Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

State Laws banning and curtailing Abortion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd....tion/index.html

[Qwertz mumbles something about the Peoples' States of Jesus.]

Is it just me, or does it seem too coincidental with the 'ascendancy' of Alito and Roberts to SCOTUS? The anti-abortion nazis are wasting no time in gearing up to take down Roe. Not that Roe was particularly good law, mind you, but it's better than what the Jesus Police want.

Anyone good at cartoons? How about one of Jesus helping 'take care' of Mary Magdaline's 'problem?'

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem too coincidental with the 'ascendancy' of Alito and Roberts to SCOTUS?
Hard to imagine. This might just have been foolish optimism on the part of SD, or it might have been the result of a close study of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where they carefully scoped out the dissents and counted votes, and think they might have an argument that could sway somebody. Who?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? What percentage of rapists oppose abortion?

I was referring to the following:

The Bill would make it illegal to have an abortion except in rare cases when it might be necessary to save the life of the mother. No allowance would be made for women who had been raped or were victims of incest.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how turning a woman's uterus into state property, is benefiting anyone but the rapists (they could even seek custody).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't surprise me at all. Perhaps that it was South Dakota and not Alabama or Mississippi is a little surprising, but I'm sure many other states will follow, especially when this law is challenged in court for the first time.

I hope that there are a few good judges left, and that one of them will get this case. I'd like to read a scathing pro-choice decision similar in tone to the recent intelligent design case where the judge basically identified what it is, nothing more than a religious agenda seeking the State's legislation.

But I won't be surprised (and half expect it) if this is maneuvered to SCOTUS. It will be interesting, as well as infuriating, to observe the tactics used to get this in front of the Supremes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to the following:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how turning a woman's uterus into state property, is benefiting anyone but the rapists (they could even seek custody).

Maybe I'm missing something. Do South Dakota courts generally grant custody of children conceived in rape to the rapists? This is not to defend the South Dakota law but to seek evidence for the claim that rapists will benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aybe I'm missing something. Do South Dakota courts generally grant custody of children conceived in rape to the rapists?
This presumably derives from a fairly widely circulated statement by Krista Heeren-Graber, who is the executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault, who said "If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother". That refers to the fact that rapists have parental rights in South Dakota. However, there is a proposal, House Bill 1132, that requires parental rights to be terminated at the time of sentencing of the rapist, unless the defendant shows clear and compelling evidence that this would not be in the best interest of the child (the determination is at the discretion of the court). Whether this will eventually become a law, and what the final form will be, is anyone's guess. Probably under the future law, a meth-addict mother could be deemed to be unfit, so the rapist might be awarded custody.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

*** Merged Topics ***

 

Oklahoma just passed a law that say that nobody may sue a doctor for causing them not to have an abortion, regardless of whether the doctor made a mistake (say did not realize the fetus had some condition) or deliberately misled them about the status of the fetus. If the doctor mistook some condition or lied and, by doing so, prevented some remedial action, then he can still be sued. However, if no remedy other than abortion was possible, he cannot be sued. Any Christian doctor who lies, thinking he can prevent an abortion, can get away free and clear, with a large majority of the Republicans in Oklahoma cheering him on.

It is hard to believe this is America. It is amazing that the GOP points at Obama as a violator of rights, when these creeps do not have the beginnings of a notion of individual rights. Their governor vetoed the law, but he was over-ruled. So, an overwhelming majority of the GOP lawmakers are Christian fascists. These are the same type of guys who complain that Mexican culture is worse than their culture!

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not much more left to say than "this is absolutely horrible".

But hey, for the greater good, right? Our God told us not to lie to other people, but I guess we can make an exception for telling a woman that she does not actually have a right to her body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that i understand the bill(its nefarious purpose is obvious to me, but not its actual meaning) While the end result may be negative, doesn't it seem correct that a doctor should be allowed to recommend that a woman not have an abortion? Outside of that and his refusal to perform one, how could it be a doctors fault that a woman had a baby? Seems like she could get an abortion somewhere else if she wanted to. What am I missing here?

