It's only murder if the victim didn't plan to die?

James Taranto from Best of the Web Today has this observation on some AP editorializing:

Then there's this, from another AP dispatch on the same subject:

Four bills aimed at reducing the number of abortion [sic] have been enacted since Bush won the White House in 2001:

Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. . . .

So according to the AP, assaulting a pregnant woman and harming her "fetus" constitutes abortion. Do "pro-choice" advocates want to keep violence against pregnant women safe and legal?

Frequent readers of his column know that Taranto has had a lot of fun with newspapers' verbal contortions trying to use the word "fetus" in some very funny contexts, but this issue of violence against a fetus inspires a moral question:

A pregnant woman and her "fetus" is killed in cold blood by her husband. The State of California successfully tries him for a double homicide. No questions asked, right?

But, what if the murdering husband in question kills the wife and "fetus" by tampering with her car's brakes. And she was driving herself to Planned Parenthood to exercise her constitutionally granted "choice". Is this a double homicide??

If yes, then why is it not murder for the "mother" of the "fetus" to skid her car into the abortion clinic and finish what she was choosing to do.

If no, then we, as a society, are assigning the value of a life solely based upon the personal opinion of each individual woman who happens to be pregnant.

If "Woman A" is planning to abort a "fetus", the "fetus" has no value. If "Woman B" is planning to keep her "unborn child" then the "unborn child" has the equal protection of the law in cases of murder.

How can a crime be a crime solely based upon the state of mind of one of the victims?