Thirteen U.S. states partially recognize fetuses as victims, and 15 states fully recognize fetuses as such. Instead of ignoring a recent appeal regarding fetal rights, the Supreme Court should make a ruling to create nationwide uniformity in fetal rights laws.
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a mother who was convicted of murdering her unborn daughter by using drugs during her pregnancy. Regina McKnight, a 26-year-old native of Horry County, S.C., admitted to using crack while pregnant. Both she and her stillborn daughter tested positive for cocaine in the hospital. McKnight is serving a 12 to 20 year sentence in a South Carolina prison. McKnight is the first woman to be convicted of homicide after delivering a stillborn, according to The Columbus Dispatch. By avoiding McKnight's case, the Supreme Court leaves many questions unanswered regarding the rights of a fetus and, ultimately, future rulings on abortion.
If the Supreme Court hears this case, it can set precedence for future cases regarding fetal rights. If the Court upholds the ruling, it opens the door to multiple legal possibilities. If a woman can be charged with murder for doing drugs during her pregnancy, will a woman be similarly charged if her child is affected by her drinking alcohol or smoking? What about a woman who passes AIDS to her unborn child? What about late-term and partial-birth abortions?
Yes, it is a woman's responsibility to respect the rights of the child she is carrying, but is it up to legislation to monitor this? A Supreme Court ruling would answer these questions and help put fetal rights in black and white, instead of the current murky gray.
Though the Supreme Court stated it does not plan to hear abortion cases this term, the McKnight case should be heard. Sidestepping the issue only creates discrepancies among state rulings. Fetal rights and abortion are very delicate issues, but prolonging decisions regarding these issues will solve nothing. The Supreme Court was created to handle such cases to ensure equal ruling nationwide. Instead of cowering away from difficult issues, it should assess the situation and rule how it sees fit.
Competition for public airways will be beneficialThe Federal Communications Commission should regulate public airways fairly and stop favoring big businesses. The FCC previously ruled that cable companies had no obligation to share their high-speed Internet networks with competing companies. On Monday, a three-judge panel overruled the FCC's decision, citing the fact that cable broadband service providers could be categorized as telecommunication services
which would then force them to fall under federal laws regarding common carriers.
By forcing cable companies to share access to their lines, the FCC will encourage healthy competition, which will benefit consumers. Having a few large-name companies in charge of all high-speed Internet leaves consumers virtually no choice in their service provider. Introducing competition will work to the consumer's advantage, allowing the consumer to choose their Internet service provider based on careful consideration and personal preference rather than being stuck with only one or two big-business options.
Under current conditions, the few cable companies that provide high-speed Internet access can charge whatever they deem necessary and provide a low quality service because of high demand and the low number of alternatives. Allowing competitors to use cable lines greatly will benefit the consumer by bringing down prices and forcing companies to adapt higher quality standards.
The FCC should recognize these facts and act in the consumer's interest. Its job is to regulate monopolistic businesses, but their recent rulings have not reflected this. Keeping in mind that we are a capitalistic society, the FCC should allow and encourage other Internet service providers to utilize the lines of competing cable companies. 17
Archives
