State Law Designed to Protect Children from Meth Lab Chemicals Applied to Unborn
The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a state law intended to prevent exposing children to dangerous chemicals also protects the unborn child. The Alabama State law was originally intended to prevent parents from operating meth labs around children, or allowing children to be in meth labs. The law makes no reference to the unborn.
The decision in Ankrom V. State upheld the conviction of two women who were prosecuted for using drugs during their pregnancies.
The court ruling stated that, “the plain meaning of the word ‘child’ in the chemical endangerment statute includes unborn children.”
Liberty Counsel, a pro-life law firm, filed an amicus brief in the case. Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Council in a statement published by WND explained that, “in personal injury, criminal, and wills and estate law, the trend has been to recognize the unborn child as a human with legal protections, not merely a ‘potential’ human being.”
Staver said, “the U. S. Supreme Court’s abortion cases are an aberration to law and stand on an island by themselves, and that island will one day disappear.”
Liberty Counsel provided a brief to the Alabama Supreme Court that included a thorough historical review of legal protection for unborn children, dating from ancient Greece to the present day.
Justice Tom Parker invoked advancement in science.
“Since Rowe was decided in 1973, advances in medical and scientific technology have greatly expanded our knowledge of prenatal life.”
Unlike South Carolina that allows politicians to appoint other lawmakers and cronies to the bench, the people of Alabama select their judges by ballot. They reelected Judge Roy Moore, the “Ten Commandments Judge” Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last November, however he had not taken office at the time of the Ankrom V. State decision.
