Scott Peterson received practically the worst news of his life last week, but now women's rights are in jeopardy.

Last spring, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, aka the Laci and Connor Act, that deems it a crime to injure an unborn fetus. Saddened by this legislation that redefined "personhood" to mean anything after conception, pro-choice activists took a hit in their struggle to grant women the right to choose in all situations.

A number of questions arise from this case in relation to women's rights. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was signed well before the verdict of the case was found. To me, this is another way of using media hype to further political initiatives.

The family of Laci Peterson even stood by President Bush as he officially signed the legislation passing the act. Was it really necessary to have members involved with a highly-publicized murder case there to promote this legislation?

I wonder if Bush would have been able to pass the legislation without the help of an overly-hyped murder case?

Probably not, but that's not what matters anymore, is it?

What women face now is the question of whether or not the fetus or baby inside there body is a person. Bush says after conception it is.

So, is it murder to have an abortion at all now? Or is a woman somehow allowed the right to kill a person inside her?

It's only a matter of time before abortion is banned altogether.

Now that women are completely confused on the matter of abortion, where do pro-choice activists go from here? I suppose that when dealing with an indicator of human existence, no one will ever be pleased.

The reason for this stems from humanity and their historical advancement. Humans have always differed from animals because they are "intelligent," more specifically they take it upon themselves to invent new tools and reconstruct their environment every day.

Technology in general, whether it is the wheel or the cell phone, always brings convenience to our lives. Conversely, the bad always accompanies the good.

Guns meant more easily attainable power or sovereignty over others, right? Oh, wait, but it also brought unnecessary death and hardship at times too.

Automobiles improved communication, transportation, economics, etc. didn't it? Well then, how come people have to die and the atmosphere has to be destroyed?

Abortion is simply another way for people to live conveniently. Amongst all the other conveniences in our lives though, this one seems to be the most controversial.

Abortion weighs heavily in people's minds because it deals with the existence of a human "soul."

The confusing matter of what a soul is almost always reverts back to the existence of an afterlife or higher power. Otherwise, we'd all just decompose after death, and that would be that.

Well, I guess that why's there's that little phrase in the Bill of Rights that says "separation between church and state." The definitive problem with abortion has always been because of religion, and what people perceive to be the beginning of a human's soul, or the potential of a human's soul.

Since not everyone has the same beliefs about the afterlife, that's why the framers of our government tried to implement an equal and just system where difference of religion wouldn't matter.

President Bush ignores this every moment that he brings a moral question like abortion to the forefront of legislation.

I see the Peterson case as another way for him to promote these religious ideals that he can't pass otherwise.

President Bush redefining the meaning of life, without any concrete scientific evidence, supports my theory that religion played a part in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Until we understand that religious issues only confuse the meaning of our legal system and cause it to deviate farther from its intended purpose, issues like abortion will always be a controversial topic.

It's one thing if a jury applies their own morals to a case to decide whether or not a bitter husband killed his pregnant wife, but it's a whole new situation if the leader of our country decides national issues in the same way.

The Peterson jury in no way represents everyone's beliefs on the meaning of a "person" just because they convicted a man of two murders. It's a crime that our president uses this to segue into another one of his schemes to draw political support.

Lauren Peckler is a sophomore majoring in English and sociology. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.