Without an amniocentesis, determining defects before a birth is a probability game(which a doctor can't be reasonably expected to predict correctly all of the time) and with amniocentesis there is a lab record to prove he lied. So I don't understand this, currently as a rights violation. Could you explain further?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that i understand the bill(its nefarious purpose is obvious to me, but not its actual meaning) While the end result may be negative, doesn't it seem correct that a doctor should be allowed to recommend that a woman not have an abortion? Outside of that and his refusal to perform one, how could it be a doctors fault that a woman had a baby? Seems like she could get an abortion somewhere else if she wanted to. What am I missing here?

Without an amniocentesis, determining defects before a birth is a probability game(which a doctor can't be reasonably expected to predict correctly all of the time) and with amniocentesis there is a lab record to prove he lied. So I don't understand this, currently as a rights violation. Could you explain further?

Without an amnio, if the doctor has a suspicion that there's a birth defect... even a strong suspicion, he does not always have to mention it under this bill. Similarly, the results of an amnio do not have to always be mentioned. Most doctors are not going to keep silent, but under this law there are cases where they can. This would be any case where their defense is: "there was nothing one could do for the condition prior to birth, other than abortion". Even doctors who are tempted to lie would be scared to have to defend such a claim, but the law allows them to get away scott free if they can. Even if the amnio-record or anything else shows that the doctor was negligent, even if some of his staff confess that he told them he was going to lie, none of that will matter from a legal standpoint if he can show that abortion would have been the only possible solution. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaching a contractual relationship is initiation of force. This law seeks to allow and encourage initiation of force on the part of Christian doctors, by shielding the aggressor from any legal or even professional repercussions, in cases where the breach involves deceiving women into having babies with illnesses that have no treatment.

I must say, in US history, this is a new low not only on the part of statist politicians, but possibly on the part of criminals in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without an amnio, if the doctor has a suspicion that there's a birth defect... even a strong suspicion, he does not always have to mention it under this bill. Similarly, the results of an amnio do not have to always be mentioned. Most doctors are not going to keep silent, but under this law there are cases where they can. This would be any case where their defense is: "there was nothing one could do for the condition prior to birth, other than abortion". Even doctors who are tempted to lie would be scared to have to defend such a claim, but the law allows them to get away scott free if they can. Even if the amnio-record or anything else shows that the doctor was negligent, even if some of his staff confess that he told them he was going to lie, none of that will matter from a legal standpoint if he can show that abortion would have been the only possible solution.

The amnio is a giant needle poked in a woman's stomach. If he refuses to give results to her it would be obvious and if he lies about the results, she can get her own health records which would include the amnio and sue for being horribly defrauded. I'm not a lawyer so perhaps I don't understand the bill properly, but I can't see how they would be protected by it from knowingly providing wrong information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amnio is a giant needle poked in a woman's stomach. If he refuses to give results to her it would be obvious and if he lies about the results, she can get her own health records which would include the amnio and sue for being horribly defrauded. I'm not a lawyer so perhaps I don't understand the bill properly, but I can't see how they would be protected by it from knowingly providing wrong information.
Yeah, I know what an amnio is and have watched it being performed.

One simply cannot sue people for any lie they tell. You have to show what damage was caused. The focus of this law is not on the lying or negligence or innocent mistake of the doctor. All that is not relevant to this particular law. Instead, this law says that no damage was caused to you if you ended up with a child with some type of disability. The law says that this situation does not qualify as "wrongful life". (The exception is where some action other than abortion could have help correct or better the condition.)

As far as doctors being able to get away with something like this, it is not hugely difficult. Most doctors have a consultation where they share their interpretation of any test-result. To most patients, the number on tests (other than familiar items like cholesterol or blood-pressure) mean very little, and they rely on the doctor to tell them what the numbers mean. In fact, documentation of test-results is seldom handed over unless the patient insists. Except where there is some doubt or difficult choice -- usually expressed by the doctor himself -- patients do not seek second opinions on every test.

To make it clear, I do not think that Oklahoman doctors are going to be routinely lying to their patients, even though the law allows them to do so. It is likely that a few doctors (very few?) will withhold information in borderline cases where they might otherwise have come clean for fear of being sued later. So, it is not that the law will bring about a plethora of fraud, only that it does not punish the few doctors who might engage in it. The christian zealots are patient folk, they'll slip down this slope one inch at a time. For now, let's just get people used to the idea that no legal damage can be claimed for a child being born.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One simply cannot sue people for any lie they tell. You have to show what damage was caused. The focus of this law is not on the lying or negligence or innocent mistake of the doctor. All that is not relevant to this particular law. Instead, this law says that no damage was caused to you if you ended up with a child with some type of disability. The law says that this situation does not qualify as "wrongful life". (The exception is where some action other than abortion could have help correct or better the condition.)

