Posted on 07/19/2010 5:49:24 AM PDT by mlizzy
Doctors Must Screen for Coercion and Other Risk Factors for Abortion Complications
Springfield, IL (April 13, 2010) A new Nebraska law will allow women to sue abortion providers for psychological injuries related to unwanted, coerced or unsafe abortions, according to the Stop Forced Abortions Alliance.
"This is the first law in the country that allows women to hold abortionists accountable for negligent pre-abortion screening and counseling," said Paula Talley, one of the organizers of Stop Forced Abortions. "If it had been in place in 1980, I would have been spared the years of grief, depression, and substance use which followed my own unwanted abortion."
Judicial rules normally do not allow women to sue for psychological injuries after abortion unless the injuries stem from a physical injury. The new Nebraska law is the first law in the country to eliminate the requirement that the woman must prove that psychological injuries from an abortion stemmed from a physical injury.
The law also puts into place a specific standard of care for appropriate pre-abortion screening. Abortion providers may be sued for negligence if they fail to ask a woman if she is being pressured, coerced or forced to have an abortion. They may also be held liable if they fail to screen women for other statistically significant risk factors that may put them at higher risk for psychological or physical complications following an abortion.
Research has found that as many as 64 percent of women feel pressured by others to have an abortion. In addition, one study found that even though more than half of women reported feeling rushed or uncertain about the abortion, 84 percent said they did not receive adequate counseling and 67 percent said they weren't counseled at all.
In Talley's case, she said, the pressure to abort came from her employer.
"My abortion counselor never asked if I was being pressured," Talley said. "Nor did she inquire about my psychological history. If she had, she should have known that I was at higher risk of experiencing post-abortion trauma because I had a history of depression. Plus, I had moral beliefs against abortion, but I was rushing into a poorly thought out decision because I was so filled with fear and panic.
"If the abortion counselor had bothered to ask the right questions, she would have seen that I was more likely to be hurt than helped by the abortion, But I was never warned. They just took my money, and my baby, no questions asked."
The measure easily sailed through Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature with a 40-9 majority. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman is scheduled to sign the bill today. The law will go into effect on July 15.
Legislators Argue Burden and Constitutionality
The law requires that abortion providers must screen women for risk factors that have been established in the research for a year or more prior to the abortion. Legislators opposing the bill argued that it would be nearly impossible for abortion providers to keep track of all the research on risks factors. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Cap Dierks, disagreed.
Dierks said that a report from the American Psychological Association found that an average of 12 studies per year are published on the subject.
"Surely its not too much to ask abortion providers to read 12 studies per year," Dierks said. "Women rightly expect their doctors to keep up to date on their area of specialty. Why would we want the standard of care for abortion to be less than that for other medical procedures?"
Among those opposing the bill was Sen. Danielle Conrad, who argued that abortion providers are already giving women sufficient information.
"We do not need an additional layer on top of that," she said. She also argued that the bill was unconstitutional and placed an undue burden on women.
But Sen. Brad Ashford, an attorney and the chair of the Judiciary Committee that reviewed the bill, told the Legislature that the law did not raise any obvious constitutional issues because it relies only on civil remedies and does not place any burdens on women. He said that any burden caused by the screening requirements falls primarily on the abortion provider, not on the women whose rights are expanded by the bill.
State Lobbying Effort Focused on Injured Women
Greg Schleppenbach, Director of Pro-Life Activities for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, led the lobbying effort for the legislation. He said that "women deserve better than one-size-fits-all counselingor no counseling at all."
"Ninety-nine percent of abortions in Nebraska take place in two abortion facilities," Schleppenbach said. "Their informed consent counseling consists of recorded phone messages 24 hours before the abortions and most women never see the abortion provider except during the 10 minutes or so he is doing the abortion. Women deserve better."
Schleppenbach said that the stories he had heard from women who have suffered from emotional problems after an abortion provided the impetus for passing legislation that would improve their right to redress.
"Most people dont realize that under the existing rules of law, it is essentially impossible for women to hold abortion providers liable for inadequate screening and counseling," he said. "This is why the standard of care for abortion counseling has fallen to such a dismal level. If abortion providers face no liability for inadequate screening, cost-cutting measures will inevitably lead to an assembly line process with one-size-fits-all counseling.
Twenty-Five Year Effort to Change Malpractice Laws
Dierks bill was patterned after model legislation called the Protection from Coerced and Unsafe Abortions Act. The legislation was developed by the Elliot Institute, a post-abortion research and education group based in Springfield, Ill.
