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.
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!!
Use the feminist’s constantly changing definition of “rape” as a legal doctrine against those same feminists pushing abortion!
No. This is a dumb law. The goal is good, but the means are stupid. Try some other way.
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.
HELLS YEAH!
Interesting. So instead of a law explicitly restricting abortion (and likely to be overturned), make abortionists’ liability insurance premiums skyrocket.
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?
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
The horror so many women live with would bankrupt the baby butcher business model, but it can never restore the heart.