Court's 'Child Abuse' Decision is Huge Step in Protecting Rights of the Unborn
There's a lot of debate regarding the precious time before a baby exits the womb. The debate isn't over whether or not a fetus is a human being, it's whether fetuses are worthy of human rights. Like not being abused. Or not being split into tiny parts and put on Planned Parenthood's organ menu. Good news though, a court just made a decision which increases the protection of unborn rights:
A pregnant woman who took illegal drugs might have committed child abuse, a state Superior Court panel concluded Wednesday. They sent the case back to Clinton County Court for further deliberation.
The dispute went to the state court when county Children and Youth Services appealed a ruling by county President Judge Craig P. Miller, who found the woman's drug use didn't constitute child abuse because the protective services law doesn't recognize a fetus as a "child."
Judge H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. [said] ... the mother tested positive for marijuana and opiate use before giving birth early this year. Her infant then had to undergo 19 days of treatment at Williamsport Hospital for drug withdrawal, Moulton noted.
Although he agreed ... that the state law doesn't recognize a fetus as a child, Moulton added that "once born, however, the infant is a 'child'."
"Therefore, if CYS establishes that through the mother's prenatal drug use she 'intentionally, knowingly or recklessly' caused, or created a reasonable likelihood of, bodily injury to (her) child after birth, a finding of child abuse would be proper," the state judge wrote.
Yes, the original law still doesn't officially recognize fetuses as children. Which is absolutely moronic. But if one's actions while pregnant can constitute child abuse, this leads to a tacit admission of the unborn's personhood. In other words, lighting a doobie while preggo is a no-no.
Of course, this will likely lead to plenty of outcry from feminists (see Monster of the Year: Lena Dunham Wishes She Had An Abortion). Because "my body, my choice!" Neonates need not apply.
Hopefully this decision leads to more protection of unborn children. In the very least, it has law officials asking the right questions.
Can you hear that? That's the sound of Margaret Sanger's ghost shrieking in anger.