The problems with the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” begin with its popular name, Laci and Conner’s Law. The nomenclature is supposed to honor Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Ms. Peterson’s husband, Scott, is now on trial for murder.

The problem is that the act, were it in effect, would have made no difference in the Peterson case. The act, basically, would make it a federal crime to kill or injure a child in utero, but only while in the act of committing another federal crime. The murder of Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant, was not a federal crime, she was not a federal employee and her murder did not take place in a federal installation.

Beyond its name, this act is also troubling in other word choices. Rather than refer to a fetus, the standard legal language for an unborn child, the law speaks of “a child in utero,” which it describes as a “member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” This expansion of the definition of a human being to being a fertilized egg is far-reaching. Rather than simply stiffening penalties for the murder of a pregnant woman, this act would break ground for determining when life begins.

Such a major change should not be contemplated in a roundabout way, capitalizing on the sympathy surrounding a horrible murder.

The act would only apply to very limited cases, such as the assault of a federal employee who was pregnant or an attack that took place on federal land. The attacker would not have to know that the woman was pregnant. Because of its limited scope, the act’s detractors fear that it is really an attempt to roll back Roe v. Wade.

If the act passed, could a pregnant woman (identified as such, not as a “mother” in the act) be charged for harming her fetus? Could gyms prohibit pregnant women from working out for fear a miscarriage could be attributable to her exercise? Far-fetched fears? Maybe. Maybe not.

Without fully discussing the ramifications of such a major change in policy, members of Congress could be persuaded to pass a sympathetic-sounding bill with unintended consequences. The House passed the Unborn Victims Act last week. Maine’s representatives, including the usually pro-life Michael Michaud, voted against it. The House rejected, by a vote of 229-183, an alternative measure to increase the penalties for attacks on pregnant women in which the fetus is injured or killed without conferring new rights to fetuses.

It is now up to the Senate, and Maine’s two senators who remain undecided on how to vote on the bill, to see this bill for what it really is – not a memorial to Laci Peterson and her unborn child – but a chipping away at a woman’s right to choose. If lawmakers really want to stop the abuse and murder of women, some of whom may be pregnant, they should fund existing programs that seek to stem such violence. Enacting the Violence Against Women Act, for example, was a positive step. Congress could also follow the 21 states that already have enhanced penalties for crimes against a pregnant woman if she suffers miscarriage, stillbirth or other injury to her pregnancy.

Stopping violence against women, pregnant or not, is a worthy goal. This act is not the right means to that end, however.