Alabama
Supreme Court Opinion Rules that “Child” Includes “Unborn Child”
Commentary by Julio Severo: This is a very
important development in the U.S. and can potentially bring the strike down of
the evil abortion law in the once most Protestant nation in the world.
My wife and I have prayed for this wonderful
fulfillment in Alabama. God is working there. Please join us to pray for the
courageous justices, Tom Parker and Roy Moore. Read the victorious victory:
 |
| Alabama Supreme Court |
Montgomery, AL –
Today, in an
8-1 decision authored by Justice Tom Parker, the Alabama Supreme Court held
that the word “child” in Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute applies to the
born and unborn in Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks.
This decision follows a similar one handed down last year by the Alabama
Supreme Court in Ankrom v. State,
where Alabama’s highest court also ruled that the word “child” includes the
“unborn child.” In that case, Liberty Counsel’s amicus brief arguing that the
protection of the unborn is in keeping with the protections afforded the born
in various areas of the law.
“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,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “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. 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,” said
Staver.
 |
| Abortion in America |
Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks involved the conviction, following a guilty plea, for
chemical endangerment of a child. Hicks ingested cocaine while pregnant with
“J.D.,” which resulted in J.D. testing positive for cocaine at the time of his
birth. Hicks argued that the word “child” in the chemical-endangerment statute
did not apply to an unborn child. The trial court rejected the argument
presented by Hicks. Relying on the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Ankrom. v. State, the Criminal Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court.
The Alabama
Supreme Court ruled that “the plain meaning of the word ‘child,’ as that word
is used in the chemical-endangerment statute, includes an unborn child.” The
opinion goes on to state that “the State has a legitimate interest in
protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development
and has done so by enacting the chemical-endangerment statute.”
The concurring
opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker are particularly
significant because they reveal the flaws in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion
decisions, beginning with the 1973 case of Roe.
v. Wade. Excerpts of their concurring opinions are set forth below:
Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Concurring
Opinion:
“Denominated in
the United States Code as one of the ‘Organic Laws of the United States of
America,’ the Declaration acknowledges as ‘self-evident’
the truth that all human beings are endowed with inherent dignity and the right
to life as a direct result of having been created by God.”
“God, not governments and legislatures, gives persons
these inherent natural rights . . . 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.”
“As the gift of God, this right to life is not subject
to violation by another’s unilateral choice.”
“From local to international, all law flows from the
divine source: it is the law of God. The law of nature and of nature’s God
binds all nations, states, and all government officials—from Great Britain to
Germany to Alabama—regardless of positive laws or orders to the contrary.”
“States have an
affirmative duty to protect unborn human life under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“Any state’s
discriminatory failure to provide legal protection equally to born and unborn
persons under, for instance, its statutes prohibiting homicide, assault, or chemical
endangerment violates, therefore, the Equal Protection Clause of the United
States Constitution.”
“Because a human life with a full genetic endowment
comes into existence at the moment of conception, the self-evident truth that
all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights encompasses the moment of conception. Legal recognition of
the unborn as members of the human family derives ultimately from the laws of
nature and nature’s God, who created human life in His image and protected it
with the commandment: ‘Thou shall not kill.’”
Justice Tom Parker’s Concurring
Opinion:
“In contrast to
the reasoning of Roe and Casey,
Alabama’s reliance upon objective principles has led this court to consistently
recognize the inalienable right to life inherently possessed by every human
being and to dispel the shroud of doubt cast by the United States Supreme
Court’s violation of the law of noncontradiction.”
“Liberty will
continue to find no refuge in abortion jurisprudence until courts refuse to
violate the law of noncontradiction and, like Alabama, recognize an unborn
child’s inalienable right to life at every point in time and in every respect.”
“[T]here is no
valid basis for the viability standard.”
“[F]rom the
child’s earliest stages of development, the existence of an unborn child is
separate from that of its mother’s. 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.”
“The unborn
child cannot logically be a separate and distinct human for the purposes of one
abortion procedure but not another. Protecting the unborn child’s right to life
at all stages of development would eliminate the contradictory reasoning of the
Court’s abortion decisions and dispel the shroud of doubt obscuring the unborn
child's right to life.”
“Why should legal protection of an individual at a
particular point in time depend entirely upon his or her subjective relation to
the killer? Such irrational protection defies logic. Recognition of a child’s
right to life from the earliest stages of its development would dispel the
shroud of doubt from this area of jurisprudence and avoid unequal protection of
the two children.”
“Because an unborn child has an inalienable right to
life from its earliest stages of development, it is entitled not only to a life
free from the harmful effects of chemicals at all stages of development but
also to life itself at all stages of development. Treating an unborn child as a
separate and distinct person in only select respects defies logic and our
deepest sense of morality.”
“Courts do not have the luxury of hiding behind ipse
dixit assertions. The United States Supreme Court has attempted to do so by
setting the line for state protection of unborn children at viability in the
area of abortion. It is in fact comforting to witness the realist that he who
lives by the ipse dixit dies by the ipse dixit. But one must grieve for the
Constitution. To dispel the shroud of doubt shadowing our nation’s abortion
jurisprudence, courts must have the courage to allow the law of
noncontradiction to dismantle the ipse dixit reasoning of Roe, Casey, and
Stenberg and recognize a child’s inalienable right to life at all stages of
development. Until then, our grief is not for the Constitution alone, we also
grieve for the millions of children who have not been afforded equal value,
love, and protection since Roe.”
On page 69 of
the opinion, Justice Parker quotes from a Liberty University School of Law
Review article written by a graduate of Liberty University School of Law,
Martin Wishnatsky, Ph.D., J.D.. The article is The Supreme Court’s Use of the
Term “Potential Life”: Verbal Engineering and the Abortion Holocaust, 6 Liberty
U.L. Rev. 327, 342-43 (2012). Dr. Wishnatsky interned with Liberty Counsel
during law school.
Liberty Counsel is
an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization
dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family
since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and
related topics.
Recommended Reading:
Posts
