How does NOW stand on fetal rights?
NOW backs away from statements by Morris affiliate head.
This article from today's Daily Record (Parsippany, NJ) says in part:
"NOW officials declined to comment Monday on statements made this weekend by Mavra Stark, 'out of respect for (Peterson's) family and what they're going through,' spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said by telephone from Washington.Farmer would not say whether NOW opposes fetal homicide statutes that exist in at least 23 states."
Reading between the lines, I assume that if NOW felt that their position on fetal rights would be seen as respectful to Laci's family and what they are going through, they would have been happy to say what it is. I linked to their 2001 position yesterday.
NOW's public relations attitude on this is consistent with the advice given by the ACLU in their position paper opposing feticide laws.
Some highlights of the ACLU's position paper are:
"And by "rhetorical," we mean that they must take care when they discuss or criticize fetal protection bills; our language should reflect understanding of why many people, including some who are pro-choice, might support fetal protection legislation. While we need to make clear that we respect and sympathize with the many emotional dimensions of this issue, every effort must be made to ensure that fetal protection statutes will not pave the way for government actions that threaten women's rights or reproductive choice."
"While acknowledging the deep emotions that fetuses may evoke for millions of Americans, the ACLU opposes the creation of theories of 'fetal rights.'"
That's quite a sentence. Don't you get the impression that it went through several drafts?
"the deep emotions that full-term but not yet delivered babies evoke in Americans"
"the deep emotions that fetuses evoke in Americans"
"the deep emotions that fetuses evoke in most Americans"
"the deep emotions that fetuses evoke for millions of Americans"
"the deep emotions that fetuses MAY evoke for millions of Americans"
There! Now it's perfect.