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. 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 it’s 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 don’t 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."
Reardon—who is the author of numerous studies linking abortion to higher rates of suicide, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse—said 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 can’t 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 doctor’s office and says, 'I have a lump in my breast and need a mastectomy,' and the doctor says ‘Jump up on the table and we’ll take it right out,' we don’t 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 don’t 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."
**storm the courts ladies ... **
And don’t forget the fathers of these aborted babies who were often left out of the decisions...
I'm not so sure. I have heard of too many women who, after having sex, asked their partner where babies come from.
I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of unwed pregnant women but, I reiterate, there is plenty of information available. With all of the resources (other than the DBM) that anyone can access for honest information about this topic, I still think that they can find the necessary data if they want to.
I understand the fear, feelings and panic women face. I also understand that this is something that women who have undergone an abortion have failed to come together to let other women (and girls) know their options and choices. How come that isn't part of this debate?
I also understand that this is something that women who have undergone an abortion have failed to come together to let other women (and girls) know their options and choices. How come that isn't part of this debate?That is a very good question, and I've often thought it would be the post-abortive mother that would end abortion, pure and simple, but the devil is quite foxy (and very evil), and he took care of that early on. A post abortive mother, even though she may feel (or know!) the mistake even before the actual procedure, cannot sometimes, for decades (yes, decades!) admit this to herself openly, much less to others. Abortion silences much more than the baby. It silences the mother, too. I had a Web site up once; it was for the bringing together of post-abortive mothers and fathers (and their children in heaven) to pray for the end of abortion. And that was the #1 similar thread throughout those who joined the group. They had all been muted by shame for differing, but significant amounts of time. The women who hold the "I Regret My Abortion" signs at pro-Life rallies are not always, but usually in their 50s and 60s. That's how long it takes to heal; they then can turn around and help others. Now what young woman, let's say who is 19-early 20s listens to a 60-year-old grey-haired "old" lady about the complications from abortion she's about to endure. (Again, the devil is brilliant!) It will be through prayer, fasting, protesting, and the grace of God through the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist that will ultimately end abortion forever ...
And don’t forget the fathers of these aborted babies who were often left out of the decisions...And the fathers too, indeed! (ty)
How true that is. OTOH; what can you expect from an organization that was founded by the repulsive Margaret Sanger. She was a huge propotent of Hitler-style eugenics.
Do you know any women who have committed abortions? Have you discussed the matter in detail with them? Have you ever discussed abortion with women who are actively considering committing it, or being pressured to do so?
"Should have known"?
Sure.
In a perfect world.
We don't live in perfectville ... we live in a world filled with liars in government, the mass media, and the abortion industry, who specialize in lying about abortion to all and sundry.
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.
In an ideal world, girls would be mature enough to recognize the pressure tactics being used on them.
Unfortunately, PP hard sells abortion beginning long before a girl "accidentally" gets pregnant. When I was in high school, a salesgirl from PP came to speak to my biology class. She talked about all the different forms of contraceptives, but along with the valid information, stressed how dangerous those methods are and how prone to failure they are, intentionally trying to give the impression that they're extremely dangerous and don't work. She talked not only about how safe abortion is, but told us that having an abortion, especially a late abortion, would cure menstrual cramps. A fifteen year old girl probably doesn't know she's lying--I sure didn't. And the way she addressed whether the child is alive--she laughed, and said that some people might believe that, and some might even believe the sperm and egg are alive, HA HA HA. She was very slick.
Couple the hard sell methods with the other messages--like pro-lifers don't want women to have rights, they just want to force them all into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Not every girl is suspicious enough to examine their motives, or to start digging around for information. It is a sad reality that they often have an abortion (or two or...) before they start learning anything about the truth. And then they often don't want to hear it.
Your point is well made that young women are not going to listen to the words of a bunch of "60-year-old grey-haired old ladies" about this. So, what's the answer?? I'm still not convinced that suing the abortion Dr. and/or the clinic is going to assuage the guilt that you and others have expressed on this issue.
Because I’m feeling a little lazy this morning, I’m not going to dissect your reply line by line. Suffice it to say that I understand your argument and there are some valid points being made. However, IMO, that doesn’t turn into a payday from a lawsuit against the abortion clinic.
Way back in the dark ages (the 60s) when I was in high school, we all knew that if a boy and girl had sex, there was a 50-50 chance of a pregnancy resulting. We also knew that if the boy used a condom, the chances of that pregnancy occurring were reduced to ALMOST zero. And, we knew that a pregnancy was not going to be welcome news at home. The only part of that that has changed since I was in school is that there is less social stigma associated with having a child out of wedlock and too much acceptance.
