According to this article yes:
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.1
If a man struggles and strikes a woman with child so she has a miscarriage, he is fined.
What about if the child (not the mom, or the other strugglers) is injured or death?
Does that mean "life for life" works here?
NB: This argument is used by "pro-life" Christians to argue that God considers an unborn baby a human being. So causing miscarriage means murder.
I found it quite unlikely that a primitive society can have a law that value an unborn child so highly. Also, I suspect, with the state of medical advance at that time, people would normally expect a baby that "came out" due to a fight prematurely to die.
However, the article argues:
Yatza is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated "miscarriage" in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?
I suppose the Jews should know more. After all, the Torah used to be a working law in ancient Israel. There should have been some records on how it's actually interpreted by their supreme court thingy.
So what's the story?
I want Judaism perspective and actual historical perspective. How was the verse actually interpreted by ancient Jewish judges?