To: (Multiple email addresses may be specified by separating them with a comma)
The decision could have significant implications in ending abortion in the U.S., according to pro-life advocates.
BY MICHELLE BAUMAN/CNA/EWTN
WASHINGTON — An Alabama Supreme Court decision recognizing the unborn as persons deserving of legal protections could have significant implications in ending abortion in the U.S., say pro-life advocates.
“The Alabama Supreme Court has dealt a massive blow to the constitutional fraud of Roe v. Wade by recognizing that the preborn child is a person,” said Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones in a statement.
On Jan. 11, the Alabama high court ruled that unborn children are protected by the state’s chemical-endangerment law.
The case involved two women who placed their unborn children at risk through the use of illegal drugs during pregnancy. One of the women acknowledged that she had smoked meth three days before her son was born prematurely. The child died 19 minutes later of “acute methamphetamine intoxication.”
Under Alabama law, it is a crime to chemically endanger a child by exposing him or her to a controlled substance. The women’s attorneys argued that the chemical-endangerment law does not apply to unborn children.
However, the court disagreed, observing that “the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.”
The court noted that 40 states and the District of Columbia “permit recovery of damages for the wrongful death of an unborn child when post-viability injuries to that child cause its death before birth.”
The ruling cited a South Carolina case in which a court arrived at a similar ruling, determining that “it would be absurd to recognize the viable fetus as a person for purposes of homicide laws and wrongful death statutes but not for purposes of statutes proscribing child abuse.”
It also agreed with the appeals court that pointed out, “Not only have the courts of this state interpreted the term ‘child’ to include a viable fetus in other contexts, the dictionary definition of the term ‘child’ explicitly includes an unborn person or a fetus.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that in upholding legal protection for the unborn it was being consistent “with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”
It also noted that its decision is in keeping with the state Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, which proclaims that “all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange applauded the decision.
“The court has ratified our argument that the public policy of our state is to protect life, both born and unborn,” he said in a statement. “It is a tremendous victory that the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed the value of all life, including those of unborn children whose lives are among the most vulnerable of all.”
While the Jan. 11 ruling does not directly apply to abortion regulations, pro-life advocates are encouraged by the decision, saying that it could contribute to the growing recognition of the unborn as human persons with legal rights.
“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,” said Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation and policy organization that filed a brief in the case.
He asserted: “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.”