The pressure on girls to “put out” (an ugly term I really don’t like) has not really increased because both teenage boys and girls have these hormones raging inside - the same raging hormones we had when I was in high school. Without proper guidance (and, as we know, they aren’t getting that from the public schools) both boys and girls don’t know how to properly channel their energy, curiosity and raging hormones. If they are not getting the information at home from their parents or from their church or synagogue (and, based on a casual observation, they aren’t), then we get what we have today - either a significantly high incidence of teenage mothers having children out of wedlock, or visits to the abortion clinic.
Again, the influences and the information are there. But, parents not wanting to parent their children and teenagers who are not engaged in safe, chaperoned social events, still doesn’t add up to a payday from the abortion clinic. Too many parents are satisfied to let the schools usurp their rights to raise their children and provide them with values. If you are on this site, you know that the schools have morphed into extremely liberal government indoctrination centers. They’ll teach our children how to put a condom on a cucumber and how to make more subjects . . . . . er, voters . . . . . . . er, TAXPAYERS (yeah, THAT’S it!!), but they don’t want to teach them anything useful.
I'm still not convinced that suing the abortion Dr. and/or the clinic is going to assuage the guilt that you and others have expressed on this issue.
No amount of compensatory damages can assuage the guilt of being an accomplice to your own child's murder; to remove guilt, one must be forgiven (through Confession to a Catholic priest, or, if not Catholic, one can contact their clergy for advice, or contact Rachel's Vineyard). The suing is to pay towards any unemployment due to illness brought on by the after-effects of abortion, doctors (psychiatrists, etc.), medications, whether chemical or natural, to deal with the trauma from an abortion they never realized would occur because they were incorrectly advised (or more precisely), weren't advised at all through Planned Parenthood. PP does not "help" pregnant women; in fact, they hurt them to varying degrees and, at the same time, their "doctors" destroy their children forever (to earth). The deadening of one's soul through abortion then encourages repeat visits from the moms and/or referrals, and the cycle of death goes on and on. A lot of women having abortions try to shift the blame away from themselves already by claiming that they were coerced into it. I think such screening is a good idea. If the abortionists are forced to discuss the negative consequences of abortion and require the prospective client to sign a disclosure form, then she can't claim she didn't know what abortion is later on. If she is asked, up front, if she feels coerced into having an abortion, then she would either have to face the fact that she chose to kill the baby, or she would have a chance to refuse if she is being coerced.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
It sounds like you went through high school a few years before I did. By the time I went through, Roe v. Wade was a reality. We weren’t taught that we should avoid sex or be careful; we were given a hard sell on abortion. No actual information on pregnancy was offered, and pro-lifers were portrayed as being somewhat more eccentric than the Manson family. There was a very deliberate effort to deceive women.
It’s easier to get information these days, but also easier to disseminate disinformation. I’m not ready to place complete blame on women who fall for the false promises in this climate—many of them just don’t have the education or training in critical thought necessary to navigate their way to the truth. I’m absolutely for forcing abortionists to provide accurate information. Although I think it’s a bit late for that info, when the pregnancy has already begun—but what should happen in an ideal world isn’t very likely to happen in this world.
If women were given all the objective facts about abortion, I doubt many would choose it. Some are at the clinic because they are appalled and embarrassed that they are pregnant in this day and age. They’re worried everyone they know will think they’re stupid. They need to be counseled on ways to tell family and friends of their mistake. They need information on the physical and psychological consequences they will endure and the increased risk for certain illnesses, if they proceed. They need to be told what their baby at this stage of its development is actually like, what it can do, and what it can feel. They need to hear the stories of women who’ve made the various choices, pro and con. Finally, they need to be handed a sensitive pamphlet from their particular religion, telling them what that religion thinks of abortion.
If all those things happened, I doubt many women would choose abortion. They are caught in a moment of fear and weakness. We should help them through it. Since most women who choose abortion are NOT this informed and are blinded by their doubts and fears, I think we can say, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Excellent post.
Suddenly tort reform goes on the Democrat agenda....
I agree. Great commentary!
... pro-lifers were portrayed as being somewhat more eccentric than the Manson family ...*smiling* Thanks for your commentary!
I’m not ready to place complete blame on women who fall for the false promises in this climate—many of them just don’t have the education or training in critical thought necessary to navigate their way to the truth.Or they may have an education, capable of thinking critically, but they haven't the faith to leap the obstacles.
They are caught in a moment of fear and weakness.Is that your experience? If so, I'm really sorry.
One of the saddest things I read was someone who was supporting that bill (I forget which state it is) to require abortionists to provide accurate, high quality sonograms of the baby prior to committing the abortion. The person said, simply, "If only this were already available. My parents wouldn't have forced me to abort my baby if they had seen their grandchild."
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.