The wording of an anti-abortion law should go something like this...
Through no willful act may an unborn child be in anyway harmed.
It would rule out accidents and natural causes.
Ironic in that Roe v. Wade was based on Texas inheritance law; specifically a law which would no longer stand challenge given medical advances.
So what the court ruled here, is that malpractice when it comes to a fetus, is non-existant. Now there's a confidence builder. The physician maternal client relationship has never been stronger. LMAO
Edwards made his millions suing for damaged "fetuses." According to him, the damaged fetus is worth big bucks - in his pocket, anyway.
"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.
Sounds like the baby was indeed a person that died in utero.
Is the problem because her case occured prior to 2003?
Rather look at it as a blow against the pro-life cause, look at the bright side. An Edwards wanna-be saw his paycheck go up in smoke when the ruling came down.
Just read last week that a pregnant illegal alien could return to the United States because her "fetus" was an American Citizen.
I just don't get it!?
What is a fetus? A baby the pro-choicers don't want.
What is a baby? A fetus you DO want.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Why should they be able to sue anyway? Sounds like Edwards' falsely blaming doctor's delivery techniques for Cerebral Palsy.
Without more detail, I don't see the culpability of the hospital for the stillborn child.
I'm sick of parents who sue for Perfect Babies. It's just such an attitude which has only fueled the fire of More Perfect artificials and driven OB-Gyns out of business for failure to afford the med-mal insurance necessary to ensure a Perfect Birth for every parent.
When did folks get the notion they not only had a "right" to a child but a "right" to a perfect birth?
One thing the story said, which if true, makes the Court's legal decision fairly solid, is that the act itself indemnified doctors.
"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."
Now -- I can't square that indemnity with the Act that defines them as an individual -- but it seems to me that the Court did its job here. That is, the Court enforced the law. (Which, by the way, is exactly what we conservatives always demand).
It seems the battle to change this law ought to bed fought at the legislative level. The law should recognize that "individuals" have a right or cause of action for wrongful or negligent treatment.
If I had to guess -- the heart of these cases come from Plaintiff's attorney's unable to get around informed consent forms filed and signed by the parents. Thus -- they are trying to give a separate cause of action to the individual to bring on his or her own. Just a guess.
I believe the unborn are persons with distinct rights. That battle should be fought at the legislative level. With respect to the Court here, based on the skimpy facts provided, the Court enforced the indemnity provision in the law -- it appears -- without reaching or having to reach the issue of individuality. Again, in order have a substantive discussion -- I will need to read the opinion.
What needs to happen is the law needs to be changed, not bash the Justices for doing their job and upholding the law as it is currently written.
I disagree with the Court's opinion that a fetus is not a person. On the other hand I do not believe the Medical proffession is neglent everytime a baby is born dead, less than perfect, or because the ilk of John Edwards needs a new beach houes, town house or country estate.
Fetuses: Justices aren't all that humane either.
This is exactly the reason I support a constitutional amendment.
"Jerry Bullard, a lawyer for Reese and her husband, Donnie Reese, said he was disappointed in the ruling."
John Edwards might have won the case - he has/had an excellent record in 'personal injury' cases. :)
Neither is a liberal.
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?