Elliot Institute Director Dr. David Reardon said that inspiration for the bill came from a 1985 article written by the group Feminists for Life.
"The article was identifying obstacles and loopholes in the law that made it nearly impossible for women to recover damages for abortion related injuries," Reardon said. "Plus, the short statute of limitations when dealing with medical procedures meant it was likely that women injured by abortion wouldn't be emotionally ready to come forward until it was too late. The article said this was similar to cases in which women who have been raped may feel too ashamed or afraid to come forward."
Reardonwho is the author of numerous studies linking abortion to higher rates of suicide, depression, anxiety, and substance abusesaid these observations shed new light on something he had been observing in the medical literature on abortion.
"Nearly every study done on abortion and mental health, whether before or since 1985, has found that certain subgroups of women were at higher risk of negative reactions," he said. "Most of these studies have been done by pro-choice researchers, so you cant accuse them of bias. Many of the researchers openly recommend that these risk factors should be used to screen for at-risk patients so they could be given more pre- and post-abortion counseling."
One such study was published in a 1972 issue of Family Planning Perspectives, a publication of Planned Parenthood. The authors of that study found four risk factors that reliably predicted more post-abortion problems. They suggested that pre-abortion screening should be done using a short psychological profile which could be administered for less than a dollar per patient.
A similar 1977 study identified five risk factors that accurately predicted which women would have subsequent problems adjusting after abortion 72 percent of the time. But in interviewing women who were experiencing problems after abortion, Reardon found that abortion providers were ignoring the research. He was unable to find evidence that even one clinic in the country was doing evidenced-based pre-abortion screening.
Reardon said that this observation, combined with the insights from the Feminists for Life article, made him realize that the loophole in the law protecting abortion providers from liability for psychological injuries meant they could simply ignore all of the research on screening and risk factors. In fact, if proper screening led to a reduction of abortion rates among coerced and high risk women, they might actually lose money.
Reardon believes this lack of screening is an act of a medical negligence in and of itself.
"Without screening, it is impossible for a doctor to give informed medical advice," he said. "Performing an abortion on request, regardless of the risks, is contrary to both medical ethics and the law."
"If a woman walks into a doctors office and says, 'I have a lump in my breast and need a mastectomy,' and the doctor says Jump up on the table and well take it right out,' we dont call that medicine. We call that malpractice. Added to that, the situation with abortion is even worse because many women and girls are having abortions they dont really want, due to lack of resources and support, pressure, coercion, threats, emotional blackmail, disinformation or even force from others."
Reardon said that while Roe v Wade created a right for women to seek an abortion in consultation with a physician, the Supreme Court also wrote that "the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician."
Reardon believes that Roe intended for doctors to be held liable for inadequate screening and counseling.
"Nebraska has now done what the states should have been doing a long time ago," he said. "They have removed the loopholes in civil law that prevent women from being able to hold abortionists accountable for the negligent screening that predictably leads to so many unwanted, unsafe, and unnecessary abortions."
If McDonald's has to put calorie labels on everything so people know exactly what they're eating, shouldn't every avenue to used to alert patients about what they're going to do to their offspring? I think there should be every type of info out there given to patients before they decide - especially 3D ultrasound.
You could say these patients got medication without the warning label or being told about the side affects. Any other industry would be sued for doing the same thing.
Someone who even suspects she is pregnant should NOT go to PP, ever. They aren't there to help.Excellent advice! Words that should be placed on a t-shirt!!
I think you’e looking too hard for a reason to reject this.
If the screening is done, the woman won’t have a case for negligence. This is elementary.
Although I have no sympathy for abortion providers and like to see anything that makes their life harder, I have reservations about this. It seems to be trying in large part to eliminate any blame against the women who choose to have abortions. You poor thing - blame it on the providers. This in turn shifts the costs from the recipient’s mistake to the providers. In fact the whole system seems designed to shift the psycological costs of abortion from those responsible to those better able to bear them.
Screening done by who? The personal injury attorney?
You didn’t read the article.
“seems to be”
This is where your point fails. The legislation is clearly inspired by the need to address a public health problem.
Placing blame on women who have abortions is not something that really happens on a large scale in our society. Certainly not to the extent that it would motivate legislators to act on it.
