Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would let women sue doctors who perform their abortions [Iowa]
Associated Press ^ | Jan 17, 2017 6:39 PM EST | Barbara Rodriguez

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 ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Local News; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; babykillers; iowa; lawsuits
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 01/18/2017 5:56:19 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

That’s one way to put the baby butchers out of business.


2 posted on 01/18/2017 5:59:47 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


3 posted on 01/18/2017 6:01:50 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

That’s nuts.


4 posted on 01/18/2017 6:02:14 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Perhaps she should sue the man who impregnated her, or better yet, sue herself for negligence for not taking precautions. Only kidding!


5 posted on 01/18/2017 6:04:36 AM PST by FES0844 (G)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Lawyers vs Abortionists. This is a novel approach to say the least.


6 posted on 01/18/2017 6:04:44 AM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


7 posted on 01/18/2017 6:04:59 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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?


8 posted on 01/18/2017 6:05:57 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


9 posted on 01/18/2017 6:08:32 AM PST by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
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”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

You really think the baby-killers honestly discuss anything with their "patients"?

Planned Barrenhood is still peddling the "blob of tissue" lie.

10 posted on 01/18/2017 6:09:09 AM PST by NorthMountain (Washington Post is Fake News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!!

Use the feminist’s constantly changing definition of “rape” as a legal doctrine against those same feminists pushing abortion!


11 posted on 01/18/2017 6:15:12 AM PST by papertyger (The semantics define how we think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

You’re missing the point.

It’s a move to make feminists live by the same legal doctrines they advocate for.


12 posted on 01/18/2017 6:17:05 AM PST by papertyger (The semantics define how we think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

No. This is a dumb law. The goal is good, but the means are stupid. Try some other way.


13 posted on 01/18/2017 6:19:03 AM PST by I want the USA back (Voltaire: To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
I really wouldn’t encourage this approach.

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?'"

14 posted on 01/18/2017 6:21:55 AM PST by papertyger (The semantics define how we think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


15 posted on 01/18/2017 6:22:25 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
No. This is a dumb law. The goal is good, but the means are stupid. Try some other way.

Hush now. Let the adults talk....

16 posted on 01/18/2017 6:23:44 AM PST by papertyger (The semantics define how we think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Erin Davison-Rippey, a representative for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said the bill would encourage similar action in other Republican-majority statehouses despite a "Pandora's box" of legal issues.

HELLS YEAH!

17 posted on 01/18/2017 6:27:27 AM PST by papertyger (The semantics define how we think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
You really think the baby-killers honestly discuss anything with their "patients"?

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.

18 posted on 01/18/2017 6:27:28 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

I really wouldn’t encourage this approach.


Every time we pass a law, there are unintended consequences and it is used against us.

The are other solutions to problems. Passing laws is a shortcut that needs to be thought through carefully.


19 posted on 01/18/2017 6:30:44 AM PST by PeterPrinciple (Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Interesting. So instead of a law explicitly restricting abortion (and likely to be overturned), make abortionists’ liability insurance premiums skyrocket.


20 posted on 01/18/2017 6:33:14 AM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson