Alonzo
09-16-2007, 04:23 AM
In a unanimous opinion expected to have ramifications across the country, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that doctors have no duty to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure would kill a human being.
It is well-established that a physician must give a woman information about the medical risks of terminating a pregnancy, the court said in a 5-0 decision. However, it ruled there is no requirement for a doctor to go further.
"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," Justice Barry Albin wrote in a 28-page opinion.
The decision said there is no consensus among the state's medical community or citizenry that such a statement is based on medical facts rather than "firmly held moral, philosophical and religious beliefs."
The case involved a woman who sued for emotional distress, contending she agreed to her doctor's advice to abort her 6- to 8-week-old fetus based on false information. The court said it was sympathetic to the "deep pain" the woman suffered emotionally when she came to feel she had killed a child, but dismissed her lawsuit, overturning an appeals court decision that said it should go to a jury.
"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," Albin wrote. He was joined in the decision by Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, John Wallace and Roberto Rivera-Soto.
The ruling is the latest in a long-running civil lawsuit Rosa Acuna filed claiming her doctor, Sheldon Turkish, who practices in Perth Amboy, did not give her enough information when he told her to end her pregnancy because it exacerbated a kidney disorder.
Acuna's lawyer, Harold Cassidy, called the decision "a stunning and surprising, although temporary defeat for Mrs. Acuna and the women of New Jersey."
Cassidy said pregnant mothers are entitled to know an abortion ends a life in order to make an informed decision. Upon consultation with Acuna, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is planned, the lawyer said. He has already asked the nation's high court to review a separate issue in Acuna's legal battle: whether she should be able to sue for wrongful death of her fetus.
"Many women of our state are losing their children and their constitutionally protected interest in their relationship with their children in abortion procedures they would not have had if they were told truthful biological facts. Such injustices do not advance the rights of women. They destroy them," said Cassidy, who gained national recognition when he represented a surrogate mother who changed her mind in the "Baby M" case.
Turkish's attorney, John Zen Jackson, said the case was a "Trojan Horse" to challenge the landmark federal abortion-rights decision in Roe vs. Wade.
"The court correctly held there are limits to a physician's duty to obtain informed consent, and that duty does not include the presentation of comments based in ideology, philosophy or politics," Jackson said.
The case has been closely watched on both sides of the nation's debate on the abortion issue. Anti-abortion activists called the decision disappointing and absurd.
"The court is relying on an outdated schizophrenic mentality to the detriment of women. They were really indulging in mental gymnastics to avoid the indisputable fact that a child in the womb is a human being," said Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life.
Added John Tomicki, executive director of The League of American Families: "Every high school student who takes biology learns that human life begins at conception. ... We recommend that the justices seriously consider taking such a high school course."
Supporters of abortion rights cheered the ruling, saying it could influence a class-action lawsuit on similar grounds pending in Illinois and attempts in South Dakota to overturn a 2005 law requiring abortion doctors to tell women an abortion ends a human life.
"This case from the beginning was nothing more than an attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces," said Brigitte Amiri, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project. "It has national importance. We're seeing repeated efforts by anti-choice forces to insist doctors read a similar script."
NARAL Pro-Choice America called the decision "a victory for women's health and the doctor-patient relationship," in a statement.
LONG DISPUTE
In 1996, Acuna, then 29 and a mother of two living in South Bound Brook, went to the doctor with stomach pains. She learned she was pregnant, and Turkish advised her to have an abortion because the pregnancy was complicating an existing kidney disorder called renal glycosuria.
Acuna said she asked the doctor "if it was the baby in there?" She claimed he told her: "Don't be stupid, it's just some blood."
The doctor testified that he did not recall Acuna asking such a question but would have told her that a "seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being."
After consulting with her husband, Acuna returned to the doctor's office three days later, signed a consent form and had the procedure. A few weeks afterward, Acuna was hospitalized for bleeding and was diagnosed with an "incomplete abortion." A nurse at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick told her the doctor had "left parts of the baby inside of her."
After the hospitalization, Acuna started to research early pregnancies and came to feel that she had killed a human being. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and sued in 1998.
The case has bounced around the court system for nearly a decade. Trial court judges have thrown various pieces of the case out, but last year an appeals court said the issue of what kind of information a doctor should provide could go to trial in New Brunswick. Yesterday's decision came before the trial could be held.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1189658928216280.xml&coll=1&thispage=2
I'm a little confused. Is the woman saying that she was too stupid to know that she believe it was already a human life, or is she saying that the doctor should have read her mind and told her that she thinks it's a human life?
