Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Dr. L;
I am really trying to figure out this one. :) How did they come to
this conclusion?
I need a little help from you to help me find these answers.
Here is the site I am working off of.
http://www.ca.gov/s/search/topc3a-z.html
Now what would I look under to find the answers to your questions.
I really appreciate your help in trying to explain this decision to me.
I just can't believe an unborn child is worth nothing. And a mother
isn't a mother until she delivers. I am sure there are a lot of
pregnant women who would believe differently. :(
Sue
>
> Greetings all - this is a new post located by Sue and retrieved for us
> by Kathy; I leave it for a future lister to snip. However, I have
> selected as a quote a summary paragraph, and attach 2 questions:
> -------------------------- quotation: --------------------------
> >In summary, the 1988 amendments to section 237.5 protect those "persons
> whose past intimate relations resulted in the birth of a child."
> (People v. Mora, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355.) A pregnant woman is
> not a "mother" and a fetus is not a "child" as those terms are used in
> that section. Accordingly, the section had no application to the
> defendant. The judgment on count one must be reversed."
> ------------------------------- questions: -----------------------
> What is California law on the status of a fetus as a person, in general
> or in other cases? And has the Supreme Court spoken?
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
