Posted on 08/29/2004 11:51:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Texas high court rules 8-1 the parents of a stillborn baby can't sue hospital< P>AUSTIN - The parents of a stillborn child cannot sue medical practitioners for negligence because a fetus is not a "person" or "individual" under state laws, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled.
The court in an 8-1 ruling overturned a decision of the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth that Tara Reese could sue a Fort Worth hospital for the mental anguish she suffered after her baby died in utero in 1998.
Lawyers for Reese had urged the court to follow 37 other states that allow wrongful-death claims for stillborn children. Texas is one of 10 states that do not recognize such claims.
The Texas Legislature in 2003 passed the Prenatal Protection Act, which defines "individual" to include an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization to birth. But lawmakers then said that physicians or other licensed health care providers could not be sued if the death is the result of a lawful medical procedure.
Chief Justice Tom Phillips, writing for the majority, said the parties "do not contend that this case involved anything other than a lawful medical procedure, so this case would not be covered even if the new statute were applicable."
According to the opinion, Reese went to the Fort Worth Osteopathic Medical Center emergency room in her seventh month of pregnancy, complaining of a racing pulse and dizziness.
She alleged that the doctors were negligent in caring for her and the fetus.
Phillips said the court was following its 1987 decision in Witty v. American General Capital that held the Legislature did not intend to include a fetus when it enacted the wrongful-death and survival laws in 1860 and 1895. The court said Reese could pursue a claim against the hospital for the injuries she sustained.
Justice Steven W. Smith dissented. He said the case was too important to be resolved solely on the basis of prior case law.
Jerry Bullard, a lawyer for Reese and her husband, Donnie Reese, said he was disappointed in the ruling.
"The court missed an opportunity to re-examine and overrule Witty as it applies to viable unborn children, restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is morally and legally repugnant, and bring Texas into step with those states that recognize the personhood of the unborn child," Bullard said.
Earl Harcrow of Fort Worth, who represents the hospital, said he thinks the court did the right thing.
"That's what the law has always been," Harcrow said. "The court of appeals tried to change it, but the Supreme Court did not go along with that."
Idiot plaintiffs. Where oh, where is John Edwards when their is money to be filched?
Idiot plaintiffs. Where oh, where is John Edwards when there is money to be filched?
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=17264
Here's the rulings.
If I understand:
At the time of the injury, the new law was not in effect. Justice Smith makes the point that this is not a Roe v. Wade case.
Which is the reason God has shown some mercy on our nation; i.e. we have not utterly destroyed ourselves....yet.
I'm not being gloomy in the least ... I'm merely stating the FACT of the matter.
If you fix the contraceptive mentality among Christians, the rest will follow. It's just the math. Plain and simple.
You can't eat your cake where contraception's concerned and have it too where abortion takes the "right" of Contraception to its only logical and reasonable conclusion.
Agreed.
I certainly hope you get to go back.
=== Which is the reason God has shown some mercy on our nation; i.e. we have not utterly destroyed ourselves....yet.
I'm sure you're going to think I'm a gloomy Gus too but I think the fact we're still "cushioned" somehow from the reality of our destruction wreaked at home and abroad is not exactly an indication of God's mercy.
I think there is an efficacy in suffering to which those faithful who endured 80 years of militant atheist can attest but which we have yet to learn.
I agree with Askel's 47. Absolutly.
And I believe Askel is NOT characterizing the odds worse than what they really are. In fact in more than a few ways they are worse. If I listed what I know it would crush most people's hopes.
But it does not help the Cause to spend much time on that. It is but dust to God. We can win, with Him.
Better to focus the energy on what can be done in the here and now.
I wouldn't mind dying there, actually.
I've been fascinated by Russia since I was in 5th grade.
After reading my posts I am certain you are just being facetious.
I don't agree with your assessment. That the faithful in other countries, may have deserved the mercy of God as much as or even more than the faithful in our own, is not the point. The point is if we were ALL totally lacking in faith and goodness, he would not have shown us any mercy whatsoever.
I strongly disagree with your first sentence.
What do you know? And how do you know that you know more than what other people know?
"But it does not help the Cause to spend much time on that."
Agreed.
"I wouldn't mind dying there, actually."
ROFLOL--No, Askel's not a gloomy gus!
shall we nickname you SUNSHINE!
It's what the Nazi's tried to create - the MASTER RACE!
Clearly, the inmates are running the assylum....
=== The point is if we were ALL totally lacking in faith and goodness, he would not have shown us any mercy whatsoever.
What sort of Old Testament god do you have in mind here?
=== Better to focus the energy on what can be done in the here and now.
I'm agreed on that, you know.
I guess I'm still unsure that that keeping the truth from folks or allowing them "hope" via "wins" which are heavy on symbol but light on substance may not be the ticket.
It's really only once the truth began to dawn on me that I became the person I am. (Not so "gloomy" in person, you know ... )
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.