Ahh...Ok...I get it, now. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the intent of the Legislature that the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child.

So you're saying that the birth of a child can or should be a legally recognizable injury?

I don't think so. If there are damages, I think the plaintiff is going to have to be a bit more specific then "I gave birth." That's all this law says.

The bill is a very short read. It doesn't preclude a claimant from showing a myriad of damages that would most definitely arise from a lying and fraudulent doctor.

Now, I don't necessarily see the need for a law carving out this protection, but I'm not sure why this is so objectionable. If there really were a case where a doctor intentionally hid medical information about a woman's fetus does anyone think this language would sanction that action in a court of law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there really were a case where a doctor intentionally hid medical information about a woman's fetus does anyone think this language would sanction that action in a court of law?
Yes, it would. Actually, it would prohibit an action against the doctor based on the damage "wrongful birth". If a fetus has Down's syndrome and it is clearly diagnosed but the doctor lies about the condition, there is no civil recourse. (Whereas, without this law, if a doctor were to make such a knowingly false claim, he might be sued for consequential economic and non-economic damages). The only recourse would be to have the doctor's license yanked. (Of course if the action caused other damage to the mother then he could be sued)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that the birth of a child can or should be a legally recognizable injury?

How much does it cost to keep a baby growing in your for nine months?

How much does it cost to buy healthy foods to make sure the baby doesn't end up all freaky (Excuse me for my lack of knowledge of science)?

How much does it cost to medicate the mother after she gave birth to the baby she didn't want?

And furthermore, giving birth fucking HURTS LIKE HELL.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would. Actually, it would prohibit an action against the doctor based on the damage "wrongful birth". If a fetus has Down's syndrome and it is clearly diagnosed but the doctor lies about the condition, there is no civil recourse. (Whereas, without this law, if a doctor were to make such a knowingly false claim, he might be sued for consequential economic and non-economic damages). The only recourse would be to have the doctor's license yanked. (Of course if the action caused other damage to the mother then he could be sued)

How are you making this law so bullet proof based on this bill? No offense, but I would not choose you for my lawyer. If the "wrongful birth" angle is not an option because a birth ALONE cannot be considered legal damage. Then... you go after other damages. The options are endless...

Here's one: The newborn child's condition is now more severe and acute because the doctor withheld information and therefore the mother was not able to have any treatment provided.

Yes, of course. Under the circumstances, this is not merely a recognizable injury, but an extremely serious one.

I often think about how many individuals exploit things to their own advantages where they can find loopholes. So yes, doctors with an agenda may attempt to use a law worded like this as a shield to attempt such an immoral act. But also, someone (who may have never considered abortion in the first place) that perhaps didn't take care of themselves during pregnancy might find them self 9 months later with "damages" just looking for someone to sue. So, I'm just saying... it doesn't bother me so much that the bar is a little higher in that particular state.

But let me say again... I don't really see the need for such a law. I would not suggest it, nor vote for it were I a lawmaker. I just think the disgust about it I noticed in this thread seemed a little overblown.

(I could be wrong about the actual violations of individual rights that this legislation will cause to occur and be "legal". Time will tell. I'm not a lawyer. I read the law twice and I can't imagine that this would stop a person who was truly harmed by a malevolent doctor.)

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you making this law so bullet proof based on this bill? No offense, but I would not choose you for my lawyer. If the "wrongful birth" angle is not an option because a birth ALONE cannot be considered legal damage. Then... you go after other damages. The options are endless...

Here's one: The newborn child's condition is now more severe and acute because the doctor withheld information and therefore the mother was not able to have any treatment provided.

