LAW SHOULD PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR UNBORN

In a crucial case with Carolina ties, the United States Supreme Court
has refused to hear an appeal from a drug addict who was sent to
prison for murdering her stillborn child.

Regina McKnight is serving 12 to 20 years in South Carolina for
killing her daughter. McKnight tested positive for cocaine in the
hospital and admitted she had used crack cocaine while pregnant. The
stillborn baby girl had drugs in her system.

McKnight's lawyers challenge her conviction as cruel and unusual
punishment. Pro-choice groups oppose South Carolina's obvious
protection in this case of fetal rights, out of fear that anything
designed to protect an unborn child could later be used to reduce
abortion rights. And proponents of laws that increase fetal rights
typically hedge their bets by saying the rules are only meant to go
after abusive husbands, rapists or other attackers who harm a fetus
while committing a crime against its mother.

The American Public Health Association, American Psychiatric
Association, and the National Association of Social Workers are among
the many organizations that are standing behind an
unborn-child-abusing crack-addict in her effort to be freed from prison.

"It's quite disturbing in terms of women's autonomy over their bodies
while pregnant," said Wyndi Anderson, director of South Carolina
Advocates for Pregnant Women.

But if we aren't going to protect an unborn child from its own mother,
then why bother protecting it from anyone or anything?

A woman whose infant is stillborn because of her willfully unhealthy
lifestyle is just as guilty as if she'd started her drug habit after
the baby's birth, and then abused or neglected the child to death -
regardless of the implications regarding abortion rights.