On January 4, 2003, Heather Fliegelman died after being stabbed 47 times. She was eight months pregnant with her son Jonah, who also died. Under Maine law, Heather’s murderer can only be prosecuted for Heather’s death, not Jonah’s.

In contrast, four of Heather’s cats were also stabbed to death, a crime which carries a sentence of one year per cat in the state of Maine.

Laci Peterson, seven months pregnant with her son Conner, disappeared on Dec. 24, 2002.

Four months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner Peterson were found, and Scott Peterson is now being prosecuted for two counts of murder under California law.

The question for each case is “Was there only one victim, or were there two?”

The answer in 21 states, including the state of Iowa, is one. The answer in 29 states — including Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin — is two. And with the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the answer regarding federal crimes will soon be two.

The bill, which the Senate passed by a 61-38 vote last week, requires that persons who commit “federal violent crimes … and thereby cause the death of, or bodily injury to, a child who is in utero shall be guilty of a separate offense.”

The bill explicitly excludes abortion.

It seems such a bill should provide common ground for opponents and advocates of abortion rights.

After all, at least one of the victims of each crime is a woman. The other victim is the child whom she presumably chose to keep. The criminal effectively took away her “right to choose” whether to keep her child.

What reproductive freedom can a woman have if her decision to have a child can be pre-empted by a criminal who cannot even be charged with the crime?

Yet ostensibly “pro-women” groups such as the National Organization for Woman (NOW) and NARAL Pro-Choice America claim the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is harmful to women.

NOW calls it “devastating,” “a cynical bill” with “invective language,” and a “deceptive ploy that allows abortion foes to whittle away at women’s reproductive rights.”

Instead of criticizing the bill itself, abortion rights activists have condemned the motives of the bill’s supporters.

They have portrayed the bill as an attempt by men to crush the rights of women.

One NOW advertisement shows a picture of President Bush with six male senators over the words “Don’t give these men one more chance to violate your reproductive freedom.”

Along with the abortion rights activists’ attempts to pit women against men are their attempts to pit woman against child.

According to their logic, if the law grants rights to unborn children, it necessarily takes away women’s rights.

However, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act arguably elevates the rights of both — for the child, the right to be declared a victim, and for the woman, preserving her right to choose.

The only “rights” limited by the law are those of the perpetrator, who will now have to answer for the taking of two lives.

Still, abortion rights activists insist the law will produce a legal slippery slope, resulting in the abolition of legal abortion. However, there is no reason to believe this is so.

Professor Walter Dellinger, former adviser to President Clinton and co-chair of a NARAL-sponsored commission on Roe v. Wade, has stated fetal homicide laws do not conflict with nor undermine Roe v. Wade because a fetus can be legally protected under certain circumstances without being granted full constitutional rights.

What really worries them is not the prospect of a legal slippery slope, but a moral and intellectual slippery slope inside each person’s heart and mind.

The danger is that people will start thinking about the unborn as a person instead of a blob of tissue, and that idea will be irreconcilable with the legality of abortion.

Nicole Asmussen is a senior in political science from Omaha, Neb. She is a member of the ISU College Republicans.