In Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), the appellant argued that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he revealed to law enforcement that the appellant had drawn a map to the location of the victim's body. Id. at 557. On appeal, she maintained that this action fell below an objective standard of reasonableness for two reasons: (1) that counsel had no legitimate trial strategy for revealing the information; (2) revealing the information violated the attorney-client privilege. Henderson, 962 S.W.2d at 557-58. The appellant chose to litigate the issue in the trial court in a pre-trial motion to suppress, but raised only the second rationale to support her claim. Id. The Court held that the appellant had procedurally defaulted her first argument by failing to present that argument to the trial court as well. Id. The Court noted that the United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized that a state has a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting the well-being of its children. Henderson, 962 S.W.2d at 562. The Court further noted that crimes directed toward young children are among the most morally outrageous because they target the most innocent and vulnerable members of society. Ibid. The Court found that the child capital-murder provision is rationally related to the government's interest in protecting young children and expressing society's moral outrage against the murder of young children. Ibid. The Court reasoned that the demarcation of six years of age in section 19.03(a)(8) was not unconstitutionally arbitrary because the statute must draw a numerical line somewhere to retain clarity. Ibid. Hence, the Court held that the statute did not violate equal protection among those who kill children. Henderson, 962 S.W.2d at 562-63.