Skip to comments.
FIRST U.S. ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LAWSUIT SETTLED
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^
| October 21, 2003
| Karen Malec
Posted on 10/22/2003 12:56:39 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-198 next last
To: nickcarraway; Chancellor Palpatine
The problem here is that the cause of action--the breast cancer risk--has not actually made itself manifest.
Future uses of this precedent include enviroweenies saying that, although they HAVEN'T developed cancer from automobile exhaust, there's circumstantial evidence that they MIGHT develop cancer, and thus we need to outlaw all but zero emissions vehicles.
The argument re: parental authority over minor children is a different thing entirely that would be a slam-dunk in a sane society.
21
posted on
10/22/2003 1:15:55 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: goodnesswins
Correct. Hospitals, physicians and nurses get sued if we fail to do that in any other procedure.
Comment #23 Removed by Moderator
To: Saundra Duffy
Saundra, you have been out in front on this for the longest time. Isn't God miraculous. At a time when conservatives have lost a powerful voice (and one who, btw,imo,moved away from our pro-life center) and see important judicial nominees trashed, God strangely works to move the conversation forward hugely! Amazing. Prayer does work. V's wife.
24
posted on
10/22/2003 1:18:34 PM PDT
by
ventana
To: Poohbah
Yeah, but auto exhaust is NOT surgery. Auto exhaust actually helps grow trees.....:?)
25
posted on
10/22/2003 1:18:43 PM PDT
by
goodnesswins
(Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
I should have known you'd show up here. As you may know, I'm one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood to compel them to tell the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer. One of the tactics PP used on me personally was to say that since I haven't had an abortion and I'm not dying of breast cancer, I have no right to be a party to the lawsuit. Our lawsuit is a consumer protection action. I am very offended by your comment. I have had cancer THREE times now but so far none has been breast cancer. My Mom died of cancer and three of my Mom's sisters died of cancer so I'm predisposed. Happy now?
26
posted on
10/22/2003 1:18:54 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: ventana
Prayer does work. V's wife.Hallelujah!
27
posted on
10/22/2003 1:21:51 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Saundra Duffy; Javelina
Ah, the frivolity of it all - to be judgment proof and out filing garbage suits.
Did Tom More ever pony up on the sanctions, or did they leave you holding the bag?
To: Poohbah; Chancellor Palpatine; TheAngryClam; Torie
Sadly, they don't seem to care about little details like "bad precedent"... they are as "outcome oriented" as Rose Bird was during her horrible stint on the California Supreme Court. This is truly depressing to see.
29
posted on
10/22/2003 1:24:20 PM PDT
by
ambrose
To: Poohbah
The problem here is that the cause of action--the breast cancer risk--has not actually made itself manifest.That is patently not true. A study by a pro-abortion researcher even found that a woman with a family history of breast cancer is assured to get breast cancer by 45 if she had an abortion.
30
posted on
10/22/2003 1:24:39 PM PDT
by
nickcarraway
(www.terrisfight.org)
Comment #31 Removed by Moderator
To: Saundra Duffy
Looks to me like another way for lawyers to get rich. Ive been operated on eight times, and stitched up a few more, and Im sure the doctors forgot to warn me about something so I guess Ill go find a lawyer.
BTW before I get flamed, I hate abortions, my children are adopted, my wife and I council young, pregnant women to adopt rather than abort (as volunteers at a public agency) and I have protested at abortion clinics.
32
posted on
10/22/2003 1:27:11 PM PDT
by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
To: nickcarraway
That is patently not true. A study by a pro-abortion researcher even found that a woman with a family history of breast cancer is assured to get breast cancer by 45 if she had an abortion.I'm sure there were enough weasel-words to qualify this statement--or else it's junk science.
Sorry, you need to demonstrate that ACTUAL harm MAY take place, or else you're engaged in very liberal judicial activism.
33
posted on
10/22/2003 1:27:11 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Saundra Duffy
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the ABC "link" is the junk science. Just like "creationism" it's more emotional than fact.
34
posted on
10/22/2003 1:28:02 PM PDT
by
DaGman
To: Saundra Duffy
You know, sometimes I wish Jesus would come back . . . know what I mean? Yup!
In the words of the Apostle John: Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Revelation 22:20
To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Alouette; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; Balto_Boy; Blue Scourge; ...
ProLife Ping! If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
36
posted on
10/22/2003 1:28:54 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(Today is my 1 year anniversary as a street Freeper. I'm hopelessly addicted.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Woohoo! The new FR - praising lawsuits by people with no injuries. Exactly.... this is a ridiculous lawsuit.
A 17 year old trying to hide a BABY from her parents so her world doesn't fall apart would have walked away and taken the heat if'n she'd known about the cancer risk.... Bet she smokes.
37
posted on
10/22/2003 1:29:26 PM PDT
by
HairOfTheDog
(Listening for returning feet and voices at the door)
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
To: Poohbah; ambrose; Chancellor Palpatine; TheAngryClam; Torie
The problem here is that the cause of action--the breast cancer risk--has not actually made itself manifest.That is patently not true. A study by a pro-abortion researcher even found that a woman with a family history of breast cancer is assured to get breast cancer by 45 if she had an abortion.
39
posted on
10/22/2003 1:30:25 PM PDT
by
nickcarraway
(www.terrisfight.org)
To: Javelina
The person sued because she was not advised of the risks prior to the surgical procedure.
That's grounds. Have you ever stood by a patient's bedside to obtained informed consent? I have. If every little insignificant risk is not mentioned, facilities can and have been sued.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-198 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson