Posted on 12/05/2002 6:44:22 PM PST by carlo3b
Press Release Source: Cassidy Messina & Laffey
New Jersey Appellate Court Clears Way For Jury to Decide Whether First Trimester Abortion Terminates Life of Living Human Being
Tuesday October 29, 12:53 pm ET
RANDOLPH, N.J., Oct. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- A New Jersey Appellate Court issued an opinion today which clears the way for a trial which requires a jury to determine if a first trimester abortion terminates the life of a living human being. In reversing the decision of the trial court, the case is historical because it marks the first time that a jury, at the direction of a court anywhere in the nation, will answer the question left open by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade: when does the life a human being begin?
The trial in "Rosa Acuna v. Dr. Sheldon Turkish," Appellate Docket Number A-2209-015T, is tentatively scheduled to begin sometime after the first of the year.Mrs. Acuna's attorney, Harold Cassidy, known as an advocate of the rights of pregnant mothers, first gained national attention when he successfully litigated the "Baby M" case, which protected mothers' rights by declaring surrogate parenting contracts unenforceable. Mr. Cassidy called today's decision "a great victory for the rights of pregnant women." He added: "This case exposes the conflict between a mother's fundamental rights and a conflicting philosophy of an abortion doctor who devalues the mother's interest in her relationship with her child."
In its twenty-two page opinion, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's dismissal of Rosa Acuna's claim for her emotional distress due to the death of her unborn child, whose life was terminated by an abortion performed by Dr. Turkish, which Mrs. Acuna's states was performed without her informed consent.
According to the public documents filed with the Appellate Court, Mrs. Acuna asserts that the doctor did not explain that the essential nature of the abortion procedure was that it terminated the life of a living human being. This failure, she maintains, was exacerbated by the fact that Mrs. Acuna specifically asked the doctor if her "baby was already there". Mrs. Acuna wanted to know if a human being was already in existence, and says that Dr. Turkish misled her by telling her that it is "nothing but some blood". (Dr. Turkish admitted in depositions that he tells pregnant mothers that "it is nothing but some tissue").
The trial court had ruled that "Roe v. Wade" prohibited the State from recognizing the fact that the child was a human being. The Appellate Court rejected that contention.
The case is especially significant because if the jury finds that the abortion procedure terminates the life of a human being, and that fact is one a reasonable patient would consider material to her decision, it means that a doctor will be required to inform a pregnant mother, prior to her giving consent to an abortion, that the doctor would be terminating the life of a living human being.
If it isn't alive, there's little reason for abortion in the first place. And as for it "being a human being," a simple DNA test will answer that question rather conclusively.
I know many of you reading this will say this woman should not have had to ask this question. But let me try to give her side.
When abortion was first being pushed as an alternative method of birth control (called "Termination," not "Abortion"), many women wanted to know when life actually begins. In the 70's, the "I'm OK, You're OK" theory was, "It's not really a life until the 13th week."
Since most women can't "feel" the fetus (the movements are almost imperceptable until the second trimester), the assumption that it wasn't alive seemed almost believable. In many cases, it was the excuse necessary to go ahead with the abortion ("If I do it now, it's not murder. If I wait until it moves, it will be murder.")
The Pro-Life movement's "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" campaign didn't start until the late 70's (if I remember correctly). By that time, "termination" was a part of the culture.
Abortion and the sexual revolution occured within the same five year period. In 1970, a 21 year old woman did not sleep with a man on the first date, and could not get an abortion. By 1975, a 21 year old woman was "liberated" if she had sex with mutliple partners. If she got caught (pregnant), that was easily solved with a simple termination (abortion).
While the 21st century isn't quite as loose and easy as the 1970's, the simple fact -- when does life begin -- is not addressed, either in school (anybody see a biology text lately? Not a lot of information there) or in any forum outside of Church. If a girl has no exposure to a Church, she certainly isn't going to learn that life begins at conception anywhere else.
Informed Consent will go a very long way toward stopping abortions. No matter how much pressure a teenage girl is under, she alone will make the decision whether or not to abort. If her doctor is required to tell her the tissue she is about to have removed is actually a human being, it will put a whole different perspective on the procedure. It's easy for a young girl to be coersed by an older boyfriend, counselor, or even a parent, if there is no discussion beyond, "Will it hurt?" or "How long does it take?" The doctor telling her, "This procedure will terminate a life," is considerably more shocking than "It's not a baby yet."
Sorry to ramble on, but this is my particular cause. Abortion causes more trama to the mother than pro-abortionists want to admit. The emotional scars last forever. It kills more than the woman's baby. It kills a part of her she can never get back. If woman considering abortion knew this, abortions would decrease dramatically.
Women need to be told exactly what is happening to them and to their babies. This case should help us do that.
Guys, the title says it all. Let's pray this case is resolved in our favor.
On the last outing I had, the teacher, prior to my presentation, instructed me that I could include nothing of a religious nature in the discussion. I was under no impairment with such a rule, but I could tell from her meta-communication (body language and expressions) during the entire class that she was very uncomfortable with the process of delivering so much truth to such misinformed young people. The class was not a biology class; it was a 'current issues', 'people of our community' type class of seniors. It's very sad to see how effective the lies and misinformation campaign of the feminists and abortion industry have been with our too vulnerable youth.
Public school administrators believe none of their sacred cows will be killed if they can just keep those darned ol' religious nuts at bay. What they fail to realize is that anyone, of any faith (belief system, lifestyle choice, conceptualization) or lack thereof, can comprehend that a fetus is a living being.
It doesn't require a religious upbringing to understand how doctors determine whether or not a patient is alive. Brain waves are the "litmus test" we use to determine whether a person is clinically dead. Brain waves have been detected as early as 6 weeks after conception. If we're going to apply the brain wave test to humans in a coma, we should apply the same standard to humans in a womb.
IT'S A CHILD.
[Saw that on a bumber sticker on a fleet of big rig trucks the other day, while we were driving from Los Angeles to Houston. It sure got my attention! Nice bumper sticker]
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.