You cannot simply make up facts. There are conditions for which no in-vitrio solution is possible. Anyone can go after doctors for damages for all sorts of things. What has that got to do with this law? This law takes one extremely important area where people are damaged in a huge way and says that the law no longer recognizes that damage. Your response is that people can claim some other type of damage! So, should the law start to ignore other damage in other areas, and we'll all rationalize that somehow people will be able to concoct other damages and get justice anyway? If supplier don't meet their contracted deadline and knew fully well that they could not when they promised, should the law say that this type of thing cannot lead to damage; the vendor will always be able to claim other types of damage? If a restaurant knowingly serves very old food and someone gets food-poisoning, should we say food-poisoning is not a damage? Will the person be able to concoct some other damage and go after the restaurant anyway?

Your argument boils down to: "the law does not matter, what people can claim and get is all subjective and whimsical anyway".

I often think about how many individuals exploit things to their own advantages where they can find loopholes. So yes, doctors with an agenda may attempt to use a law worded like this as a shield to attempt such an immoral act. But also, someone (who may have never considered abortion in the first place) that perhaps didn't take care of themselves during pregnancy might find them self 9 months later with "damages" just looking for someone to sue. So, I'm just saying... it doesn't bother me so much that the bar is a little higher in that particular state.
This law does nothing whatsoever to raise that bar. If it wanted to do so, it would have been written differently. A law could have raised the standard of proof, or even specified a objective way in which a court would consider if a doctor had used reasonable discretion, or even imposed procedural requirements on pregnant women to ensure that they do not claim something untrue later. The law does none of that. The intent of the law is absolutely clear: it is not to protect doctors from unwarranted law-suits. It is to protect criminal and grossly negligent doctors, and damage patients, all so that unwanted children can be born.

But let me say again... I don't really see the need for such a law. I would not suggest it, nor vote for it were I a lawmaker. I just think the disgust about it I noticed in this thread seemed a little overblown.

(I could be wrong about the actual violations of individual rights that this legislation will cause to occur and be "legal". Time will tell. I'm not a lawyer. I read the law twice and I can't imagine that this would stop a person who was truly harmed by a malevolent doctor.)

As I said in an earlier post Oklahoman doctors are not going to be routinely lying to their patients, even though the law allows them to do so. Perhaps very few people will be affected. Perhaps it will only be a few women who live in some more rural Oklahoman communities, where the doctor is rationalizing his lying by thinking that his patients are all conservative anyway and that telling them about a condition about which they have no choice other than abortion will unnecessarily place them in a moral dilemma. Perhaps the doctor will be lying "for the patient's" benefit, so that they have a peaceful pregnancy.

However, the frequency is besides the point. In principle, this is no different from allowing some other criminal act that will rarely take place, and doing so for a religious reason. So, for instance, if some rural christian sect beat their wives, this would be like a law that said the men could beat their wives if they had belonged to that community all their lives, but only on the 23rd of February between 9am and noon, and only after warning their wives verbally to stop irritating them or they would be thrashed. In frequency of occurrence, you might sleep at night, not worried about the crime, saying to yourself "it's just a few wives who're getting thrashed beyond recognition". However, in principle, such a law is no different from saying that we'll live under Sharia.

The principle is important here: the law is explicitly sanctioning a blatantly criminal act, for a religious reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you making this law so bullet proof based on this bill? No offense, but I would not choose you for my lawyer. If the "wrongful birth" angle is not an option because a birth ALONE cannot be considered legal damage. Then... you go after other damages. The options are endless...
You're suggestion that all you have to do is imagine some harm and then ask for money based on that harm. Contrary to what you said, the law does not have an exception that allows a suit for wrongful birth in case a doctor lied.
But let me say again... I don't really see the need for such a law. I would not suggest it, nor vote for it were I a lawmaker. I just think the disgust about it I noticed in this thread seemed a little overblown.
When a doctor is professionally negligent in the performance of his duties -- for example an in vitro genetic test is incompetently performed and a defective fetus is not aborted due to this wrongful act -- then the parents are saddled with a huge economic and emotional burden for the rest of their lives. The outrage is over the fact that in Oklahoma (and some other states), the well-justified legal idea that a person should be held responsible for their actions including their incompetence has been partially repealed, in a religiously-defined context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Now, it is the GOP in Texas (Ron Paul's state) that is curtailing abortion with all the cynicism of a left-wing dictator.

 

Meanwhile, Ireland might loosen their restrictions on abortion, from embarrassment after they murdered an Indian lady, refusing to give her an abortion. Their law will remain horrendous, but at least its a wee step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...