This week’s state Superior Court ruling reaffirms the lower courts’ decision to drop the felony aggravated assault charge against Kasey R. Dischman, the East Butler woman accused of overdosing on heroin while seven months pregnant. Barring any additional appeals, the case is settled according to state law.

Even so, it’s a disturbing end — a juncture that points to something lacking in the state law, which leaves most of us very dissatisfied with the outcome — that is, no one held responsible when a child is born two-months prematurely, exposed to addictive drugs and in need of highly specialized neonatal care.

Dischman was alleged to have overdosed on heroin on June 22, 2017. She was taken to UPMC Mercy Hospital in Pittsburgh, where a cesarean section was performed the next day. Her baby girl required life support for a least a week.

Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger charged Dischman with felony aggravated assault, citing a 1998 amendment to Pennsylvania’s Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act. The specific law reads: “A person commits aggravated assault of an unborn child if he attempts to cause serious bodily injury to the unborn child or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the life of the unborn child.” The law classifies this offense as a first-degree felony.

However, the act continues: “Nothing in this chapter shall impose criminal liability ... upon the pregnant woman in regard to crimes against her unborn child.”

Dischman’s attorney, Joseph Smith, raised this point before Dischman’s case could go to trial, and Butler County Judge William Shaffer, concurring, dismissed the aggravated assault charge.

This law was crafted with an abundance of respect for a woman’s right to determine what’s best for herself, her health and her unborn child.

Smith successfully argued this point, citing a 2006 opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which the justices ruled that while the exemption does mean pregnant women are treated more leniently under the law, it’s not unconstitutional because a pregnant woman’s connection to a fetus is unique and could create situations where she alone bears increased risk of criminal prosecution — especially in situations involving drug addiction or attempted suicide.

Goldinger would have known the law exempting pregnant mothers from prosecution, and it’s certain he knew the defense was aware of it when he made the decision to prosecute. So why would he press a charge that he knew wasn’t likely to stick?

The apparent answer is that the law itself has to be put on trial. As it exists, the law draws an unclear distinction between an expectant mother’s legal and illegal behaviors.

For example, if a pregnant woman believed a diet of orange juice, marathons and hot tub soakings provided healthy benefits for her fetus, there’s no provision in Pennsylvania’s Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act that prevents her from following this regimen. She’s not breaking any laws. But guess what? Neither is there anything in the specific act to stop her from ingesting morphine or crack cocaine, either.

Maybe the prosecution should steer clear altogether of the Unborn Child Act — prosecute by more conventional narcotic laws. But that’s not a satisfactory response to the specific issue of drug abuse that’s potentially harmful to a fetus.

Maybe the point that should be made in the Dischman case — at least indirectly — is that a state law protecting unborn children should exempt mothers who are not alleged to be committing a felony-level violation of the law. This is not an unreasonable threshold for the legislature to consider.