We're all innocent until proven guilty, including Scott Peterson.

Now that the Iraq war is over, press attention has turned to him and his culpability in the murder of his wife, Laci, whose body was discovered on Good Friday after she had been missing since Christmas Eve. The story has been unanimously assumed by most of the media and most Americans.

But what about Conner, the Petersons’ already-named unborn son, whose fully developed body was also discovered by police washed up on a California shore?

By California law, Conner is as much a person as his mother, Laci. Because of the Golden State's fetal-homicide law, Scott Peterson could face capital-murder charges in the killing of both his wife and unborn son.

But Conner would not be considered a legal person in every state. Currently only (but at least) 26 states have laws on the books that recognize the non-abortion-related killing of an unborn child as a homicide.

While Americans — or at least the media — have their attention fixed on the Peterson case in California, Congress should act on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, making Conner the poster-child of a federal law recognizing the legal lives of future Conners.

Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would ensure unborn children killed in the commission of a federal crime against pregnant women would be treated as legal persons by the law.

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, in the Senate and Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa., in the House of Representatives have already reintroduced the bill. The president has asked that Congress pass the legislation this year.

“The president does believe that when and unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said in April.

But there is no guarantee of smooth sailing to passage for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Pro-abortion groups, who at least will take a stand against violence against pregnant women, are vociferously opposed to legislation that would allow unborn victims of non-abortion-related homicides any legal status. Such laws — the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, specifically — “threaten women's rights” National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (recently renamed NARAL Pro-Choice America — or, Our World Revolves Around Abortion, But We'll Never Admit It) has said.

But the pro-abortion groups are not too enthusiastic to rally in opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence of Act right now — which is precisely why they should be made to face their own positions.

In regard to the Peterson case, in the days immediately after the two Peterson victims’ bodies were discovered, separately, a National Organization for Women chapter head from New Jersey blurted out her true feelings — and the party line. Marva Stark told the press, protesting a possible Peterson double-murder charge: “If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder,” she said.

Stark's position was wholly consistent with everything her gals support — they’re against fetal-protection laws, they’ve long avoided using the words “pregnant mother.” They very clearly oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Never give an inch to protecting innocent life from death.

But in the Peterson case, the pro-abortion sorority did not want to be so obvious, with the image of Laci and talk of Conner on television sets and news stories — and makeshift memorials dedicated to them both. However much they agreed with her sentiments, Stark's sisters in pro-abortion feminism quickly fell silent, therefore, knowing the emotion surrounding the Peterson case would make their political position simply untenable.

After all, as one poll recently revealed, 84% of registered voters nationwide agree that a double-homicide charge is appropriate in the Peterson case. Most people see the homicide of a pregnant woman as a crime with two casualties. That's too much for the pro-abortion movement to handle. So much for Laci's right to choose.

In a letter supporting the legislation, the family of Laci Peterson — Conner's maternal relatives — writes: “As the family of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, this bill is very close to our hearts … Knowing that perpetrators who murder pregnant women will pay the price not only for the loss of the mother but [also] the baby as well will help bring justice for these victims and hopefully act as a deterrent to those considering such heinous acts.”

To use the Peterson case as an opportunity for passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act this year would not be the scoring of a cheap political point for the pro-life movement but would be an opportunity to codify a life-affirming law. We owe it to the late Conners of the world.

Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online and an associate editor of National Review.