With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". legislature is aware of judicial construction of a statute, and from its failure to amend a particular statutory provision, we may presume it acquiesces in that construction.”). Therefore, the legislature’s failure to amend N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-22.2 “ ‘is evidence the court’s interpretation is in accordance with the legislative intent.’ ” Ro-denburg, at ¶ 26 (quoting Clarys v. Ford Motor Co., 1999 ND 72, ¶ 16, 592 N.W.2d 573). [¶ 21] Our decision in Geiser comports with a majority of jurisdictions. A majority of states have held that a viable fetus is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of a mother who ingests a controlled substance during pregnancy. See Geiser, 2009 ND 36, 763 N.W.2d 469; see also Reinesto v. Superior Ct. of Ariz., 182 Ariz. 190, 894 P.2d 733 (Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Reyes v. Superior Ct. of San Bernardino

A: holding that mother could not be prosecuted under child abuse statute for prenatal use of heroin
B: holding reckless injury and attempted firstdegree intentional homicide statutes were not applicable to a mother who consumed excessive amounts of alcohol causing injury to her child postpartum
C: holding a mother may not be held criminally liable under a reckless endangerment statute for the effect that prenatal ingestion of a controlled substance may have on her child pre or postbirth
D: holding a mother was not criminally liable for knowingly causing injury to a child under circumstances likely to produce death or serious physical injury after the mothers prebirth ingestion of heroin caused her child to suffer heroin withdrawal symptoms postpartum
D.