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
All I can say is, that this is a huge victory for the rapists…
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?
All I can say is, that this is a huge victory for the rapists…
Really? What percentage of rapists oppose abortion?
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).
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.
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.
Maybe I’m missing something.
You’re missing the point of my original post - sarcasm…
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.
*** 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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
So you’re saying that the birth of a child can or should be a legally recognizable injury?
Yes, of course. Under the circumstances, this is not merely a recognizable injury, but an extremely serious one.