It is hard to figure out exactly what the priorities of Bush Administration really are since they are covered with so many layers of obfuscation and double talk.  Thankfully though, that administration’s days are numbered.  Not even W would be so arrogant as to think he doesn’t have to leave the White House after the Chief Justice swears in the next president.  Part of me would actually like to see the outcome of that fiasco.  I am trying to decide which would be funnier at the moment W standing out on the balcony with his tie wrapped around his head ala Rambo shouting, “Never give up… and never surrender!”  Alternately it could be Secret Service agents dragging him away while he shouts “This ain’t over!  There are ways around this Law.  I’ll get you John!  I gave you your job and I can take it away!”  Then as W disappears into the crowd never to be seen again Jerry Springer would come out and give a little closing monologue about the tragedy.

Sometimes I am just too easy to amuse.  Other days I am just too easy to piss off, Read the full story

We have gone too far this time in niche laws and micro niche terminology.  NFL player Charles Grant, of New Orleans Saints, has been arrested and charged with feticide.  That means he is being charged with killing both a woman and her fetus.  The laws have gone too far.

Is it more of a crime to kill a woman than it is a pregnant woman? Do we really need an extra crime with different penalties?  Do we really need to make up shit just to impress the media?  Fact, this idiot was involved in a gunfight, whether he did the actual shooting or not, and this woman is dead.  Why do we need so many extra laws when the people who make them have a hard enough time abiding by the ones we had?

The fact is I know what this law is on the book and I dislike it even more than most, extra laws.  This law exists for anti-abortion activists who hope and dream of one day charging doctors with murder.  These are usually the same people who coincidentally say the government shouldn’t be interfering in people’s lives. Of course they only mean theirs and only when it comes to paying taxes or providing welfare for other people.

Aside from this being a niche law put into effect to satisfy someone’s constituents it also puts us in a very slippery situation.  If we are to define a fetus as a person and child in their own right, we must apply the law evenly across the board.  Pregnant women who drink or smoke are abusing their children.  Pregnant women employed in potentially dangerous environments would be guilty of child endangerment; this includes waitresses who might be around a lot of second hand smoke.  Miscarriages for any number of reasons could make a woman guilty of negligent homicide.

Not only are the serious crimes potential landmines, but the ones where the data is questionable could lead to all sorts of legal implications.  If a pregnant woman and those they interact with don’t do everything every study says is beneficial they would be guilty of at least neglect or violating the fetus’s human rights and dignity.  Imagine telling your boss he must now address your expanding belly as a person because you are both employed here now.  Imagine the battle over some women not putting headphones on the bulge to introduce music.  Imaging the battle if you play it AC/DC over Bach?

If any of that sounds silly then the entire notion of a law giving legal personhood to a fetus should too.