As I sit here studying for my crim law exam, I’ll just note that the California Supreme Court, in 1970, heard a case about whether or not a man could be convicted of murder for severely beating his 8 month pregnant ex-wife, killing the child she was carrying. A four week premature infant is viable, even in those days.

The result: it was not murder. Why? Because California’s criminal law was specifically only statutory (if it wasn’t what the statute described as murder, it wasn’t murder). The court concluded that the statutory definition of murder in California, dating back to 1850, only applied to those born alive. Feticide wasn’t within the statutory definition. (My casebook doesn’t say–and I haven’t researched the issue in the midst of finals–whether California later passed an amendment criminalizing this).

All this to say: murder does often mean something slightly different in the courts of different states. But it’s still a really cr*ppy answer by Romney, and one which utterly dodges the heart of the question.

(And most states no longer define murder through “malice aforethought” or “depraved heart” or any other nifty language.)

My name’s Jerid, and I asked the question at the townhall. Also, I happen to be a Democrat (gasp).

I think it’s a fair question. In any scenario where abortion is made illegal, there are going to be penalties for breaking the law. I’d just like to know what candidates think those penalties should be. Also, I think its fair to get the candidates on record as to whether they believe abortion is murder or not – that should affect their outlook.

Best,
Jerid