HARTFORD, Conn. – Activists on both sides of the right-to-life debate were unhappy when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled May 7 that a fetus is a body part, akin to teeth, skin and hair that are eventually shed.

Pro-lifers say it demeans the humanity of the unborn. Pro-abortionists say fetuses shouldn't even have the rights a body part has.

The court unanimously upheld the conviction of Edwin Sandoval, who tried to induce an abortion by forcing two abortifacient pills into his girlfriend's body. He argued that he couldn't be convicted of attempted assault because the fetus was the target, not the mother.

She later gave birth to a healthy baby boy.

The court cited a law that prohibits the assault with the “intent ... to destroy ... or disable permanently a member or organ of [her] body.” The court determined that while the fetus is not an organ, it could be considered a “member” of the woman's body.

“In light of the state's compelling interest in protecting life and limb, we are unwilling to presume that the legislature ... sought to protect a person's ear, tongue and skin but not a developing fetus living within, and physically attached to, the mother,” Chief Justice William Sullivan wrote.

“The fetus is not a blob of tissue. I have a daughter and when I gave birth to her, I wasn't ‘shedding’ anything,” said Susan Smith, president of the Pro-Life Council of Connecticut.

Supporters of legal abortion opposed the ruling because Sullivan issued a concurrent opinion in which he acknowledged the possibility that the fetus might have “its own independent existence.”

“Any time I hear about giving rights to fetuses, I get concerned,” Elaine Werner, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, told the Associated Press. “That's the slippery slope to eroding Roev. Wade.”

But pro-life activists said the case is about assault and has nothing to do with legal matters behind Roe v. Wade.

“Twenty-six states recognize the fetus as a second victim,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. “[It] does not deal with abortion. It's about assault, which is the action of third parties who attack or injure unborn children along with their mother.”

He noted that the Connecticut decision comes on the heels of the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Her body was found in April on the eastern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Laci's suspected killer is her husband, Scott Peterson. Because California has a 1970 law that considers fetuses as victims in assault or homicide cases, Peterson could be charged for Conner's death as well.

“In the recent Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll, 84% of Americans said two homicide charges [in the case] are appropriate,” Johnson noted. Only 7% in the poll stated the law should have one count of homicide.

Johnson said states with unborn-victims laws recognize the fetus as a victim even if the fetus wasn't the target – and even if the attacker didn't know the woman was pregnant.

“As the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in upholding the Minnesota unborn victims law [State v. Merrill, 1990], ‘The possibility that a female homicide victim of child-bearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude,’” he said.

Johnson said that even the abortion lobby's policy organization agrees that unborn-victims laws have nothing to do with the question of legal abortion.

“Even the [pro-abortion] Alan Guttmacher Institute admitted it's constitutional,” he said. “All of the challenges have been unsuccessful. The courts have universally resisted the argument that this is inconsistent with Roe v. Wade. Yet the abortion lobby continues with this argument.”

Cathy Cleaver, spokeswoman on life issues for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has a mixed reaction to the ruling.

“Obviously it's a contorted stretch to call a fetus a ‘member’ of the woman's body,” Cleaver said. “But it was for the purpose of making the bad guy guilty.”

The process of looking for a law to prosecute the defendant, however, has established some peculiar legal precedents, she said.

“But they've created a mess because they've said the fetus is like a nail,” she added. “[The case] doesn't make any sense logically, and it could be a problem in the future.”

She said there is an easy solution to the dilemma.

“There needs to be an Unborn Victims of Violence Act in Connecticut. You wouldn't have to go through these machinations,” Cleaver said.

Connecticut recently passed a bill increasing the penalty for assaulting a pregnant woman but stopped short of recognizing the fetus as a victim. Gov. John Rowland is expected to sign the bill that punishes such assaults with sentences of 10 to 25 years in prison.

Sandoval was sentenced in 2001 to 12 years in prison for using ulcer medication in an attempt to abort the fetus.

Joshua Mercer writes from Washington, D.C.