Well, we all know that actions have consequences. And District Attorneys are the ones we have charged with initiating prosecution of people who break the law. However, I think we’re seeing headline-seeking more than we’re seeing true concern on the part of these lawyers. And . . . there could be a secondary agenda of some “pro-choice” activists.
In 2003, Texas passed the Prenatal Protection Act which, like the Federal law nicknamed “Lacy and Connor’s Law,” enabled the prosecution of anyone who kills a child due to an “unlawful” act. Abusive husbands and drunk drivers can now be tried for the death of unborn children. The law specifically excluded any acts of the mother or any medical professional she hired. (I know, it still allows abortion and the destruction of embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics, but it was a small step forward.)
A benefit of that law was the definition of a human “individual” as beginning at fertilization.
In 2005, we passed a new Medical Code that included several restrictions on those doctors who perform abortion. The doctors now have a requirement to get parental consent or a court order before performing abortions on minors and all abortions done after the 16th week must be done in a facility that is equiped like an ambulatory surgical center and there are stronger prohibitions on abortions in the 3rd trimester.
For a while now, some of the lawyers in Texas have been saying that , because the combination of the existing homicide laws and the Prenatal Protection Act includes the possiblity of the death penalty for those convicted of killing an unborn child with the newer illegality of performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent, that doctors are now at risk of the death penalty.
The whole idea is an exageration of the scope of the laws. And, to affirm that the docs are not really in danger of the death penalty when and if they perform an illegal abortion, Representative Swinford, the Republican Chair of the House State Affairs Committee has officially asked State Attorney General Abbott to give a ruling on the interpretation of the law.
(of course, if the doc kills a child any time after he or she has a birth certificate, he could be at risk of the death penalty, too.)
LifeEthics 
>You have some seriously screwed-up laws :(Its those moral crusaders – on both sides. So dedicated to their cause, they wont let little things like common sense or facts get in their way.The pro-life side is by far the worst for that – though the pro-choicers arn't entirely innocent.Remember the… what was it called… some state law that mandates women seeking abortions are warned that the procedure may increase the risk of breast cancer? Even though the study that found the link was discovered to be flawed, and the results could never be reproduced?Or the Fetal Pain Awareness Act? That one is just rediculous… someone finds out that if you poke at a fetus it can wriggle, and by the time that has made its way through the political chain of chinese whispers its turned into clear evidence that a fetus feels terrible pain… which must also be used to ensure all abortions come with an unhealthy serving of guilt.'Pro-life'? The term, and the whole movement, has been hijacked by extremists. Just look at how many anti-abortion organisations are also strong supporters of abstinance-only education programs. Most of them – even though arguably the best way to prevent abortions is to stop women becoming pregnent. So why the contradiction? Because those organisations all believe 'sex is evil' – they view sex as the problem, and abortion as a symptom. If all women would just be good little Christians and stay virgins until the marriage bed, then everything will be fine – they will raise their five children somehow. They have a loving family, and that makes everything alright. Who needs money when you have two parents? Heterosexual, of course, because they also believe gays are icky.And those few more moderate pro-life people now… cant even state the simple medical fact that pregnency begins at implantation and not conception without the screams of 'traitor!' starting up.Reminds me of an article… most of the things on The Nation are from the extreme left, but this one actually seems to make sense:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/pollitt
Posted by Suricou Raven | July 14, 2006, 11:36 pm>Siricou,The actual model for the prenatal pain legislation came from UK legislation. You have the breast cancer connection with abortion exactly backwards. Back in the '70's (before the legalization of abortion on demand in the US), breast cancer was sometimes called the "nun's disease." I would like to know which study you cite for the breast cancer info – or any of those points, for that matter.
Posted by LifeEthics.org | July 15, 2006, 4:06 am