Posted on 01/18/2017 5:56:19 AM PST by Olog-hai
What it does is begin to force feminists out of their "have your cake and eat it too" legal paradise!
I agree. It's unseemly, devious. It's the sort of thing conservatives don't like in the 2nd amendment arena.
Actions have consequences. Emotional distress after having an abortion is a consequence.
If it passed it would set a dangerous precedent (assuming it held up to legal challenges).
Substitute any word in place of ‘abortion’ and we would all be screaming. I am a strong believer in the rights and responsibilities of individuals, not the village. Make a bad life choice, you own it and everything that follows. You don’t get to outsource your guilt, regret, emotional distress.
Besides, all that will happen is the woman will have one more form to sign acknowledging she has been counseled about the emotional consequences when she realizes she killed her unborn child.
Jim, I believe this is the most exciting innovation in Pro-Life thinking since Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, I do not have the Pro-Life Ping list.
Could you help a brother out?
Don't care. Saving babies from being slaughtered should be pursued by any means possible, up to and including deception, trickery and dishonest arguments.
There is a time and place for good, honest, moral gamesmanship in the court of public policy and public opinion. When little babies are being torn limb from limb, it is not the time to be worried about tactics.
The bort spox says the bill unfairly targets abortion as the only surgical operation for which the patient could subsequently sue for emotional distress.
“Unfairly?” It happens that abortion is the only surgical operation that kills your baby. Wouldn’t that be linked, somehow, to emotional distress? Wouldn’t that be, y’know, a factor?
Stop me before I kill again
Won’t put them out of business...but might make them demand a psychiatric consultation prior to the procedure to ensure the emotional stability of the patient. Come to think of it .... that isn’t a bad idea!!!
I'm good with that! I'm very Pro-Woman!
The problem with your argument is that we are talking about someone’s ultimate right being denied them without their consent not some property or such being denied.
The unborn child has no protection under the law as it stands now. One can sue for a wrongful death why not in this case? Why are abortionist given so much legal protection from litigation?
The counter argument is that the abortionists do not provide the honest counseling required for informed consent.
But if those who do provide adequately informed consent become more vulnerable to litigation (lawsuits based on previously discussed risks and benefits accompanied by a voluntary decision on the part of the one accepting the risks), then the argument will be made that the same applies to adequately informed consent in all "medical" practice.
The unintended consequence in this legislation carries with it the risk of windfall of malpractice jackpots not just in the case of abortionists but for all of medical practice.
The horror so many women live with would bankrupt the baby butcher business model, but it can never restore the heart.
This is not about a wrongful death suit on behalf of an infant whose life was ended before birth. It is about a woman who thought she could end the life of her unborn child without any feelings of guilt or remorse. So she goes after the doctor.
You know who I would go after? The pro-choicers who have convinced a large segment of our society that abortion is no big deal, a “right” (a term I use loosely) without any responsibilities or consequences. They fight any type of counseling tooth and nail.
This will come back on you because you are reinforcing the notion that we are not responsible for our actions. This bolsters all the liberal uses of this mindset, as in suing bartenders because someone drove drunk, arresting men for The Retroactive No concerning sex, suing gun dealers for guns used illegally or causing accidental death... It’s just a very bad idea. Very bad. It’s goal-oriented rather than principle-oriented, which is not a conservative value.
Remember, any precedent you set can be used in horrific ways once your enemies get their hands on it. Ask Harry Reid how he feels about the precedents he set now that the GOP has House, Senate, and Oval Office. It’s very short-sighted.
Correct, but that's the whole point of gender politics. There is no end to the "special" provisions in our legal system specifically designed to benefit women.
Not where women are involved. Example: abortion, adoption, sexual assault, title 9, child custody, welfare benefits, etc....
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.