This article is about pro-abortion Vs. pro-life.

The argument in the article isn't about whether or not there is legal justification for the double murder charge. There is clearly justification, it's established in the state's fetal homicide statute.

It's about NOW being scared to death that such a charge would be a challenge to their pro-abortion agenda.

No kidding that NOW was quoted because the're the ones making the claim. The D.A. in the case doesn't have to justify the decision to file the charges. It's California law.

The D.A. has no position to counter or even support NOW's claim. If you want an opposing view, you've got to go to an opposing source. Not the D.A., who has simply filed charges under current state law. (THAT is journalism 101)

This argument isn't just about Scott, Laci, and Connor Peterson. It's about Roe Vs. Wade, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning that the ramifications of the argument (not the court case) are of national interest. Seeing that New Jersey is covered by SCOTUS decisions, I think that certainly validates their input on the situation.