NO but the costs incurred by women who have psycological problems as a result of their free choice IS something that happens on a large scale in our society. And in the age of Obamacare who has the resources to pay those costs - the abortion providers or those who receive the abortions? Just another attempt to transfer wealth while still making abortion free and frequent. What other business has to pay for the buyer's remorse of a customer?
There’s already an injunction against our new law. Can someone explain to me, why is it that every good law conservatives try to pass, gets blocked by the courts. Yet, liberals’ stupid laws don’t get injuctions against them?
http://omaha.com/article/20100714/NEWS97/707159891
Excerpt:
Judge blocks abortion screening law
By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN State attorneys were reviewing their legal options Wednesday after a federal judge stopped a new Nebraska abortion law from taking effect.
U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp said in her ruling that the law would place substantial, likely insurmountable obstacles in the way of women seeking abortions in the state.
The order temporarily blocks new requirements for doctors to do extensive screening of women seeking abortions.
The screenings were required under a law, passed as Legislative Bill 594, set to take effect Thursday.
It seems to be trying in large part to eliminate any blame against the women who choose to have abortions.Women are being hoodwinked by the devil (and PP!). All women should be alerted at the "clinic," that they are taking the life of their child. Ultrasounds should be provided (or at least suggested) so they can see that this is true. Then there should be pamphlets from The Elliott Institute (for instance) on what it is that possibly awaits them (both physically -- heightened breast cancer possibility -- and psychologically -- drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, weight gain/loss, anxiety, bitterness, anger, and worst of all, silence from shame), as a post-abortive mother. The mothers then should be able to make a true "choice" (their own!) regarding abortion/adoption/carrying to term, and not feel pushed or prodded by relatives, the father of the child, etc. Pregnant women need encouragement and assistance to avoid abortion ... post-abortive women can receiving healing through Rachel's Vineyard.
This legislation is not a setback for tort reform in general.
It will decrease the number of abortions, however, a battle we should support while waging the larger wars against both the malpractice and the abortion industries.
Agreed. Like I said, I'm for anything that hurts the abortion industry.
There is abundant information on the tactics of PP that is available to anyone who wants to thoroughly understand what they are getting into. Too many people don't want to know what they are getting into - they want to hear that they are doing the right and necessary thing by aborting their child.
The pressure argument also doesn't fly - at least, not with me. When someone starts putting a lot of pressure on me to do something that I'm not sure is right or wrong, it is a signal to me that something is wrong. As many lawyers will tell you, if a deal is good today, it will still be good tomorrow. If it isn't, take your money and run as hard as you can the other way.
Once men realize that they may not be able to get rid of their baby, maybe they will stop abusing young girls, or maybe they will wait to get married, or maybe they will marry the girl that they got pregnant.
I also think the feminist position should be pro life. Based on my own, non scientific poll, more men than women are pro choice, often for selfish reasons.
The pressure argument also doesn't fly - at least, not with me.An unplanned pregnancy causes amazing angst, and it's very easy to pressure an anxious woman, especially one who has literally no one to "run as hard as you can the other way" to.
I have always felt that the vast majority of abortions are by girls who have been coerced into it by their lover/boyfriend/abuser.Yes! The last girl I saw exit Planned Parenthood (so young, beautiful and vibrant when she was walking into PP), was leaning heavily on a handsome young male's arm slowly walking to the car following her abortion. She seemed filled with grief; it certainly was not "relief" that I saw. As they drove out (took them a very long time to get situated), a pro-life counselor handed the driver pamphlets, and he said, "It's done. It's over with," and he rolled up the window and left. Her beautiful baby was dead; her own "pain" just beginning ... so very sad ... pray to end abortion ... (and if anyone can, please come out to a PP and protest/pray; one day previous to the above, we had a "save" -- the most beautiful answer to prayer I've ever seen ...
Thus, the reason that children, who don't fully understand the consequences of their actions, should not be engaging in adult behaviors. If people don't use condoms and/or other birth control methods to prevent unplanned pregnancies, despite ALL of the information that is available, whose fault is that?? It's the same thing as smokers claiming they didn't know that smoking causes cancer.
It's the same thing as smokers claiming they didn't know that smoking causes cancer.I think most women know that sex can cause pregnancy. What they aren't given is any direction or compassion if/when they *do* become pregnant, the time they need it the most. Remember, their own families are usually against their pregnancies. "You make your bed, you lie in it," sort of thing.
Thanks for posting this. I saw it earlier. Some feathers are going to be ruffled by this!
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.