Posted on 03/07/2019 2:16:32 PM PST by ETL
The lawyer of the Alabama man suing an abortion clinic for terminating the life of his unborn child against his wishes, says he wants anyone associated with the abortion to pay up.
"We are suing the clinic, the manufacturer of the pill, going after the doctor and going after any professional organization the doctor is affiliated with," attorney Brent Helms told Fox News on Thursday, adding that "if they are all held liable, it would put a dent on the profitability of abortions."
On Tuesday, an Alabama county court recognized the aborted fetus, "Baby Roe," as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, making the case one of the first of its kind.
"The truth is, no one has ever done this," Helms said. "The question is, why not?"
Helms' client Ryan Magers, 21, of Madison County, claims his girlfriend got a medicated abortion at the Alabama Women's Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville in February 2017 when she was six weeks pregnant.
Magers, who was 19 years old at the time, had pleaded with his girlfriend, who was16, not to get the abortion. She did so anyway, Helms said.
"A woman can go and she can have an abortion of convenience but there's nothing that protects the father," Helms said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I guess they haven’t heard that men don’t have any rights. Only privileges.
>
I guess they haven’t heard that men don’t have any rights. Only privileges.
>
In either case, more than the aborted (of either sex).
How do snail darters and pine trees get standing in court?
Seriously, can a political interest group get standing in a case involving fetuses using the same legal thinking that allows environmental groups to get standing in cases involving things that are not human? How?
Why has our side not done this already?
Anybody know of any legal background on this matter of jurisprudence?
Libs want men to only pay for child support. Not actually WANT their son or daughter.
When it gets appealed they will rule the fetus doesn’t have status and the judge was in error. Which then means all laws that try people for murder when they kill a woman’s baby in the womb will get off the hook.
or they will rule the father doesn’t have standing because he didn’t prove he had rights to speak for the fetus. Only the mother can do that.
At least that the only logical thing the left can do to fight this. But the left will not let this stand.
Did he want to support the child, or did he only want her to?
Finally! Maybe fetuses will have standing or their biological dads! Preserve right to life, liberty and happiness!
Actually, he is on the right track. If it was illegal to profit in money terms from abortion that would eliminate Planned Parenthood from the scene.
Good for him, though.
Bump!
I’m not talking about fathers of their unborn children.
I’m talking about, say, the Children’s Environment League of Virginia filing a lawsuit against Sally Smith and her doctor Sammy Smith and the University of Virginia, ALL ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRELY UNRELATED child.
Environmental groups successfully sue, say, Quick Dig Construction Company who, for example, run a bulldozer into dirt and trees and bird nests. Does the dirt have standing? Do the trees? Do the birds? So how does the unaffected environmental group gain standing to file suit against Quick Dig Construction?
How then does a hypothetical Children’s Environmental Defense League gain standing to sue on behalf of the human, unborn, daughter of Sally Smith?
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.