To: Saundra Duffy
FYI
2 posted on
12/29/2001 12:18:11 AM PST by
Jean S
To: patent
Please ping all around.
This is great news - it is always good when the butchers have to watch their every step. Sadly, unfair lawsuits scare the hell out of doctors. In this case there is nothing sad about it - and certainly nothing unfair. I am hoping sucn lawsuits scare the hell out of abortionists.
To: Notwithstanding
"...expressed a sense of horror that researchers would selectively omit data for the most significant risk factor. It's horrible - but not shocking. The Left has always been about lies and it's usually women and children who suffer the most as a result of their lies.
To: Notwithstanding
As much as I'm glad to hear about this case and their win. The following statement gives me the creeps. As a woman, I would think this wouldn't even have to be told to anyone.
, two Australian women commenced legal actions because their abortionists gave them no warning that there might be adverse psychiatric consequences.
7 posted on
12/29/2001 12:18:12 AM PST by
TXBubba
To: Notwithstanding
Although a direct linkage between the murder of their children via abortion and an increased risk of contracting breast cancer by the murderers is good news, it should be remembered that the liberal's response will be predictable...
More money and government protection (from lawsuits) for the murderer's abortionist-accomplices.
Even so, this is a wonderful opportunity for pro-life forces to capitalize on. The key will be to ignore or marginalize any fifth columnists in the pro-life movement who will (as sure as God made little green apples) council that this opportunity not be fully exploited.
12 posted on
12/29/2001 12:18:14 AM PST by
DWSUWF
To: Notwithstanding
Yah... as Fred Flintstone would say: Yabba Dabba Dooooooo... Not just as a scary thing for doctors to have to deal with, but maybe some women may take note of this while making a decision on abortion. I've never went to deep into the "planned parenthood" program, but I wonder if this danger is pointed out there? If not, it should be forced into the program by the government. Maybe we can sue more liberal garbage here?
To: Notwithstanding
Rohan's abortion data had been buried in a file cabinet, until [...]
Surprise.
15 posted on
12/29/2001 12:18:15 AM PST by
A. Pole
To: Notwithstanding
I'm not sure I understand what data was withheld.
The Australian study, authored by Thomas E. Rohan et al and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1988, was conducted on women from Adelaide, Australia. Rohan examined reproductive and dietary risk factors for the disease. Researchers determined Australian women who had abortions increased their risks for breast cancer by 160%.
Has anyone here actually read the American Journal of Epidemiology article? Were these findings from the study omitted from the article?
To: Notwithstanding
The plaintiff's attorney in the lawsuit, Charles Francis, Queen's Counsel, had cautioned the parliamentarians about the possibility of increased litigation against abortion providers which might occur as a result of expanding abortion rights.
Oh my... That would be tragic.
21 posted on
12/29/2001 12:18:16 AM PST by
Jhoffa_
To: Notwithstanding
No....not an abortionist....more like a nit-wit.
31 posted on
12/29/2001 12:18:18 AM PST by
JMJ333
To: Notwithstanding
This is a finding just waiting to happen in the US. The "failure to warn" goes directly to the issue of informed consent.
"Informed consent" is based on those facts which a reasonable patient (woman) would want or need in order to make a decision (NOT what a "physician" thinks is necessary and sufficient).
The AMA, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association, to name a few, have deliberately engaged in criminal collusion, to deprive women seeking abortion of the kind of information which any reasonable woman would want.
This is a time-bomb waiting only for the right case before the right judge, and a US Supreme Court ruling ultimately is inevitable.
Informed consent is legally a civil rights issue in the US; and the leftists will choke on their own dishonesty when this one hits the federal courts.
To: GovernmentShrinker; pcl
FYI
To: father_elijah; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Salvation; ELS; nina0113; Steve0113; el_chupacabra...
Bumping. Let me know if you want on or off the list. Click my screen name for a description.
![](http://www.freerepublic.com/images/flags/usf24.gif)
patent
40 posted on
12/29/2001 12:18:20 AM PST by
patent
To: Notwithstanding
I would be all in favor of a bill to PROMOTE abortion rights, that every liberal should also support: Fix the price of an abortion at $10. Enact severe penalties for anyone who accepts a higher fee for an abortion. Every liberal who supports rent control, and supports a higher minimum wage, should agree that fixing a low, low price for abortion would make abortion available to more women.
To: Notwithstanding
To: Saundra Duffy
Well, Saundra m'dear...............I'm no lawyer, and therefore I have no idea whether or not a case on the other side of the planet can be cited as "precedent"............but I've just GOTTA believe that your opponents' attorneys will be sweating bullets when they hear about THIS one. :)
BTW.............there are settlements, and there are settlements. I know I've suggested this before, but I'll say it again (even though you've said that this isn't about money........and I believe you): BLEED 'EM DRY. The only way to stop these people.........the ONLY way...........is to make it no longer economically feasible for them to continue.
I believe that to my heart, soul, and toes. Every instinct I have tells me this........LOUDLY. I pray for your victory, but I also pray you heed this advice (and its true intent). God bless.
To: Notwithstanding
Truth detector bump!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson