Yesterday I wrote about how Dynel Lane lured a seven-months pregnant woman to her home and proceeded to rip open her belly and remove the baby from her womb. The baby died immediately. Lane was arrested shortly thereafter and yesterday I found out what the Boulder District Attorney is going to charge her with. To nobody's surprise the DA did not charge Lane with murder, although she rather obviously murdered the poor woman's baby. No, this is the Socialist Democracy of Amerika where human life is defined as beginning at the moment of birth. Up until the moment of birth a woman and her government approved "doctor" can conspire together to kill a baby. One second after the moment of birth the same action is called murder. The Boulder DA said that he could not charge Lane with murder "without proof of a live birth" so he charged her with eight different felonies instead.
The first count filed against Lane is attempted first degree murder. Of course this count is not in reference to the murder of the baby, it is in reference to the the allegation that Lane attempted to kill the mother while removing the baby. That is a fascinating charge since there is no evidence that has been made public which would indicate that Lane wanted to kill the mother of the baby. She just wanted the baby and the mother happened to be carrying it. I can't see how this charge will ever stick.
Lane is then charged with two counts of committing a "crime of violence," whatever that means. It seems to me that every single crime that has ever been committed is a crime of violence. After all, how does one person commit a crime against another person without doing something violent towards that person? Is not the act of violence towards another person a part of the definition of what it means to commit a crime? The DA admitted that those two counts were added to the indictment for the expressed purpose of attempting to increase the number of years Lane would be in prison if she is found guilty of at least one of the eight charges against her. He called them "sentence enhancers." Isn't it wonderful to live under a legal system that has to play games within itself in what always ends up being a vain attempt to bring justice? I wonder what the constitutional basis is for adding trumped up charges to an indictment in order to enhance the prison sentence is found? That sure sounds like a fair trial to me.
Lane is also charged with two counts of first degree assault. Now I find that most interesting. Since there are two charges of assault there must have been two victims of the assault. Who would those two victims be? They must be the woman and her baby. If that is true then we have the bizarre situation in which the baby is considered to be a human being when it is assaulted by the knife that ripped it out of the womb but not considered to be a human being when it died after being ripped out of the womb. But how can a baby that is still in the womb be deemed human? According to the law of the SDA that is not possible. If I was Lane's lawyer I would most certainly exploit that defense. All Lane is really guilty of in this situation is performing an unwanted removal of excess tissue from the belly of the pregnant woman. Yes it is a crime but it is certainly not an example of first degree assault when the assault was only committed against excess body tissue.
Next there are two charges of second degree assault. Just like the two cases of assault in the first degree, these charges can not both stand if one of them is in reference to the baby since the baby was not a baby, it was just excess tissue. I have never understood why DAs heap up multiple charges of various degrees in their indictments. I guess this is probably another "sentence enhancer." But why stop at second degree assault? If Lane committed a first degree assault against the pregnant woman then she most certainly also performed a second degree, a third degree, a fourth degree and a fifth degree assault against the woman along the way to the commission of the first degree assault. I do not know how many degrees of assault there are in the SDA legal code but if a first degree assault has been committed then it is necessarily the case that all other lower levels of assault were also committed along the way to the first degree assault. She needs to be charged with all of them, no matter how much that clogs up the proceedings.
The last charge is the one that sticks in my craw the most. The DA charged Lane with "first degree unlawful termination of pregnancy." You read that right. Let 's ignore the matter of degree in this charge since I can't distinguish between first and second degree unlawful termination of a pregnancy anyway. How can a person possibly be charged with terminating a pregnancy unlawfully? Answer: when the termination is not performed by a licensed agent of the government acting in conspiracy with the mother. When the termination of a pregnancy, also known as murdering a baby or performing a state-sanctioned abortion, takes place by means of the conspiracy of a mother and her government agent to kill the baby it is legal. Isn't that wonderful?
Since 1973 there have been over 54 million lawful terminations of pregnancy in the SDA. The only difference between those 54 million lawful terminations of pregnancy and the termination of pregnancy that took place when Lane ripped open the belly of a pregnant woman was that she did not hold a license issued by the government giving her permission to do so.
Next time you walk down the street take a moment to count the people you pass. Every sixth person is really not there because he or she has been lawfully terminated by a mother and an agent of the state who conspired together murder him or her. And you still have the audacity to ask God to bless Amerika?