GLOBAL

Some laws seek to protect or otherwise recognize the fetus. Some of these grant recognition under
specific conditions: the fetus can legally be a victim of a crime such as feticide,
a beneficiary of insurance or social assistance, or an inheritor of property.

The American Convention on Human Rights is a treaty signed by 24 Latin

American countries in 1969, which states that from the moment of conception, human beings
have rights. It came into force in 1978.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law introduced into Congress in 1999
which defines violentassault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two
victims: the woman and the fetus she carries.[1] This law was passed in 2004 after
the murder of Laci Peterson and the fetus she was carrying.

In 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush announced a plan to ensure health care coverage
for fetuses under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).[2]

Iranian law holds that anyone who brings about a miscarriage must pay a monetary fine,
which varies depending upon the stage of development and/or sex of the fetus, in
compensation.[3]

The Hungarian constitution enacted in 2011 states that the human life will be protected from
the moment of conception.

Right-to-life and legal personhood

Legislative measures sometimes seek to establish a right to life of the fetus from the moment
of fertilization. These laws protect the fetus as another member of society.

The 1978 American Convention on Human Rights states, in Article 4.1, "Every person has
the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the
moment of conception." The Convention is considered binding only for the 24 of 35 member
nations of the Organization of American States who ratified it.

In 1983, the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, also known as the "Pro-Life
Amendment", was added to the Constitution of the Ireland by popular referendum. The new
Article 40.3.3 read "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard
to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as
practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

In 1993, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held that the constitution guaranteed a
right to life from conception, but that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion
in the first trimester, providing that women agreed to undergo special counselling designed to
discourage termination and "protect unborn life".[citation needed] The intermediate decision was the
result of an attempt to join East Germany's abortion law to that of West
Germany after reunification in 1990.

Other governments have laws in place that state that fetuses are not legally recognized persons:

In Canadian law, under section 223 of the Criminal Code, a fetus is a "human being ... when
it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has
completely breathed, it has an independent circulation or the navel string is severed." [4]

Much opposition to legal abortion in the West is based on a concern for fetal rights. Similarly
many pro-choice groups oppose fetal rights, even when they do not impinge directly on
the abortion issue, because they perceive this as a slippery slope strategy to restricting abortions.[5]
Most recently, as of November 5th, 2014 two personhood amendments have been struck down in
North Dakota and Colorado. "In Colorado, Amendment 67which sought to update the states
criminal code to define fetuses as childrenfailed by a large 64 percent to 36 percent margin. It
marks the third time that Colorado voters have rejected personhood. Reproductive rights advocates
are celebrating the defeat of both measures as an important victory against personhood." [6]

Behavioral intervention
Various initiatives, prompted by concern for the ill effects which might be posed to the health
or development of a fetus, seek to restrict or discourage women from engaging in certain behaviors
while pregnant. Also, in some countries, laws have been passed to restrict the practice of abortion
based upon the gender of the fetus.

Many jurisdictions actively warn against the consumption of alcoholic beverages by pregnant
women, recommending a maximum intake or total abstinence, due to its association with Fetal
alcohol syndrome. Countries that encourage those who are pregnant to avoid alcohol either
entirely or partially include Australia, Canada, France, Iceland,Israel, the
Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Many national and international agencies recommend dietary guidelines for pregnant women
due to the health risks posed by the consumption of fish contaminated
with methylmercury through industrial pollution. Studies have linked exposure to various levels
of methylmercury in utero to neurological disorders in children.

The use of tobacco products or exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy has been
linked to low birth weight.[7] Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, citing studies which attribute
10% of infant deaths to tobacco-smoking mothers, considered adopting a smoking ban for
pregnant women in 2006 with the aim of reducing infant mortality.[8]

See also: Smoking and pregnancy

No U.S. state has enacted a law which criminalizes specific behavior during pregnancy, but,

nonetheless, it has been estimated that at least 200 American women have been criminally
prosecuted or arrested under existing child abuse statutes for allegedly bringing about harm inutero through their conduct during pregnancy.[9] Reasons for pressing charges
included use of illicit drugs, consumption of alcohol, and failure to comply with a doctor's order
ofbedrest or caesarean section.[9] Drug addicts have been accused of "supplying drugs to a
minor" through unintentional chemical subjection via the umbilical cord.[9] Others have been
charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the "deadly weapon" in question being an illegal
drug.[9] Minnesota, Wisconsin and South Dakota allow women who continue to use
substances while pregnant to be civilly committed.[9] Some states require that medical providers
report any infant who is born with a physical dependency, or who tests positive for residual
traces of alcohol or drugs, to child welfare authorities.

