43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth.

In November 2000, someone made a comment in my guestbook regarding this law. I am posting the comment and my response in the event someone else believes I am trying to "falsify" information.
~Carolyn~

Posted in my guestbook:
It's interesting that you claim that those that are pro-choice (or pro-abortionists as you call us) give misinformation, yet on your site you claim California law considers an unborn fetus a person. This is false. As some that voted against this proposed bill for its obvious attempt to dupe people into making a woman's right to choose illegal, I can say that I was pleased when this bill was NOT passed, by an overwhelming majority. It makes me wonder what other "facts" of yours are falsified....
Sarah Johnson
Los Angeles, CA USA - Saturday, November 25, 2000 at 16:15:17 (EST) from lvl-mac074.usc.edu

My response:
Can you please point to where I call anyone a pro-abortionist?
Maybe someone can clarify this for me. As far as I know, section 43.1 used to be section 29. In 1994 section 29 was repealed, however, it was reenacted as section 43.1, which is what I reference on my site. Please read below: "Civil Code section 43.1, formerly Civil Code section 29. Before its repeal in 1994, section 29 provided in part: "A child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person, so far as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth . . . ." (6 West's Ann. Civ. Code (1982 ed.) § 29, p. 94; Stats. 1993, ch. 219, § 2.) Effective January 1, 1994, the relevant part of section 29 was reenacted without substantive change as section 43.1. (See Stats. 1992, ch. 163, §§ 4, 161, pp. 724-725, 842; Stats. 1992, ch. 162, § 13, p. 722; Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 6 West's Ann. Civ. Code (1998 pocket supp.) § 43.1, p. 12.) Section 43.1 states: "A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth." The intestacy laws are to be construed in a manner consistent with section 43.1. (See Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 53 West's Ann. Prob. Code (1991 ed.) § 6407, p. 510.)" Have I misinterpreted this information, or as this information changed since 1998? (The above was taken from a case filed in 1998). I posted information regarding section 43.1 in 1996, so if it changed since then, I erred by not continually checking to see if the civil code had changed. If I misinterpreted the above information, then I also apologize, but I did NOT "falsify" information, as you claim. I did not purposely lie on my web site, though you lied when you stated that I call people "pro-abortionists". So, can anyone clarify?
I haven't "falsified" anything. Oh, and since you are concerned with sites which provide false information, Sarah, could you please e-mail NARAL and ask them to remove incorrect story about Becky Bell from their web site? Thanks.
Carolyn
USA - Wednesday, November 29, 2000 at 18:38:30 (EST) from carolyn.interstat.net

An additional response from Jim Goettel:
California law DOES consider a fetus a person. A law, however, must be interpreted so as to be constitutional. To criminalize a woman's killing her own fetus violates Roe v. Wade, but criminalizing the killing of ANOTHER woman's fetus does not. Accordingly, Cal. law would be applied this way: if you assault a pregnant woman and her fetus is killed (even though she is not) it is homicide; if the fetus is injured by an assault, it is a battery. If it is born handicapped because of a doctor's negligence, it is malpractice. This dichotomy has often been cited by the pro-life movement as hypocrisy by the pro-choicers because even they would outlaw the harming of another woman's fetus.
Jim G. [j_goettel@hotmail.com]
USA - Thursday, November 30, 2000 at 17:19:27 (EST) from westla-public.lapl.org

This site is copyright © 1996-2001 Carolyn C. Gargaro. All rights reserved.