Posted on 12/06/2016 11:29:33 AM PST by CedarDave
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. At 21, Jessica Duran conceived a child she hadnt planned for, and abortion, she said, felt like her only option.
It was 2012. The father of the baby, and Durans parents, all said she should terminate the pregnancy. So she did.
She went to Southwestern Womens Options, signed a document that among other things allowed the fetal tissue of her 12- to 13-week aborted pregnancy to be used for medical research. She now says she didnt read the document closely, but that she was distraught.
In 2015, Duran learned her aborted fetus could have been used in medical research at the University of New Mexico.
To know my child was used as a science project, a child I loved and wanted, its devastating, Duran said.
Now, four years after the abortion, Duran filed a lawsuit against Southwestern Womens Options, seeking attorney fees, unspecified damages and the temporary cessation of the clinics donation of fetal tissues.
Her attorney, Michael Seibel, contends the clinic failed to give Duran proper notice under law that her fetal body parts could be used in medical research, and that she should have been given a separate consent for donation.
Currently, a U.S. House of Representatives Select Investigative Panel has been reviewing both Southwestern Womens Options and UNM, which receives fetal tissue from the clinic. Under federal law, abortion providers are prohibited from selling fetal tissue, but they can donate it for medical research. Abortion providers can recover the cost of processing and transferring the tissue, though those costs are not specified or capped by law.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
NM list PING!
I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics
To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords
To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)
So science experiments is too much but killing it was okay? I fail to see the logic here....
Yep. There is a reason we have contracts and contract law.
We ARE still a country of laws, right?
Everyone but the child voted on whether her child should live....and the child lost.
Exactly.
Nope, you don't get to say that murderer.
That's the way I see it too. The only "positive" thing about this lawsuit is that it focuses attention on the shady traffic in fetal tissue.
It seems a bit more like horsehockey. She is now living her life as she deserves, wracked with guilty feelings for murdering a helpless human being.
I'll bet her pre murder counseling was no more than one question, “Do you want to do this?”
“. . . all said she should terminate the pregnancy. So she did. . . .”
“. . .Duran learned her aborted fetus could have been used in medical research. . .”
“. . .To know my child was used as a science project, a child I loved and wanted, its devastating, . . .”
_________________________________________
Her relatives can talk (perhaps pressure her)into murdering her child, yet she grows a conscience about the remains?
If she truly cared for and “wanted” her unborn baby, yet still aborted, perhaps she could have coughed up some money for a decent burial?
it was in the contract you signed, don’t blame others if you didn’t read it
Going for the money.
“a child I loved and wanted”
She wanted it and aborted it (which is solely the woman’s decision)? Does not compute.
I hope she wins!!
It’s not uncommon for women to grieve many years afterward in some cases. Once they come to that realization there is grief and depression.
Yep. There is a reason we have contracts and contract law.
We ARE still a country of laws, right?
*************
Not for many years ,, I lost a case today where the party that wrote the contract got completely out of it because they claimed they didn’t know what it meant despite the plain meaning of the words being obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together... no “meeting of the minds” ... even though it was their contract... so now you can put anything on paper ,, even a one sided contract where the other party has no input and either side can just nullify it on a whim “it’s not exactly what I thought it meant”.
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.