Cultural preferences for male children in some parts of Asia, such as Mainland
China, India, South Korea, andTaiwan, have sometimes led to sex-selective abortion of female
fetuses, leading to the disparity between male-to-female birth rates which is observed in some
places. India banned the practice of abortion for reasons of fetal sex in 1994. [10]

Example cases[edit]

Jennifer Johnson of Seminole County, Florida was convicted under a drug trafficking law in
1989. It was alleged that, in consuming cocaine during her pregnancy, she had delivered
a controlled substance to a minor via theumbilical cord. She was sentenced to one-year in
a drug treatment program, 14 years probation, and 200 hours ofcommunity service. Johnson
appealed and Supreme Court of Florida overturned its decision to convict her in 1992.[11]

Cornelia Whitner of Central, South Carolina pled guilty in 1992 to a charge of criminal child
neglect after she was discovered to have used cocaine while pregnant. Sentenced to eight years
in prison, she petitioned the Court of Appeals 16 months later, claiming that she had been
given ineffective counsel because her lawyer had failed to inform her that the charges laid
against her might not be applicable given the legal status of a fetus. However, in the 1997
case Whitner v. South Carolina, the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld its prosecution of
Whitner.[12][13][14]

A woman from Winnipeg, Manitoba who had an inhalant addiction in 1996. She had three
previous children, and, when she became pregnant a fourth time, Winnipeg Child and Family
Services sought a court order permitting her to be committed to a drug rehabilitation facility for
the remaining duration of her pregnancy. A judge agreed that the woman should be taken into
custody. However, the decision was overturned by the Manitoba Court of Appeal.[15]

Brenda Drummond, 29, of Carleton Place, Ontario tried to abort at 9 months on 28 May 1996
by introducing a pellet gun in her vagina and shooting her fetus in the head. Attempted murder
charges against her were dropped since the definition of "human being" in the
Canadian Criminal Code doesn't include fetuses. She was later sentenced to 30 months
probation for "failing to provide the necessities of life" for having failed to report the injury
immediately after her son's birth.[16][17]

Melissa Ann Rowland of Salt Lake City, Utah was charged with murder in 2004 after her
refusal to undergo acaesarean section resulted in one of the two in her twin pregnancy
being stillborn.[18] Rowland was later sentenced to 18 months probation as a result of secondary
charge of child endangerment.[19]

Gov. Jeb Bush sought appointment of a legal guardian to protect the fetus of
a developmentally-disabled rapevictim in 2003. The woman, who could not assist police in
identifying her assailant, was raped while living in a group home in Orlando, Florida.[20] She gave
birth to a child in September 2003.

Several countries have adopted various legal frameworks for protecting life before
birth: - Explicit recognition of a constitutional right to life before birth, as in the
national constitutions of Guatemala and Chile.1 - Constitutional protections that
confer equal protection for the life of both the pregnant woman and the unborn,
as in the national constitutions of Ireland and the Philippines.2 - Legislation
establishing that the right to life is subject to protection prenatally, as Poland has
done.3 The strategy of promoting the recognition of a right to life before birth has
emerged in the context of constitutional reform processes, legislative initiatives,
and court challenges that seek to extend constitutional protections of the right to
life prenatally. For example, in 2010, the Dominican Republic adopted a new
constitution, which recognized a right to life from conception.4 In 2008 and 2010,
the United States (U.S.) state of Colorado,5 and in 2011, the U.S. state of
Mississippi6 rejected initiatives to amend the constitutions of these states to
recognize that life begins at conception and that from the moment of fertilization,
zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are people with all the rights guaranteed to persons
under their state constitutions. Since 2008, at least 16 Mexican states have
amended their constitutions to protect the right to life from either fertilization or

conception.7 In 2007, members of the Slovak Parliament challenged the

constitutionality of the countrys abortion law, arguing that the constitution protects
the right to life before birth. However, the Slovak Constitutional Court found that
granting the right to life to a fetus would directly contradict womens constitutional
rights to health and privacy and upheld the constitutionality of the abortion law.8
http://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/RTL_3%2
014%2012.pdf

US Supreme Court Ruling: In the case of Roe v. Wade, Roe is a pregnant single woman,
brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it
a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother.
Abortion laws criminalize all abortions, except those required on medical advice to save the life of
the mother, violate the Constitution of the United States. State criminal abortion laws that except from
criminality only life-saving procedures on the mothers behalf, and that do not take into consideration the
stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a womans right
to terminate her pregnancy, against state action. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the
right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant womans health
and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy. The natural termination of Roes
pregnancy did not render her suit moot. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief.