Reclaiming Our Children: A Blog About Healing After Abortion

I honestly do not understand how a fetus is a person if someone murders the women, but is not a person if she has an abortion.

N.J. Supreme Court Rules That Physicians Do Not Have To Tell Women Seeking Abortions That Procedure Kills Human Being

17 Sep 2007   

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that
physicians are not required to inform women seeking abortions that the
procedure would result in "killing an existing human being," the New York Times reports (Kelley, New York Times,
9/13). The court in July 2006 agreed to hear the appeal of a decision
that a jury can consider whether a doctor gave adequate medical
information to a woman who claims she was unable to give informed
consent to undergo an abortion.

According to court papers,
physician Sheldon Turkish in 1996 told Rosa Acuna, who was eight weeks
pregnant, that she had to undergo an "immediate abortion" because her
pregnancy was causing damage to her kidneys. Acuna charges that Turkish
"incorrectly told [her] … that she was not aborting a human life"
when she underwent the procedure, adding that she has experienced
psychological trauma, including depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder and psychosexual dysfunction, as a result of the abortion.

A
trial judge previously had dismissed the case, stating that the U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that a "fetus is not a person," but an
appellate court ruled that Acuna could sue for damages involving "a
question of medical malpractice." A three-judge panel of the Appellate
Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in April dismissed the
wrongful death claim in the lawsuit but wrote that a jury could decide
"[w]hat medical information is material and must be disclosed by an
obstetrician when advising a patient to terminate a pregnancy and what
medical information is material when the patient asks if the ‘baby’ is
already there" (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 7/14/06). 

  State Supreme Court Ruling 
Justice Barry Albin in the state Supreme Court’s opinion wrote that it
is established that a doctor must provide women information about the
medical risks of undergoing an abortion; however, 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," Albin wrote, adding that there is no consensus among the
medical community or residents that such a statement is based on
medical facts rather than "firmly held moral, philosophical and
religious beliefs."

Albin also wrote, "On the profound issue of
when life begins, this court cannot drive 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" (Coscarelli, Newark Star-Ledger,
9/13). The court ruled that physicians are only required "to provide
their pregnant patients seeking an abortion with material medical
information, including gestational stage and medical risks involved in
the procedure" (AFP/Google.com,
9/12). Harold Cassidy, Acuna’s lawyer, said the decision "deepened
[Acuna’s] resolve, and she has instructed me to file a petition in the
United States Supreme Court" (New York Times, 9/13). 

  Reaction, Comments 
Cassidy said the decision is "stunning and surprising," adding, "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." John Zen Jackson, Turkish’s attorney, said the case
was a "Trojan Horse" to challenge Roe v. Wade — the 1973
Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans. "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
(Newark Star-Ledger, 9/13).

Ed Barocas — legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey,
which filed a friend-of-the-court brief — said, "Today’s victory sends
a message that New Jersey will not tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail
reproductive rights or free speech." Drew Britcher — an attorney for
the New Jersey Obstetrical and Gynecological Society,
who also filed a friend-of-the-court brief — said, "The court struck
the proper balance between the law of informed consent and the law that
relates to an obstetrician or other physician’s duty in advising the
person who’s pregnant."

Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life,
disagreed with the ruling, saying, "Once again the court relies upon an
outdated, schizophrenic mentality to the detriment of women, and they
are indulging in a game of semantic gymnastics to avoid the
indisputable fact that a child in the womb is a human being" (New York Times, 9/13).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy.
The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for
kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation.
All rights reserved.

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/82425.php