Fine, but why focus only on the lungs and not other areas such as the nervous system or cardiovascular system? The way this was written made it sound like the unborn baby was breathing in smoke, and it didn't do much to clarify that. For instance, one of the main irritants in smoke is tar, which clogs the alveoli and gums up the cillia--mentioned in the article as the most effected areas--perfectly understandable for babies, but the unborn?
I am not defending the right to blow smoke in a pregnant woman's face, especially since I am one. I just think it's a poorly written article which gives the impression it was written by an alarmist (perhaps looking to further a broader nanny-state agenda).
Guess I didn't consider it that poorly written. Scientific articles are not great prose as a rule. Even summaries for popularization of the facts tend to be overly obtuse. Not defending it. It's just very normal.
I think the basic facts were still quite discernable.
Congrats on your pregnancy, BTW. I wish you and child the best.