WRONG. Whether FHL's or ANY law for that matter, serve as a deterrent at all, is a matter for debate. The primary purpose and undeniable intent of any law is to provide a mechanism by which to punish the perpetrators of crime.<quoted text>
"The purpose of this law was to establish the fetus as a homicide victim which heretofore it was not."
Wrong. The purpose of FHLs is two fold. 1- to offer greater deterrence against violence towards women, specifically a pregnant woman, by subjecting the offender to the possibility of being charged for two (2) felonies; and 2- to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, just as her right to terminate a pregnancy is protected. There is also an element of protecting a state's interest in the preservation of potential life, although pursuant to the holding in Roe, only kicks in at viability. I would argue that states who enforce FHLs at any stage prior to viability, are seeking unconstitutional punishment.
Beyond that, in the case of FHL's YOU above all do not get to determine what the purpose was. For that, before I relied on a partisan dunce like you, I would defer to those who actually wrote and introduced the bill, among those being Senator Lindsey Graham......
"“I believe most Americans want to protect life as much as possible," said Graham.“People who want to turn this into an abortion debate have an irrational view. The purpose of this bill is very simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE UNBORN CHILD.