MODESTO, Calif.—The case involving the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son have abortion-rights advocates running for cover.

If a jury convicts Scott Peterson of killing his wife and son, Connor, he could face execution. By law, however, Connor could have died the same day at an abortion clinic without anyone getting charged with even a petty offense.

Laws in California and 23 other states allow prosecutors to seek murder charges when the victim is an unborn child. In all of those states, because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal. In some, including California, abortion is allowed throughout the third trimester.

“For anyone who's following this case, it has to drive home the lie that sustains the abortion industry,” said Dan

Caplis, a Denver attorney who is an expert on the issue. “The lie is that what's terminated in an abortion is something other than a person. For this to have been a double murder, however, the so-called ‘fetus’ has to be a person endowed with rights.”

Caplis, who is Catholic, said the defense team in Scott Peterson's case might have no choice but to raise the abortion issue in his defense should a death penalty sentence appear imminent.

“This is a potential death-penalty case only if he's convicted of double murder,” Caplis explained. “Therefore, the defense attorney may argue that the death of Connor does not equate to murder. The defense can point out that because it would have been lawful to abort Connor, his death cannot be considered murder.”

That argument has already been made in California, Caplis said, in a case involving a robbery that resulted in the death of an unborn child but not the mother. In that case, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that because the mother could have lawfully killed the child, the baby's death should not be considered murder.

“But that doesn' mean the case won' be made again on appeal, if Peterson is convicted of double murder,” Caplis said.

The whole dilemma so frightened pro-abortionist Marva Stark, president of the Morris County, N.J., chapter of the National Organization for Women, that she spoke publicly April 19 to denounce the double-murder charge against Peterson.

“If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted they could call it murder,” Stark said. She continued by explaining how a murder conviction for the death of Connor could set a damaging precedent that would call into question legalized abortion.

In California, the Peterson case had people talking about the rights of unborn children even before Stark made her statement.

“At least this case is raising awareness, and that comment from the National Organization for Women helped raise awareness even more,” said Nancy Bonnet, director of the respect life office of the Diocese of Stockton, Calif., to which Modesto belongs. “The National Organization for Women is suddenly good for the pro-life cause, and I hope they keep talking. They don' come across as loving and caring when a ranking official says that whoever killed this child should suffer no consequence because it wouldn' look good for the abortion industry.”

Pro-abortionists figured that out quickly, however, soon after Stark's comments sent shockwaves throughout the country. Former NOW president Patricia Ireland spoke to TV cameras in a rushed effort to counter Stark and concede that whoever killed Laci and Connor Peterson committed double murder.

However, at press time the National Organization for Women headquarters in Washington, D.C., had issued no official statement about the double-murder charge. When asked whether NOW concurred with Ireland's statement, a spokeswoman told National Review Online only that Ireland no longer speaks for the organization.

Caplis said he hopes the Peterson case, or a similar high-profile murder case involving an unborn child, could make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court would be asked to uphold or strike down state laws that allow murder charges involving unborn victims.

“It could force the court to look at the underlying flaw in Roe v. Wade, which is the lie that says a fetus is something other than a person,” he said. “You can' have a murder victim if the victim isn' a person with rights. Yet the key to Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court's unwillingness to recognize an unborn child as a person with rights.”

In other words, the court might find that it can' have it both ways. If it allows states to punish killers of unborn children as murderers, Caplis said, it might have to allow states the option of outlawing abortion as well.

In 26 states, prosecutors have no good options when a criminal's conduct results in the death of an unborn child even if the aggression occurs only days before the expected delivery date. Caplis found that out the hard way in Colorado, where he represented a client whose baby died at eight months’ gestation because a drunken driver collided with her car.

“I tried to get a judge to force the district attorney to charge the drunk with vehicular homicide, but he refused to do it,” Caplis said.

Laws that allow murder charges involving unborn children face serious opposition, and not only from the abortion industry. The American Civil Liberties Union formally came out against such laws in 1996, saying a pregnant woman and her “fetus” should never be regarded as separate independent entities.

“We have serious reservations about legislation designed to protect fetuses, because it can endanger women's rights by reinforcing claims of ‘fetal rights’ in the law,” said an ACLU position statement.

In the wake of Stark's comments, leading abortion proponents are refusing to comment about the Peterson case.

Calls made by the Register to the National Abortion Rights Action League and its state chapters in California and Colorado were not returned. Rebecca Farmer, national spokeswoman for NOW, did not return calls. Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for Free Choice—a pro-abortion organization denounced as “fraudulent” by the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—refused comment.

“This is an absolute no-win [situation] for the abortion industry,” Caplis said. “The industry is realizing that very quickly, and it will go as low profile as it possibly can regarding the Peterson case.”

Feminist author and journalist Pamela White, who describes herself as “ardently pro-choice,” said so-called choice activists fear the pro-life movement will wrongfully exploit the death of Connor Peterson to further its cause.

“Nobody's suggesting that his death isn' awful, and I can' imagine anyone in the pro-choice community thinking it's terrible for the suspect to be charged with double murder,” White said. “And yes, Connor was human, and I don' believe he was a lizard or a parakeet. But as long as that child is living inside of its mother, then she has a choice whether or not to participate in the arrangement. The killer of that child didn' have choice in this matter.”

Caplis said arguments such as the one posed by White illustrate the insanity of a culture in which abortion is lawful while other acts of aggression against the unborn are punishable by death.

“California law tries to deal with the hypocrisy issue by providing for a murder charge against a victim who isn' technically defined as human,” Caplis said. “The wording allows for charges if the suspect's victim is a ‘human’ or a ‘fetus.’ But that's a charade, because it's a homicide charge. You cannot be charged with homicide if what you killed isn' human. It's not homicide in this country to kill a dog.”

Wayne Laugesen writes from Boulder, Colorado.