The law already treats the unborn as victims

Federal law and most states already treat an unborn child as a separate victim when someone other than the mother kills or injures him. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 ('Laci and Conner's Law') makes harming 'a child, who is in utero' during a federal crime a separate offense, at any stage of development. California convicted Scott Peterson of second-degree murder for killing his unborn son Conner. NCSL counted at least 38 states with fetal homicide laws. All of these laws exempt consensual abortion and the mother herself.

What this settles
That American law, federal and in most states, can count an unborn child as a second victim of homicide, often from conception ('at any stage of development'); and that this coexists with legal abortion only by an explicit exception for abortion and for the mother.
What it doesn't settle
Whether the unborn are 'persons' under the Fourteenth Amendment (the Supreme Court has never held so). These laws protect the unborn against third parties, not against the mother's choice; the inconsistency they reveal is an argument, not a ruling. They do not show the law as a whole is pro-life.
The record

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 ('Laci and Conner's Law')statute

108th Congress, Pub. L. 108-212, § 2(a), 118 Stat. 568 (Apr. 1, 2004), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1841 (also 10 U.S.C. § 919a for the military)
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. … (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Two things matter here. First, federal law itself calls the unborn 'a child', 'a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development', and makes harming him 'a separate offense' from harming the mother; an intentional killing is punished as killing 'a human being' (§ 1841(a)(2)(C)). Second, the honest limit: subsection (c) exempts consensual abortion, medical treatment, and the mother. The Act applies only during listed federal crimes (it does not reach ordinary state murders), and the death penalty may not be imposed under it (§ 1841(a)(2)(D)). The short title, 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004' or 'Laci and Conner's Law', is in Pub. L. 108-212, § 1.

Checked 2026-10-03: Read the full text of 18 U.S.C. § 1841 and its statutory notes (short title) at Cornell LII. Source

California Penal Code § 187 (murder of 'a human being, or a fetus')statute

California Legislature, Cal. Penal Code § 187(a)-(b) (as amended by Stats. 2023, ch. 260, § 14 (SB 345), eff. Jan. 1, 2024)
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: … (3) It was an act or omission by the person pregnant with the fetus or was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the person pregnant with the fetus.

The statute under which Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering Conner. Subsection (b) exempts acts under California's abortion law, certain physician acts to save the mother's life, and anything done or consented to by the mother. The year given is that of the current wording (effective Jan. 1, 2024); the words 'or a fetus' are older and were in force at Peterson's 2004 trial (the 2020 opinion cites Pen. Code § 187 for the Conner verdict).

Checked 2026-10-03: Read the current section text on the California Legislative Information site. Source

People v. Scott Lee Peterson

Supreme Court of California, No. S132449 (Aug. 24, 2020); San Mateo County Superior Court No. SC55500 · Decided 2020-08-24 · 7-0 (Kruger, J., joined by Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Groban, JJ.) · Opinion by Kruger, J.
What it held
Peterson's convictions for the first-degree murder of Laci and the second-degree murder of their unborn son Conner were affirmed. The death sentence was reversed because the trial court wrongly dismissed prospective jurors who opposed the death penalty in general but said they could follow the law.
Why
The court rejected Peterson's claims that pretrial publicity and other errors made the guilt phase unfair. On the penalty, it applied Witherspoon v. Illinois and Gray v. Mississippi: a juror may not be excused merely for opposing capital punishment in general.
Status
Murder convictions stand. Resentenced to life without parole (Dec. 8, 2021). New-trial motion denied 2022; 2025 habeas petition denied April 27, 2026; appeal announced. Still in prison as of the last report found (April 29, 2026).
In the Court's words
A jury convicted defendant Scott Lee Peterson of one count of first degree murder for killing his wife, Laci Peterson, and one count of second degree murder for killing their unborn son.Majority · People v. Peterson, S132449, slip op. p. 1
The jury found Peterson guilty of murder in the first degree for killing Laci and murder in the second degree for killing Conner. (See Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189.) It found true the sole charged special circumstance, for multiple murder.Majority · slip op. p. 17
We reject Peterson’s claim that he received an unfair trial as to guilt and thus affirm his convictions for murder.Majority · slip op. p. 1

A San Mateo County jury convicted Scott Peterson in 2004 of the first-degree murder of his wife Laci and the second-degree murder of their unborn son Conner, whom the couple had already named. Conner was at 32 to 33 weeks of gestation at Laci's last checkup (slip op. p. 11). The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld both murder convictions in 2020 but reversed the death sentence for jury-selection errors. He was resentenced on December 8, 2021 to life without parole (CNN). A judge denied a new trial in 2022 over juror-misconduct claims, and on April 27, 2026 San Mateo Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill denied the Los Angeles Innocence Project's 2025 habeas petition; his lawyers said they would appeal (ABC7, April 29, 2026).

Checked 2026-10-03: Read the California Supreme Court slip opinion PDF (courts.ca.gov archive, S132449). Resentencing from CNN (Dec. 8, 2021); 2026 habeas ruling from ABC7 San Francisco (Apr. 29, 2026); both read in full. Source

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Womensurvey

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), NCSL web page 'Fetal Homicide State Laws' (archived Nov. 16, 2022)
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization")

The standard count. NCSL notes the laws differ (some apply only after a set gestational age, e.g. New Hampshire after 20 weeks). The pro-choice group Pregnancy Justice also gives 38 states (Aug. 18, 2022). NCSL's current URL returned 'Page Not Found' on 2026-10-03, so the count is dated to the 2022 archived page; it may have changed since.

Checked 2026-10-03: Read the NCSL page as archived by the Wayback Machine on 2022-11-16; the live NCSL URL now returns 404. Cross-checked with Pregnancy Justice's Aug. 18, 2022 brief (38 states). Source
What the other side argues
They say
Fetal homicide laws protect the woman's choice to have a child; the harm is to her, and the right answer is tougher penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman, not treating the fetus as a separate victim.
NCSL's summary of the pro-choice position (archived 2022): 'Pro-choice advocates typically focus on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.'
Answer
That is a coherent position, and about a dozen states take it. But it is not what federal law or most states did: they named a second victim and called it murder ('a separate offense'; 'the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus'). If the loss were only the mother's, the charge would be aggravated assault on her. Grieving families named Conner, and the law convicted his killer of murdering him.
They say
These laws are a stalking horse for fetal personhood and in practice are used to prosecute pregnant women for their own pregnancy losses.
Pregnancy Justice, 'Who Do Fetal Homicide Laws Protect? An Analysis for a Post-Roe America' (Aug. 18, 2022): 'Rather than protecting pregnant people, they have been used to criminalize pregnant people for the loss of their own pregnancy.'
Answer
Prosecuting grieving or addicted mothers under these laws is a real abuse, and pro-lifers should oppose it; the federal Act itself bars prosecution 'of any woman with respect to her unborn child'. But misuse against mothers does not answer the point that the law recognises the child as someone who can be killed. The exemption for the mother is a policy choice about who is punished, not a finding that no one died.
They say
The laws prove nothing about personhood because they carve out abortion; the law clearly treats the fetus differently depending on context.
18 U.S.C. § 1841(c); Cal. Penal Code § 187(b).
Answer
Correct as a description of the law, and the page should say it plainly. The pro-life use is not 'the law already protects the unborn' but 'the law is inconsistent': the same child at the same age is a murder victim if a stranger kills him and has no protection if his mother chooses abortion. What he is cannot depend on whether he is wanted.
Practise with these cards
E32 Until it's born, it has no rights. It's part of the woman's body. If it were a person, there'd be laws protecting it, and there aren't.