Skip to comments.Unborn child has ‘inalienable’ right to life ‘at all stages of development’: Alabama Supreme Court
Posted on 04/23/2014 9:19:53 AM PDT by lilyramone
MONTGOMERY, AL, April 22, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) Children in the womb should have the same legal standing as other children, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled Friday.
The decision upheld the prior conviction of Sarah Janie Hicks for the chemical endangerment of her child, when she exposed her unborn baby to cocaine. The boy, referred to as JD, was born testing positive for cocaine.
The 8-1 decision reaffirmed the Alabama Supreme Courts ruling in a similar case last year that the word child includes unborn child.
Fridays decision was a review of the lower Court of Criminal Appeals conviction of Hicks.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
That’ll leave a precedent. At least here in this state.
But RU486 is legal????
Amen! God bless the SC of Alabama, where judges are still judges.
Thank You Alabama!
So where do we go from here?
Pretty interesting. The only child that is not a child is the one that does not exist - in or out of the womb.
This is actually pretty brilliant - and common sense, really.
Good deal. About time
Yaaay! This sudden burst of common sense has made my day a little brighter!
All 56 other states.
I imagine her lawyer, upon hearing of this ruling, is now desperately seeking a plea.
I don't recall the circumstances of just why she was tested, but it sounds as though it's pretty open and shut.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
LOL. Actually that probably should be the strategy. The Supremes struck down sodomy laws after many states had abandoned their legislation.
So the reverse should be true too. Get several states to recognize "inalienable right to life at all stages of development", and maybe the Supremes will overturn Roe.
This is a great start!
That Declaration's author asserted:
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
The "women's health," or "women's rights" defenders of "destroying" the child in the womb never extend the "rights" argument past the interest of the moment.
What about the "woman" in the womb who has no say about her right to future maturity and accomplishment?
Who is speaking for her Creator-endowed rights in this present time and space in all of history?
Today's "progressives," with all of their domination of academia and Far Left politics, seem to fit into a category described in an essay by T.S. Eliot:
"In our time, when men seem more than ever to confuse wisdom with knowledge and knowledge with information and to try to solve the problems of life in terms of engineering, there is coming into existence a new kind of provincialism which perhaps deserves a new name. It is a provincialism not of space but of time--one for which history is merely a chronicle of human devices which have served their turn and have been scrapped, one for which the world is the property solely of the living, a property in which the dead hold no share." - T. S. Eliot
I’d love to see my children move to Alabama, where Christianity still has a foothold. looking for colleges now, for my 15 year-old girl, and Alabama and Texas look like good possibilities.
That’s why we moved to Texas last year