Have you heard of “Crack Mom?” No? Her case might be one of the most important in the country right now.
A Kentucky woman who the press has dubbed “Crack Mom” faces up to 10 years after pleading guilty to endangering her child’s life by using cocaine during pregnancy, The Kentucky State Journal reports.
But deciding her fate isn’t that simple because the Kentucky Supreme Court heard a similar case in December and a ruling is expected shortly on whether it’s possible to legally abuse a child in the womb.
It’s always amazed me that people look down their nose at women who smoke while pregnant while advocating her right to actually kill her unborn baby.
This case could possibly go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and could have a major impact on how the law views the unborn.
“Crack Mom’s” lawyer had this to say in news reports: “I don’t see how it’s OK to have an abortion, but it’s not OK to do something which would hurt the fetus on the part of the mother…I don’t see how one could make the argument that it’s OK to kill a person, but it’s not OK to hurt a person if you consider a fetus to be a person, which the law does not.”
Sadly, I think Crack Mom’s lawyer likely takes the wrong lesson from this logical incongruity and thinks that since the unborn are not viewed as human a mother can do whatever she darn well pleases with her unborn child rather than if it’s wrong to hurt a child in the womb than maybe…just maybe it can be viewed as wrong to kill them.
Yup. A lawyer is actually arguing that it’s OK to take cocaine while pregnant. Yeah, it’s come to that.
And I’m glad. Hoo-ray for Crack Mom’s lawyer because he’s pointed out the idiocy of the pro-choice argument. The argument for choice falls apart here. (Not that it held together especially well anywhere else.) Why can it be OK for a woman to kill her unborn child but not to endanger it?
If the Supreme Court rules that the unborn are not always at the mercy of its mothers whim, that changes everything. If a woman does not have the absolute right to damage her unborn child, there’s no legal argument that a woman always has the right to choose to terminate the baby’s life.
Assistant Attorney General James Shackelford argued before the court that taking drugs while pregnant is not a “victimless crime.” Can you imagine that we’ve traveled so far down this crazy road that we actually have to argue this.
The Maryland Supreme Court heard a similar case and overturned the convictions of two cocaine-addicted mothers. According to the judges, if pregnant cocaine addicts can be charged with child endangerment, then so could any mother, even for “exercising too much or too little.”
Yeah. Because, you know, exercising too much is soooo similar to ingesting large amounts of dangerous drugs. What? Is the baby going to be born addicted to sit-ups?
These cases could be the next most important abortion battleground. Remember how the ACLU and all sorts and manner of pro-choice groups fought laws that sought to protect unborn victims of violence. But the hook used in those cases was that the mother had chosen life while the perpetrator had violated the mother’s wishes.
This case goes further in that it stands between the wishes of a drug addict mother and her child and calls it what it is—child abuse.
Abortion apologists are nervous. In what might go down as one of the classic Slate Magazine articles of all time, the magazine attempted to show that cocaine isn’t all that bad for babies after all. I’m serious. They’re right to be nervous because they’re implicitly acknowledging what the courts have so far been unwilling to acknowledge. Abortion is the worst form of child abuse.