Unborn Child Act.

By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER tmorgan@leader.net

WILKES-BARRE – In a case an attorney said could potentially impact a woman’s right to abortion, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a Luzerne County man who is challenging his conviction for killing the unborn child of his girlfriend.

Attorneys for Matthew Bullock hope to overturn the state’s 1997 Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, which makes it a crime for a person to cause the death, either through negligence, accident or intent, of an unborn child.

Bullock’s lead attorney, Al Flora Jr., said the impact of the case will reach far past Bullock, however, as the key issue touches on the heart of the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

“It’s really an indirect challenge to Roe vs. Wade,” Flora said. “What we’re saying is, if a woman can intentionally kill a child and not be held criminally responsible, how can a person, such as a man, be held criminally responsible?”

Assistant District Attorney Scott Gartley, who is handling the appeal, said he doubts that argument will prevail. Gartley noted appellate courts in three other states with a fetal homicide law similar to Pennsylvania’s have all upheld its constitutionality.

“A criminal defendant who assaults a pregnant woman and causes the death of a fetus is not similarly situated to a pregnant woman who elects to have her pregnancy terminated by someone legally authorized to do so,” Gartley said.

Whichever side prevails, Flora said it’s a virtual certainty that the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s where the potential to impact Roe vs. Wade would come in.

Bullock was convicted in October 2003 of strangling his girlfriend, Lisa Hargrave, to death inside their Wilkes-Barre apartment in the early hours of Jan. 1. Hargrave was about 22 weeks pregnant at the time. The fetus died in the womb.

A jury found him guilty of third-degree murder but mentally ill for Hargrave’s death, and guilty of voluntary manslaughter but mentally ill for the death of the fetus. He was sentenced to 15 to 40 years for Hargrave’s death, and 5 to 20 years for the fetus, to be served consecutively.

Flora appealed the conviction for the fetus to the state Superior Court, arguing in part that the Crimes Against an Unborn Child Act was unconstitutional because it does not state whether the fetus had to be viable outside the womb at the time of death. Without that, a defendant has no notice that such an act would be criminal.

Flora said the more significant issue in the appeal dealt with the with the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause, which says laws must be applied equally to all people. Flora argued the law is being applied unfairly because it does not penalize women if they take the life of their own unborn child.

The state Superior Court in March rejected both arguments, saying the viability of the fetus was irrelevant because it is clear the law’s intent was to protect an unborn child from the moment of fertilization, therefore a defendant does have notice.

Regarding equal protection, the court said the law does apply criminal liability to a woman - if she causes the death of a fetus other than her own - therefore it is being equally applied.

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear both issues, as well as a separate issue regarding the adequacy of the jury instructions. The court has not yet set schedule when it will hear the case.


http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timeslea ... 759854.htm

My first impression was that this was ridiculous.. but when I really thought about it, that's a pretty good point.

Roe Vs. Wade weighs a mother's rights against the fetus' right. Where exactly do the rights of a man assaulting the mother conflict with the fetus?

well suppose somehow the woman lived, and the baby still died. he would be guilty then, would he not?

Another way abortion could end up in the Supreme Court would be if a doctor performed an abortion in the Supreme Court chamber.

Just giving this a quick logical thought, it's:

people will do the damndest things for publicity. especially lawyers.

In my opinion, it isn't a bad argument. If the fetus isn't a person (which is what abortion laws imply), then what exactly can you charge a person the ends the further growth of said non-person? If a fetus is a person, why can the mother kill it?

I know this case will go the way of the horse & buggy, but if you really think about it, the laws are very conflicting.

They should just be honest and say "Look, the laws we're writing are in the interest of the woman only. If she says it isn't a child, it isn't a child. If she says it is, it is."

But Roe Vs. Wade doesn't say, "a fetus is not a person, you can kill it."

What it says is more like, "a mother has some rights and a fetus has some rights. When the mother's right to do as she wants with her body conflicts with the child's need for that body to survive, who gets the legal priority? Up to a certain point, the mother's rights are priority. After that point, the infant's right to live is more important than the mother's right to do what she'd like with her body."

Someone who attacks a pregnant woman has no right to do things to her body, so the attacker's rights are never inhibited by the fetus.

I didn't say that very well, but the first sentence fragment of my post is correct, maybe PD can explain it better.

If the fetus isn't enough of a human to have a basic right to live then who was harmed in this attack? If your answer is the mother then where does the "harming an unborn fetus" come into play? The woman was attacked, and one of her possessions was taken from her. Isn't that assault and theft?

Again, the mother is the only person that can say if it is a life or not?

This isn't the rationale that Roe is based on at all. There is no balancing of the rights of the fetus, it's not even considered or discussed. It's all about the rights of a woman and her doctor to have a confidential relationship and for the doctor to give the requested medical treatment without state interference.

I'm apparently very dumb today.

Love it!

That reminds me that its almost clementine season.

abortion is legal. It should be legal and it will always be legal. Of course the right to life people believe killing is wrong, yet the believe in the dealth penalty, go figure.
Sometimes abortion is the right thing to do for the baby's sake. I hope this case quickly gets thrown out