This has to be one of the weakest abortion cases I've seen.
It is well-established that a physician must give a woman information about the medical risks of terminating a pregnancy, the court said in a 5-0 decision. However, it ruled there is no requirement for a doctor to go further.
"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," Justice Barry Albin wrote in a 28-page opinion.
The decision said there is no consensus among the state's medical community or citizenry that such a statement is based on medical facts rather than "firmly held moral, philosophical and religious beliefs."
The case involved a woman who sued for emotional distress, contending she agreed to her doctor's advice to abort her 6- to 8-week-old fetus based on false information. The court said it was sympathetic to the "deep pain" the woman suffered emotionally when she came to feel she had killed a child, but dismissed her lawsuit, overturning an appeals court decision that said it should go to a jury.
"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," Albin wrote. He was joined in the decision by Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, John Wallace and Roberto Rivera-Soto.
The ruling is the latest in a long-running civil lawsuit Rosa Acuna filed claiming her doctor, Sheldon Turkish, who practices in Perth Amboy, did not give her enough information when he told her to end her pregnancy because it exacerbated a kidney disorder.
Acuna's lawyer, Harold Cassidy, called the decision "a stunning and surprising, although temporary defeat for Mrs. Acuna and the women of New Jersey."
Cassidy said pregnant mothers are entitled to know an abortion ends a life in order to make an informed decision. Upon consultation with Acuna, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is planned, the lawyer said. He has already asked the nation's high court to review a separate issue in Acuna's legal battle: whether she should be able to sue for wrongful death of her fetus.
"Many women of our state are losing their children and their constitutionally protected interest in their relationship with their children in abortion procedures they would not have had if they were told truthful biological facts. Such injustices do not advance the rights of women. They destroy them," said Cassidy, who gained national recognition when he represented a surrogate mother who changed her mind in the "Baby M" case.
Turkish's attorney, John Zen Jackson, said the case was a "Trojan Horse" to challenge the landmark federal abortion-rights decision in Roe vs. Wade.
"The court correctly held there are limits to a physician's duty to obtain informed consent, and that duty does not include the presentation of comments based in ideology, philosophy or politics," Jackson said.
The case has been closely watched on both sides of the nation's debate on the abortion issue. Anti-abortion activists called the decision disappointing and absurd.
"The court is relying on an outdated schizophrenic mentality to the detriment of women. They were really indulging in mental gymnastics to avoid the indisputable fact that a child in the womb is a human being," said Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life.
Added John Tomicki, executive director of The League of American Families: "Every high school student who takes biology learns that human life begins at conception. ... We recommend that the justices seriously consider taking such a high school course."
Supporters of abortion rights cheered the ruling, saying it could influence a class-action lawsuit on similar grounds pending in Illinois and attempts in South Dakota to overturn a 2005 law requiring abortion doctors to tell women an abortion ends a human life.
"This case from the beginning was nothing more than an attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces," said Brigitte Amiri, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project. "It has national importance. We're seeing repeated efforts by anti-choice forces to insist doctors read a similar script."
NARAL Pro-Choice America called the decision "a victory for women's health and the doctor-patient relationship," in a statement.
LONG DISPUTE
In 1996, Acuna, then 29 and a mother of two living in South Bound Brook, went to the doctor with stomach pains. She learned she was pregnant, and Turkish advised her to have an abortion because the pregnancy was complicating an existing kidney disorder called renal glycosuria.
Acuna said she asked the doctor "if it was the baby in there?" She claimed he told her: "Don't be stupid, it's just some blood."
The doctor testified that he did not recall Acuna asking such a question but would have told her that a "seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being."
After consulting with her husband, Acuna returned to the doctor's office three days later, signed a consent form and had the procedure. A few weeks afterward, Acuna was hospitalized for bleeding and was diagnosed with an "incomplete abortion." A nurse at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick told her the doctor had "left parts of the baby inside of her."
After the hospitalization, Acuna started to research early pregnancies and came to feel that she had killed a human being. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and sued in 1998.
The case has bounced around the court system for nearly a decade. Trial court judges have thrown various pieces of the case out, but last year an appeals court said the issue of what kind of information a doctor should provide could go to trial in New Brunswick. Yesterday's decision came before the trial could be held.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1189658928216280.xml&coll=1&thispage=2
I'm a little confused. Is the woman saying that she was too stupid to know that she believe it was already a human life, or is she saying that the doctor should have read her mind and told her that she thinks it's a human life?
This has to be one of the weakest abortion cases I've seen.