Feminists Not Happy That Alabama May Legally Define 'Child' To Include Unborn Children April 26, 2012

Well it's not called Jezebel for nothing.

At issue is an Alabama law criminalizing "chemical-endangerment of a child". The statute specifically criminalizes "exposing a child to an environment in which he or she... knowingly, recklessly or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance or drug paraphernalia."

Great law, right? Who could have a problem with that?

Feminists.

Well, they really have a problem with how the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has interpreted the law.

You see, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has interpreted "a child" in that statute to include unborn children. So a woman who does meth (or any other chemical harmful to her unborn child) can be prosecuted under the law.

And what radical, source of right-wing propaganda did the Alabama court use to define a fetus as a child?

The dictionary.

Yeah. Really.

And feminists just aren't happy with that. Quoth Ms. Morrissey over at Jezebel: "[A] fetus is no more a person than a woman is a womb on legs."

Yeah. That's the first thing we thought of when we heard about that law, too.

And this is why Rush Limbaugh labels a certain class of feminists as "femi-nazis". They are just so hell-bent on no one accepting the fact there is a human being inside a pregnant woman's uterus, that they end up looking just plain evil when they oppose common-sense laws that protect unborn children.

Look, even their beloved Roe v. Wade decision specifically states that, at a certain point, the state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child.

But we're fairly certain that only a small percentage of modern feminists even know that.

---