With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Missouri law, upheld a preconception tort cause of action by a child who alleged that defendants’ malpractice in performing a Caesarean section on the mother during a prior pregnancy caused her uterus to rupture during her subsequent pregnancy with plaintiff, resulting in premature delivery and serious impairments. Acknowledging the lack of authoritative precedent, the Court of Appeals concluded on the basis of Missouri caselaw concerning prenatal injuries that Missouri courts would recognize a cause of action based on a preconception tort. Id. at 25-26. Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital, 67 Ill.2d 348, 10 Ill.Dec. 484, 367 N.E.2d 1250 (1977), was the first of several preconception tort cases that implicated erythroblastosis fetalis, the condition that caused the injuries 851 (Mo.1993) (<HOLDING>); Graham v. Keuchel, 847 P.2d 342 (Okla.1993)

A: recognizing cause of action for preconception tort based on allegation that obstetricians mismanagement of mothers prior pregnancy including failure to diagnose and test mothers rh isoimmunization was proximate cause of severe injuries to child of subsequent pregnancy
B: recognizing the unique relationship between mother and child during pregnancy and birth and permitting mothers claim for emotional distress where the mothers emotional wellbeing and the birth of the child are inextricably intertwined
C: holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy
D: recognizing infants preconception tort claim based on allegations that medical centers misidentification of mothers rh negative blood as rh positive led to doctors failure to administer rhogam following earlier pregnancy causing mothers rh isoimmunization to inflict severe damage to child of subsequent pregnancy
D.