T1B

Maybe I'm not "reactionary" enough, but I don't really see it as so much of an "abortion" issue. Seems more like a malpractice issue.

I'm no lawyer(sup Marcus Allen), but I always was under the understanding that a malpractice case came down to

-- Was the procedure performed correctly?

-- Was the contested issue of the procedure a result of procedural neglect, or attributed to "normal risk" of the procedure?

-- Were there damages that can be directly attributed to improper procedures?


I always thought that's how malpractice cases were judged...but I'm no lawyer(RACK me!).


Sounds like it might be a tough one to prove.

Eric Johnston, a Birmingham attorney who has helped write many of the anti-abortion bills considered by the Legislature, said the decision is significant because it holds that a health care provider can be held responsible for injuries caused to a child in the womb.

"The fact it was during an abortion doesn't change that," Johnston said.

Only in Alabama.

"I thought thez only gonna abort my little Brandy Sue, not injure her. So where do I go to git mah money?"

mvscal wrote:There's no question that this was a hideously bungled surgical procedure.

Sounds that way on the surface, methinks.

But then again, I'm no doctor, either. Seems like if they can show strong evidence that this was the case, and that the "bungled procedure" caused specific damages, then it seems like a pretty open/shut case...but my (sparse) knowledge of medical cases tells me that it won't be that simple. Malpractice cases bring out hyperbole and grandstanding and whatnot like it's going out of style.


That courtroom will probably become quite the zoo.

Why not just flush the kid and be done with?
That was the original intent, wasn't it?

They must have plucked this story from the Irony Times.

The Pro-Lifers blow up clinics, set up pickets, and make death threats against abortion doctors. Now, they want to sue because this lady didn't get an effective abortion?

"Your Honor. My client went in for a simple abortion and ended up having a hideously bungled surgical procedure, which should be made illegal by the way."

mvscal wrote: The mother went in for an abortion and got a horribly fucked child instead. If it were any other medical procedure, that is a slam dunk medical malpractice suit.

Once again, with the "I'm no lawyer"(once again, thank freaking goodness) disclaimer --

The plaintiff needs to prove that the damages were directly caused by the botched procedure...which is where it gets most tricky, since every single witness that takes the stand is essentially "guessing."


Medical cases are a serious bitch for all involved (especially for the person claiming damages). I actually know a "professional witness" for medical cases...what a crock of shit industry that is(pays quite well, though).

"Unbiased testimony" is of course for sale.

Uncle Fester wrote:The Pro-Lifers

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like people are making this some groundbreaking "fetus-rights" case, when it appears to me to be a basic malpractice case. Maybe I'm missing something(besides looks, brains, and personality)?

Mikey wrote:Why not just flush the kid and be done with?
That was the original intent, wasn't it?

No shit. This is nothing a few swift kicks to the gut couldn't have solved.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like people are making this some groundbreaking "fetus-rights" case, when it appears to me to be a basic malpractice case. Maybe I'm missing something(besides looks, brains, and personality)?

See below:

Eric Johnston, a Birmingham attorney who has helped write many of the anti-abortion bills considered by the Legislature, said the decision is significant because it holds that a health care provider can be held responsible for injuries caused to a child in the womb.

"The fact it was during an abortion doesn't change that," Johnston said.

This guy wants to make abortion illegal to protect children. That way, women who seek abortions will go the back alley-coat hanger route instead of the clinic-doctor route.

Some of those women (or scared teenaged girls, as the case may be) may even be talked OUT of the abortion altogether, which further protects children, many of whom will grow up unwanted, impoverished, abused, and impregnated themselves.

It's all very complicated, but remember: Eric Johnston knows what's best for all.

I get the point you're making, Fes.


But, the court has already said that the mother must sue on behalf of the child. The child may or may not have suffered damages from the procedure (the jury will decide).


Where the hell does "fetus rights" even enter this equation?

The child is now outside of the womb, and is alleging(or her gaurdian is) damages as a result of a botched procedure.

I'm just not seeing the "fetus rights" issue here. Seems like a prett cut-and-dried malpractice case....again with the "I'm no lawyer" disclaimer.

Dinsdale wrote:again with the "I'm no lawyer" disclaimer.

TVO is a lawyer and 99.9999991231234325235% that he posts doesn't make any rational sense. Don't be so hard on yourself for sounding intelligent.