Here’s an uncomfortable question: Do fetuses need a lawyer to protect them from their own mothers?

In Alabama, legislators and pro-life activists believe they do. They enacted a law in July 2014 permitting courts to appoint a lawyer or advocate to represent an embryo or fetus when its teenage mother seeks an abortion without parental consent.

The new law is an amendment to the state’s parental consent requirement, which pointedly explains why the government’s role in regulating abortions for minors:

It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this parental consent provision to further the important and compelling state interests of: (1) protecting minors against their own immaturity, (2) fostering the family structure and preserving it as a viable social unit, and (3) protecting the rights of parents to rear children who are members of their household.

Last October, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to overturn the law as unconstitutional and requested a judge suspend it in the meantime. Argument in the case was held last week.

When The Daily Show recently turned its satirical lens on the legislation, it took on the most controversial aspect of the law: why and how exactly a lawyer should represent the interests of an embryo or fetus.

These considerations have everything to do with the ongoing battle over women’s reproductive health and rights.

Pro-choice advocates say that legislatures around the country have enacted laws that severely restrict access to abortion and reproductive health services, including withholding coverage for abortion from Medicaid recipients; new requirements of providers that effectively shutter clinics offering abortions; and statewide bans on abortion. The Alabama law, they say, is an extreme version of these tactics.

More than 30 states require parental consent or notification when a teenager seeks an abortion, but Alabama is the only one that allows the court to appoint an advocate for the fetus, says Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project.

In Alabama, when a pregnant teenager seeks an abortion but cannot or does not want to obtain the consent of a parent, she must go to court for a waiver. In other states with the same process, the proceedings are confidential and typically limited to courtroom personnel.

“Forcing a teen to go on trial to get an #abortion doesn’t make her any safer” Jennifer Dalven http://t.co/3CMDtKfl35 @ACLUAlabama

— Perilous Times (@PerilousTimesSF) October 2, 2014

The law in Alabama, however, now requires judges to involve the district attorney, who can question the teen about her maturity — and bring in witnesses to testify as well. Opponents of the law cast this as a cross-examination, which effectively puts the teen mother on trial. The judge can also appoint the fetus a representative, who is known as a guardian ad litem.

“It’s simply saying we don’t trust women to make their own decisions about their bodies and their families,” Dalven says.

The guardian ad litem is common in the child welfare system, where they represent neglected and abused children. Advocates of appointing a lawyer for fetuses argue that the practice extends the same kind of protection courts guarantee to born children. That could potentially apply to all cases of perceived endangerment—not just when a pregnant mother seeks an abortion.

Mark H. Bonner, an associate professor at the Ave Maria School of Law, tells Mashable in an email that “harming prenatal children is wrong for all the obvious reasons (just as harming postnatal children is), and the state should have a legal/social mechanism for preventing or stopping it…”

Bonner, who wrote at length about guardian ad litem representation for “prenatal children” in a scholarly paper, says the measure is an “affirmative” step the state can take to prevent a pregnant mother from abusing drugs or alcohol.

That is not the only scenario in which a guardian ad litem might be appointed to represent a fetus. In February, a Texas lawmaker introduced legislation that would provide a guardian ad litem in cases where a pregnant mother is “unconscious and unresponsive” and her family wants to remove life support.

“I will continue to defend that unalienable right for the voiceless.” http://t.co/J4FFJUfdLo #txlege

— Matt Krause (@RepMattKrause) February 26, 2015

The bill would amend current law so that, “as long as the unborn child is maturing and developing, life-sustaining treatment may not be removed,” according to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Matt Krause.

“The appointed guardian ad litem’s job is to look after the interest of the unborn child and ensure that the judge has the best information possible on the condition of the child when making their ruling.”

In 1998, Wisconsin became the first, and so far the only state, to pass a law requiring the appointment of a guardian ad litem to a fetus when it is exposed to the “habitual lack of self-control of their expectant mothers in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree.”

In cases where drug and alcohol use is suspected, the court can take a woman into custody and arrest her if she does not cooperate with mandated drug treatment, even if she has not received a diagnosis of addiction.

One recent case demonstrates how the law may violate a woman’s constitutional rights.

In July 2013, Wisconsin authorities arrested Alicia Beltran, a pregnant mother who refused treatment after she informed her physician that she once struggled with painkillers but had since stopped taking them.

Alicia Beltran explains: “I was brought to court with a lawyer for my fetus and an empty table for me.” #healthywomenWI

— NAPW (@NAPW) March 10, 2015

At 14 weeks pregnant, Beltran was handcuffed and shackled for a courtroom appearance. The court appointed a lawyer for her fetus, but not for Beltran. The Wisconsin law states that a pregnant woman is not entitled to representation at an initial hearing. Beltran was subsequently detained for more than 70 days and forced to participate in an inpatient drug treatment program.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), a nonprofit organization that works to secure civil rights for pregnant women and mothers, is representing Beltran and another woman in a suit challenging the Wisconsin law.

While the Alabama and Wisconsin laws are both unique, and face legal challenges, they do represent a novel tactic used in the fight over if and how to regulate what a woman does with her body while pregnant.

In Alabama, that strategy affects minors seeking an abortion and, in Wisconsin, women who allegedly abuse drugs and alcohol. If the Texas legislation passes, the tactic will involve yet another class of pregnant women: those on life support.

Opponents of the practice, however, say it universally violates a woman’s constitutional rights.

“The lawyer isn’t representing a separate interest for the fetus,” Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of the NAPW, tells Mashable. “The lawyer is representing state power over a pregnant woman.”

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.