Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Absurd Abortion Lawsuit Dismissed!
6 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2007 - 12:46AM #1
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
"TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissing a medical malpractice lawsuit that could have improperly forced physicians to give a non-medical, value-laden speech to their patients before performing an abortion. The ACLU called the decision a victory for reproductive rights and free speech in New Jersey."

"In its unanimous decision, the court noted, "we know of no common law duty requiring a physician to instruct the woman that the embryo is an 'existing human being,' and suggesting that an abortion is tantamount to murder. There is not even remotely a consensus among New Jersey's medical community or citizenry that plaintiff's assertions are medical facts, as opposed to firmly held, moral philosophical, and religious beliefs."

[COLOR="Blue"]WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE WAS THE PLAINTIFF THINKING?[/COLOR]

The woman who brought this lawsuit, one Rosa Acuna, claimed her doctor who performed an abortion;

" had failed to properly inform her at the time of her abortion that the embryo was a "complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being" with whom she had "an existing relationship," and his failure to do so caused her emotional distress.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Excuse me but, exactly how can you have a relationship with an embryo? Do you

call it on your cell to keep in touch or what?
[/COLOR]

(It must be something in the water in NJ, is all I can figure.)

The saddest thing about this is we are obviously failing our children in our schools. Only the most severe lack of critical thinking skills could possibly lead to the idea that our physicians, after having spent years in school, should EVER be forced to spout such ideological NONSENSE to patients as part of their jobs. This is one of the most, if not THE most frivolous lawsuits I have EVER seen in my life!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2007 - 1:37AM #2
doxieman122
Posts: 488
The court couldn't have decided any other way under the federal precedent of Roe.

Roe said specifically that one of the reasons for the decision was that there was no ethical/legal/scientific consensus over the definition of life in terms of an independent, viable, legally recognizable human being -- and in the absence of that, the rights of the woman (wanted or, in this case, unwanted) come first.

Let me be intellectually consistent with redkim and others -- many women, including the one in this lawsuit, clearly regret their abortions.  But there is no constitutional requirement -- under Roe, and certainly under the First Amendment -- that a doctor be asked to give out religious information prior to an abortion, only medical data.

PS -- itsa, we're not ALL stupid in New Jersey :p
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 11:26AM #3
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
[QUOTE=doxieman122;25987]
But there is no constitutional requirement -- under Roe, and certainly under the First Amendment -- that a doctor be asked to give out religious information prior to an abortion, only medical data.
[/QUOTE]

Precisely! We are all WELL AWARE that the prolife position is a religious position. Physicians have no business being used as a tool to propagate religious fictions onto their patients, as the ruling in this case clearly show.

[QUOTE=doxieman122;25987]
PS -- itsa, we're not ALL stupid in New Jersey :p[/QUOTE]

HEHE! I know!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 11:49AM #4
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,760
I agree it's not a doctor's place to give moral advice. Unless both the patient and the doctor share a particular religious belief... and they both know it, and the patient asks the doctor for his or her religious opinon on the matter.

Otherwise, I would think the moral considerations would have already been gone over by the time it gets to the point of going to the doctor to have the abortion done.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 12:10PM #5
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
[QUOTE=mytmouse57;30164]
Otherwise, I would think the moral considerations would have already been gone over by the time it gets to the point of going to the doctor to have the abortion done.[/QUOTE]

That is precisely what makes this case so absurd. This lady sues after the fact because her doctor didn't offer information on a particular religious viewpoint of abortion.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 2:57PM #6
Marysara722
Posts: 2,548
***************

Here's a copy of the case itself.

It makes for a very interesting read that's for sure. :rolleyes:


http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/acuna.pdf

[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]ROSA ACUNA ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]and GENERAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]OF ANDRES ACUNA,[/FONT][FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]1 [/FONT][FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]Deceased [/FONT][FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]Infant [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]and ROSA ACUNA [/FONT][FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]Individually,[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]Plaintiffs-Appellants,[/FONT]


[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]v.[/FONT]


[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]SHELDON C. TURKISH, M.D., and[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]the OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]GROUP OF PERTH AMBOY-EDISON,[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]P.C.,[/FONT]


[LEFT][FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]Defendants-Respondents.[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]_______________________________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier10PitchBT-Roman]Argued: April 18, 2005
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 3:07PM #7
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
Why do you roll your eyes?

Don't even bother to answer that question. Check out this line from the decision:

Based on this articulation of her argument, it is apparent that Acuna considered the embryo, six to seven weeks after conception, to have been 'an existing family member."

DANG! How friggin DUMB do you have to be? Where do these people get this foolish notion that every conception results in a birth? There are so many things that could go wrong. This is one chicken you best not count before it's hatched, unless you WANT to set yourself up for disappointment. Let me finish reading this and I will have more to say later.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 3:25PM #8
kannbrown65
Posts: 1,962
The thing that gets me is that the doctor failed to inform her that the embryo was...

a "complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being" with whom she had "an existing relationship,"

Now, religion or no.. who the hell is the doctor to tell you with whom you have a relationship or not? How are they supposed to know if you have a relationship with someone? And why would anyone have to inform you of that fact?

Here's a hint. If you have to be told you have a relationship with someone, there's a pretty good chance you don't.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 3:31PM #9
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
Oh this woman is SOOO DUMB!

"She claims her consent to the abortion was 'uninformed,' because Turkish (the doctor not the tobacco MMMM!), failed to accurately answer her question, "is the baby already there?" More particularly, she argues that, "if New Jersey does not require a complete disclosure that helps the mother understand that the life of an existing family member (that's what she thinks a 6-7 week old embryo is!) will be terminated, then her protection and due process rights will be terminated."

So this lawsuit is because a nurse made a comment, having discovered an incomplete abortion, that the doctor had left 'parts of a baby,' inside of her. So the woman sues the doctor for not providing informed consent because the doctor called it any 'embryo' instead of a 'baby.' Of course, the doctor knows the difference between a baby and an embryo and no doctor in his right mind would ever tell a woman a 6-7 week embryo is a 'baby.' To refer to an embryo as a 'baby' is exceedingly absurd and stupid, so of course this nitwit lost this case.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 3:36PM #10
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
Oh this woman is SOOO DUMB!

"She claims her consent to the abortion was 'uninformed,' because Turkish (the doctor not the tobacco MMMM!), failed to accurately answer her question, "is the baby already there?" More particularly, she argues that, "if New Jersey does not require a complete disclosure that helps the mother understand that the life of an existing family member (that's what she thinks a 6-7 week old embryo is!) will be terminated, then her protection and due process rights will be terminated."

So this lawsuit is because a nurse made a comment, having discovered an incomplete abortion, that the doctor had left 'parts of a baby,' inside of her. So the woman sues the doctor for not providing informed consent because the doctor called it an 'embryo' instead of a 'baby.' Of course, the doctor knows the difference between a baby and an embryo and no doctor in his right mind would ever tell a woman a 6-7 week embryo is a 'baby,' becuase it's not. A baby is born where as an embryo is not. To refer to an embryo as a 'baby' is exceedingly absurd and stupid, so of course this nitwit lost this case.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook