[freeangel]

“The woman alleged that the clinic staff had a duty to tell her that she was terminating the life of a human being as a matter of biological fact. “

Where has this nitwit been since Roe v Wade? I think the suit was frivilous.

[DJ MacWoW]

Where has this nitwit been since Roe v Wade?

Listening to the left lie and say it was only a glob of cells. PP actually DID lie to her. And now she KNOWS it was a lie.

[Boogieman]

“Where has this nitwit been since Roe v Wade? I think the suit was frivilous.”

Initially, my thought was about the same, but there is an argument to be made that the abortion industry has waged a campaign to mislead their “consumers”. If the tobacco industry can be held liable for claiming cigarettes didn’t cause cancer when it was common knowledge that they did, then why not try to hold the abortion industry similarly accountable?

More importantly, a side effect of pursuing this kind of case is that you might be able to press the court into ruling on whether the fetus counts as a human being, since that would be one of the facts of the case.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The USSC stated in Roe that "if" the personhood of the fetus were established, the concept of a "right to abortion" would obviously fail. (FReeper EV can provide the quote.) By failing to accept scientfic evidence as determinative, they have actually failed to "find" that anybody is a person.

So we have this towering artchitecture of law, Constitutional, civil and criminal, judicial rulings, precedents, legislative intent, policy and enforcement, all built on a firm foundation of ...absolutely nothing.