On Friday, after a long and nationally covered criminal trial, Scott Peterson was found guilty of killing his wife Laci and their unborn child. While Peterson awaits sentencing, organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the law that allowed for his conviction of two murders.

Signed into law by President Bush in April, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act – also known as “Laci and Conner’s Law” – allows a person to be charged with killing two human victims if he or she has injured a “child in utero” while committing a federal crime of violence.

Before the law, a fetus was not considered a victim when involved in violent crimes. Now, a “child in utero” is considered “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

Planned Parenthood has a right to be concerned. By elevating the status of a fetus and giving it legal protections similar to that of a person, it sets a conflicting precedent for abortion-rights cases. State courts have consistently rejected the act, stating that it conflicts with Roe vs. Wade. The act could be used to undermine other abortion-rights cases if the social climate or the U.S. Supreme Court changes.

Make no mistake, Scott Peterson should receive the harshest punishment possible for killing his wife and terminating her pregnancy prematurely. However, his crime was taking away his wife’s choice of bearing her son, not taking away his son’s life.

If the act emphasized that taking away choice was the reasoning behind harsher penalties for those who harm pregnant women, we might support it. However, the act instead makes a clear distinction of what life is – and it goes too far. Even though provisions exist in the act to protect abortion rights, adding such disclaimers do little to address the blatant contradictions it raises about life’s beginnings.