In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Tom Parker, the 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.”
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.
"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," Liberty Counsel, a First Amendment-protecting law firm, said. "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," Liberty Counsel's statement predicted. "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."