Posted on 01/18/2017 5:56:19 AM PST by Olog-hai
Iowa lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow a woman who gets an abortion to sue the doctor who performed the procedure if she experiences emotional distress later.
If approved, it would be the first law of its kind in the U.S.
The proposal, which was endorsed Tuesday by a GOP-led three-member panel of lawmakers, would permit the woman to file a lawsuit at any point in her life, something that goes against typical statute of limitation rules. It could also make the state vulnerable to costly court challenges.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
That’s one way to put the baby butchers out of business.
Mmmmm....
On second thought that’ll really eff up the slaughterhouses.
Watch for PP, NOW, and various ‘champions for women’ come out strongly against this bill. Then you’ll know what enacting this bill means to the child-killing industry.
That’s nuts.
Perhaps she should sue the man who impregnated her, or better yet, sue herself for negligence for not taking precautions. Only kidding!
Lawyers vs Abortionists. This is a novel approach to say the least.
This is a penumbra of the idea that a woman can decide, a week later, that the sexual attention she got was unwanted.
I don’t think this will pass, but it will be amusing to watch.
This bill doesn’t make any sense. If emotional distress is a predictable complication of abortion that is discussed with the patient prior to the procedure during the review of risks and “benefits”, then how could one sue when that complication actually took place?
I really wouldn’t encourage this approach. This is something Democrats would do, decide that if something has upset you, even if you are the one who initiated it, you can get money by going after the other party.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
You really think the baby-killers honestly discuss anything with their "patients"?
Planned Barrenhood is still peddling the "blob of tissue" lie.
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!!
Use the feminist’s constantly changing definition of “rape” as a legal doctrine against those same feminists pushing abortion!
You’re missing the point.
It’s a move to make feminists live by the same legal doctrines they advocate for.
No. This is a dumb law. The goal is good, but the means are stupid. Try some other way.
You would if you want to stop losing.
What are the feminists going to say "convincing me to have sex may be rape, but convincing me to have an abortion is 'choice?'"
Even if this proposal harms reprehensible people (which it will), it’s still wrong. Women who voluntarily participate in pure evil are responsible for their choices and should not get rich just because they realized the enormity of their moral crimes. This is not the right path for accomplishing even a worthy goal.
Hush now. Let the adults talk....
HELLS YEAH!
Not many of them do. And this was a question I always asked post-abortion women in my 30 plus years of medical practice.
But that's not the issue with this bill.
These women could currently sue their abortion providers for negligence for failing to completely discuss emotional complications in their preprocedure risk-benefit discussion.
This bill's problem is that it could set a dangerous precedent creating a minefield of litigation possibilities in other areas of medicine. It's a litigators dream.
The argument will be made that, since in the case of abortion one can sue for predictable complications, why can't that same principle be applied to any other procedure? It will be argued that abortion is "medical care" (which it isnt) but the argument will be made anyway. Then it will be argued that, since the process of informed consent does not protect against litigation in the case of the recognized complications of abortion (which is equated to medical care), then it should not do so for other forms of medical care.
Therefore, your case of deep vein thrombosis following your hip replacement is open to litigation even though your orthopedist discussed this risk with you before surgery and you accepted it as a risk to gain the benefit of the hip replacement.
It seems to be a well meaning bill that fails to recognize unintended consequences.
I really wouldnt encourage this approach.
The are other solutions to problems. Passing laws is a shortcut that needs to be thought through carefully.
Interesting. So instead of a law explicitly restricting abortion (and likely to be overturned), make abortionists’ liability insurance premiums skyrocket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.