Alabama Supreme Court Rules Child Protection Laws Include the Unborn

Alabama Supreme Court wsMONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that state child protection laws include the unborn, reinforcing the court’s declaration that children in the womb are entitled to the right to life.

The 8-1 decision centered on a case involving Sarah Jane Hicks, who ingested cocaine while pregnant. After the child was born and tested positive for drugs, Hicks was charged with violating the state’s chemical endangerment statute and plead guilty.

However, Hicks’ attorneys soon argued that the word “child” in the statute did not pertain to the unborn. The case is similar to a 2013 ruling regarding two mothers who had been charged under the law for ingesting illegal drugs while pregnant.

On Friday, the court reiterated its opinion as expressed in last year’s ruling, which declared that “[t]he plain meaning of the word ‘child’ in the chemical endangerment statute includes unborn children.”

“[F]rom the child’s earliest stages of development, the existence of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother’s,” wrote Justice Tom Parker on behalf of the panel. “Accordingly, Alabama has an interest not only in promoting a sustainable society and culture that appreciates life, but also in securing the blessings of liberty by protecting the right to life inherent in the new life itself.”

Chief Justice Roy Moore, also known as the “Ten Commandments Judge,” wrote a concurring opinion, remarking that man’s law can never override God’s law, including regarding the right to life.

“God, not governments and legislatures, gives persons these inherent natural rights,” he stated. “Government, in fact, has no power to abridge or destroy natural rights God directly besets to mankind and indeed no power to contravene what God declares right or wrong.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“As the gift of God, this right to life is not subject to violation by another’s unilateral choice,” Moore continued. “From local to international, all law flows from the divine source: it is the law of God.”

Following the decision, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel applauded the Alabama Supreme Court for taking a stand for life.

“In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” he wrote in a statement.

“The opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions,” Staver continued. “One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards. Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • WorldGoneCrazy

    This is why I live in Alabama.

  • Jack Waldron

    You know this verdict will most likely be vacated at the Federal Appeals leave, and never reach the Supreme court, and Alabama Supreme court will have to rewrite it without the references to God or contradictions to existing Supreme Court rulings. When a lower court rules counter to established Supreme Court precedent, it is “prima facie” evidence of “clear error”. While the verdict was right, the court screwed up here, wasting taxpayers money needlessly in the process, by adding religious faith statements and contradicting established SCOTUS rulings.