reprise

A&O, I'm reading through the (very many) briefs relating to this case now. If nothing else, this woman definitely needs a lawyer who knows how to write and file briefs.

pangloss

So let me get this straight - she goes in - voluntarily - for an abortion. At some point DURING the procedure, she allegedly wants it stopped. She apparently struggled, and was restrained, and ended up with a perforated uterus.

Hmmm...

Was it perhaprs her struggling that led to the perforation?

And this anti-abortion greoup is equating this with the legal right to force a woman to have an abortion?

Incredible....

Sounds like that one-armed girl they shamelessly paraded around a few years bakc claiming to be the 'result' of an abortion.

From the above link (an anti-abortion website):
"Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants prevented her egress from the Center, during the middle of an abortion procedure..."


I had a colonoscopy a few months ago. It didn't feel all that great. Guess I should have just got up in the middle of it and stormed out?
Then tried to sue if I got injured in the process?

AlphaandOmega

He had only dialated her cervix when she told him to stop. They where not in the middle of it. During the middle just means they started already. So get your facts straight before you say something. He could have stop when she told him too. Thats like my going into surgery the doctor only numbing the area and then I tell him stop the sugery I change my mind be he continues.

pangloss

From the above link (an anti-abortion website):
"Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants prevented her egress from the Center, during the middle of an abortion procedure..."


That was from the legal decision.

Better tell the judge to get his facts straight.

Frankly, I do not believe a single word that spews formt he anti-abortion activist crowd, such is their history of lies, distortion, and terrorism. They are fanatics who seem to have little regard for truth or law.

Yannis (J'ohn)

I think that the title of this thread is misleading. The title and first post sound as if a woman is dragged, against her will, screaming and wailing, into a clinic in order to have an abortion...

SBS

Viti

You cannot walk out of medical treatment with a dilated cervix, just that requires medical attention (huge chance of infection). They tell you that before you have an abortion, or a D&C, or anything where you are dilated. Sounds to me like she had second thoughts, then struggled which caused the perforations. Of course she had some pain, dilating your cervix causes cramps.

Word of advice, WorldNet Daily is equivalant to The Enquirer. Read better news sources.

Apparently she hasn't figured out how to prevent pregnancy yet either

Tom Sawyer

Once you're in the middle of a medical procedure, you can't just walk out if the doctor thinks it's unsafe.

I'm quite sure that if they had let her leave and there were some kind of complication, she would have sued the doctor as well. In that case, I would have supported her, since the doctor would have left her in a dangerous state. In this case, though, the doctor was doing what he felt was necessary to protect his patient.

I think it's a mistake for anti-abortionists to try and use this case as a rallying cry.

reprise

I don't know if anyone else has read the briefs on this case - it took me several hours to wade through them yesterday - but it isn't nearly as simple as the media reports would lead you to believe and a lot of the briefs would have been thrown out of most Western courts.

It's true that aspects of this case are being appealed to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS is not being asked to rule on who was "right" and who was "wrong" in this case. The plaintiffs and the defendants are both playing legal strategy games and trying to invoke previous decisions and have them applied to this case - SCOTUS is pretty much ruling only on which of those previous decisions by various courts can and cannot be applied to this particular case.

This is the opening paragraph of the "Statement of Facts" in one of the reply briefs filed with the UCSA :

Any lawyer who files a "statement of facts" like that should lose their license to practise.

By combining any and every issue they can possibly think of which is even tangentially related to abortion and trying to run them as one action, the lawyers for the plaintiff have probably screwed any legitimate case she might have had. I can see what they hoped the legal strategy they decided on would achieve, but there's every chance that it will backfire on them badly and that in choosing to go for the "big hit" they have sacrificed the opportunity to establish rulings on some smaller issues.

IMO, trying to use the FACE legislation to launch a de facto malpractise suit was a huge mistake.

AlphaandOmega

I am sorry but Dialating your cervix is nothing major. He could have stop their. If he stoped when she told him too she would not have been injured and that is a fact. She told him to STOP before he started to pull.

reprise

Oddly enough, there seem to be much better incidents which could have been used as a "test case". I'm guessing that the women involved in those got better legal advice than this woman or didn't want to be associated with the organisation mounting this particular case.