@article{ref1,
title="State v. Merrill",
journal="West's North Western reporter",
year="1990",
author="",
volume="450",
number="",
pages="318-327",
abstract="Merrill was indicted for killing a woman and her 28-day-old embryo. He claimed that by not distinguishing between viable and nonviable fetuses, Minnesota's law denied him equal protection by allowing him to be convicted of murder of an embryo, while women who seek abortions before viability escape such conviction. Merrill alleged also that Minnesota's laws are unconstitutionally vague. The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed, arguing that a defendant who assaults a woman, causing the death of the embryo, does so without the woman's consent. Because the right to make the abortion decision lies in the woman's right to privacy, and because the state must protect that right, Minnesota cannot deny equal protection. Statutes do not need to define 'death' or the beginning of 'life' to avoid vagueness challenges, because the legislature has applied the law to anyone who causes the death of &quot;the unborn offspring of a human being conceived, but not yet born.&quot;<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1048-3640",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}