Posted on Jan 17, 2017
Bill would let women sue doctors who perform their abortions
6.64K
18
13
2
2
0
The proposal, which was endorsed Tuesday by a GOP-led three-member panel of lawmakers, would permit the woman to file a lawsuit at any point in her life, something that goes against typical statute of limitation rules. It could also make the state vulnerable to costly court challenges.
Bill would let women sue doctors who perform their abortions
Posted from apnews.com
Law
Abortion
Iowa City
Republicans
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
So let me get this straight: A woman WILLINGLY chooses to go to a doctor to get an abortion, but can later sue the doctor if she ends up regretting her decision and suffers from emotional distress? Yea, this won't backfire. SMH.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
Not that she went willingly - many young women are pressured into an abortion and not provided with full information on risks and repercussions as well as alternatives. Both Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v Wade) and Sandra Cano (Jane Doe of Doe vs Bolton) have come out as having been pressured into lying about their circumstances to advance the pro-abortion agenda and have actually been working to have their cases overturned because of that.
On a separate post I attached the language of the bill and called out the relevant provisions - basically the abortionist must ensure the patient provided informed consent, similar to any other invasive procedure. The elimination of a statute of limitations may be a bit far, but the rest of the bill, at least to me, is not beyond reasonable.
On a separate post I attached the language of the bill and called out the relevant provisions - basically the abortionist must ensure the patient provided informed consent, similar to any other invasive procedure. The elimination of a statute of limitations may be a bit far, but the rest of the bill, at least to me, is not beyond reasonable.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
First off, not clear from your intro, this is an Iowa State Senate Bill, and therefore only applies to that State, it is not federal legislation.
Second, I've noticed that any time a news story seeks to discredit legislation, they do not refer you to the bill number or actual text of the bill. I like to actually read the text to see if it is correctly characterized by the reporter. More often than not, the story takes liberties with it's interpretation, especially on politically sensitive/divisive topics.
You can find it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF26&ga=87
Specifics:
Requires the abortion doctor to obtain "informed consent" - inform the patient of risks, possible complications, side effects and alternatives, as one would expect from any other invasive medical procedure.
From the text: “Informed consent” means the duty of a physician to disclose all facts about the nature of the procedure, the risks of the procedure, and the alternatives to the procedure that a reasonable patient would consider significant to the patient’s decision to undergo or forego an abortion."
I have no problem with this section, it should be common sense.
Specifies what circumstances can prompt a law suit:
"... to recover damages for any emotional distress, caused as the result of the physician’s negligence or failure to obtain informed consent prior to performance of the abortion..."
Then clearly defines emotional distress as it applies to this provision.
“Emotional distress” means a severe, debilitating, and persistent negative emotional or mental reaction including but not limited to mental anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, and indignity, as well as physical pain."
I have no problem with this section either. There are many credible studies showing this as an effect of an abortion, and I remember reading that the 'Jane Roe' litigant in Roe v. Wade had changed her mind on the issue, feels she was duped/used by the 'movement' and is personally working to overturn the law.
While "lifetime" may be a bit much, it isn't clear from the article or the legislation what the current statute of limitations is. Certainly 18-21 years would be sufficient (IMHO). If the mother doesn't develop emotional distress by the time her child would have graduated high school or college or earlier typical mile-stones in a child's life , I doubt it would ever set in.
Second, I've noticed that any time a news story seeks to discredit legislation, they do not refer you to the bill number or actual text of the bill. I like to actually read the text to see if it is correctly characterized by the reporter. More often than not, the story takes liberties with it's interpretation, especially on politically sensitive/divisive topics.
You can find it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF26&ga=87
Specifics:
Requires the abortion doctor to obtain "informed consent" - inform the patient of risks, possible complications, side effects and alternatives, as one would expect from any other invasive medical procedure.
From the text: “Informed consent” means the duty of a physician to disclose all facts about the nature of the procedure, the risks of the procedure, and the alternatives to the procedure that a reasonable patient would consider significant to the patient’s decision to undergo or forego an abortion."
I have no problem with this section, it should be common sense.
Specifies what circumstances can prompt a law suit:
"... to recover damages for any emotional distress, caused as the result of the physician’s negligence or failure to obtain informed consent prior to performance of the abortion..."
Then clearly defines emotional distress as it applies to this provision.
“Emotional distress” means a severe, debilitating, and persistent negative emotional or mental reaction including but not limited to mental anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, and indignity, as well as physical pain."
I have no problem with this section either. There are many credible studies showing this as an effect of an abortion, and I remember reading that the 'Jane Roe' litigant in Roe v. Wade had changed her mind on the issue, feels she was duped/used by the 'movement' and is personally working to overturn the law.
While "lifetime" may be a bit much, it isn't clear from the article or the legislation what the current statute of limitations is. Certainly 18-21 years would be sufficient (IMHO). If the mother doesn't develop emotional distress by the time her child would have graduated high school or college or earlier typical mile-stones in a child's life , I doubt it would ever set in.
Information pertaining to the Iowa Legislature as well as the Executive and Judicial branch in as much as they relate to the legislative branch
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
PFft. Second stupid law I've seen today, that will never see the light of day. Don't fall for the hype, people. This thing will never pass. (The article's, hype, Sarge. Not you.)
(2)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
SSgt Terry P. - Someone in North Dakota wanted to decriminalize motorists running over protesters.
https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/north-dakota-considers-making-it-legal-to-run-over-protesters-with-a-car
https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/north-dakota-considers-making-it-legal-to-run-over-protesters-with-a-car
North Dakota Considers Making It Legal To Run Over Protesters With A Car | RallyPoint
Just about when think you've heard everything, another hair brained idea comes in the news. I know one thing, I'll never get mad or protest in North Dakota. It must be all the snow keeping these people inside and thinking about stuff like this.North Dakota Republicans have introduced a bill to exempt drivers from responsibility for accidentally hitting pedestrians with their vehicles.Is your daily road commute murder? If a group of lawmakers...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google