Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Willis, 98 N.M. 771, 773, 652 P.2d 1222, 1224 (Ct.App.1982), illustrates the point. In Willis, we held that an unborn viable fetus is not a “human being” within the meaning of the vehicular homicide statute. The Court reasoned that since the Legislature first enacted homicide statutes, in which the killing of a human being and the killing of an unborn infant child were separately addressed, “it does not follow that the Legislature meant to include viable fetus within the definition of human being without specifically making provision therefor.” Id. {8} Since Willis, the Legislature has enacted statutes that demonstrate its intention to distinguish an unborn viable fetus from “human being.” See NMSA 1978, § 30-3-7 (2006) (stating that “[i]njury to 190, 894 P.2d 733, 737 (Ct.App.1995) ; State v. Dunn, 82 Wash.App. 122, 916 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that mother may not be prosecuted criminally for child endangerment for prenatal substance abuse
B. holding that the defendant mother could not be charged with endangering the welfare of a child based upon prenatal acts endangering an unborn child
C. holding that mother could not be charged with criminal endangering the welfare of her child based upon prenatal acts of smoking cocaine
D. holding a woman may be prosecuted for child neglect and endangering a child for prenatal substance abuse
E. holding that mother could not be prosecuted under child abuse statute for prenatal use of heroin
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.