Court OK's forced abortions in US?

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Court OK's forced abortions in US?

Post by Glocksman »

WND article
Responding to a recent ruling allowing forced abortions, a former judge is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to acknowledge a woman's "right to say no."

An appeals court ruled earlier this year an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the physician argues it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."

But pro-life attorney Chris Sapp is prepared to challenge the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Jan. 23 in Roe II v. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc., says the Virginia-based Population Research Institute. PRI is "dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of 'family planning,' and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of 'overpopulation.'"

Sapp is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiori acknowledging a woman's right to say "no" to an abortion at any point in time.

His argument is based on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, which makes violation of a woman's right to receive reproductive health care a federal crime.

If a woman had a right to enter a clinic to get an abortion, Sapp contended, she also has a right to leave a clinic in order to protect herself and her baby.

'My God, you're hurting me'

The Roe II case began March 29, 1997, when a young, pregnant mother entered the Aware Women Center for Choice clinic in Florida to get an abortion.

According to RPI, William P. Egherman, who has performed more than 10,000 abortions and been addicted to alcohol and opiates, began the procedure by attempting to dilate the woman's cervix.

But the woman had a change of heart.

"My God, you're hurting me" the woman began to scream. "You're killing me, I'll never be able to have babies. ... Stop!"

But Egherman ignored the pleas and screams and called for assistance from clinic workers who held the woman down as he continued to dilate her cervix.

Then he entered the victim with a pair of forceps -- "the bear" Ehgerman called them -- and began probing and pulling. He mistakenly pulled out part of the woman's intestines.

Sapp, who represented the woman, said she described it as like being drawn and quartered.

When he realized what he had done, Egherman heavily sedated the woman then he called for an ambulance.

But he instructed the ambulance to come slowly, without lights or sirens, to give him "time to pack the woman with gauze."

Egherman said he also was worried his regular flow of business would be interrupted by "all the hoopla."

"Saturday's our big day," he explained, "and I didn't want to generate … any more confusion, any more panic than was already present at the time. She was loud, and as I said, she was shrill, and there were a lot of patients who were hearing what was going on, and the normal rhythm of the day was interrupted. The other patients must have been terrified, and I didn't want the ambulance showing up with all the lights and sirens. …"

The woman underwent an operation at the hospital and the damage to her internal organs was repaired. But her baby was dead.

The matter would have ended at that point if not for Sapp's federal suit, arguing Egherman had violated the FACE Act.

Sapp argued forcing the abortion procedure and preventing the woman from going immediately to a hospital where her pregnancy could have been saved violated her reproductive rights.

Egherman's defense attorneys maintained "if he had to go back in" in order to protect the woman's health, then this would not constitute a violation of the FACE Act.

On a summary judgment, the appeals court agreed, but Sapp asserts the evidence shows the abortion had just begun when the woman called for Egherman to stop and that he went "back in" to perform the abortion against her will.

"This ruling does establish a precedent for forced abortion," Sapp said.

For example, he said, an expectant mother receiving a routine gynecological exam could be held down and forcibly aborted. The physician would simply have to argue the abortion was necessary to protect the mother's health or life, which would not violate the FACE Act.

Boyfriend 'already paid for it'

PRI said it has learned of another case of forced abortion. A 25-year-old Maryland woman, four months pregnant, changed her mind after being taken to the procedure room.

She ran back to the clinic entrance where her boyfriend stopped her. The boyfriend said she must get an abortion, "I've already paid for it."

Three clinic workers and the abortion performers surrounded the women, sedated her by injection, then took her back into the procedure room. After the forced abortion, she awoke in a closet.

Here's a link to the 11th Circuit Court opinion

Now this is a WND article, so take it with a grain of salt and an interesting spin they have on the Court's opinion.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
AdmiralKanos
Lex Animata
Lex Animata
Posts: 2648
Joined: 2002-07-02 11:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by AdmiralKanos »

The doctor was trying to pull out the fetus but accidentally pulled out part of her intestines instead, and instructed the ambulance to drive slowly so that he would have time to cover up his mistake? And the part where he says that he did it because "Saturday's our big day", instead of replying "no comment" as defendants usually do in lawsuits? I call BULLSHIT.
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!

Image
"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

It's WND, anyway. I call BS unless someone else picks it up.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

Oh, come on. Who the hell reads this bullshit?
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

Joe wrote:It's WND, anyway. I call BS unless someone else picks it up.
I went and dug up the 11th circuit's opinion to see if the ruling matched up with what the WND article claims.

From the 'Facts' section of the ruling:
The 11th Circuit Court wrote: Dr. Egherman began to diagnosis the problem, determine whether there
might be internal bleeding, assess whether hospitalization was necessary, and stabilize Roe for transfer to the hospital. An ambulance was called on his order, and he spoke to the emergency physician and OB/GYN on duty at the hospital. Dr. Egherman did not perform any more abortions that day because he was too shaken to do so. He went to the hospital to check on Roe, who had suffered a perforated uterus and a lacerated colon. Roe underwent surgery at the hospital to repair the damage and to remove the fetus.
She was injured, that much is clear.

The reason the court found against her was that she couldn't prove their motive was to keep her from obtaining 'reproductive health services', as the FACE law says she must do.
The 11th Circuit Court wrote:The next question then is whether Roe’s complaint can be
construed as alleging that defendants, in restraining Roe, were
motivated by a desire to prevent her from obtaining those services.
Defendants contend that it is unreasonable to assume that they
restrained Roe in order to prevent her from obtaining reproductive
health services. They argue that if they did restrain Roe, the only
reason they did so was to protect her life and health and prevent
further injury from the complications that had arisen during the
course of the abortion procedure. Roe concedes that if that were the
defendants’ motive, there was no violation of FACE.
WND news to the contrary, she doesn't have a case under the FACE law because she can't prove the motivation of the defendants.

IMHO, she would have been better off filing a simple malpractice suit against the quack who botched the abortion.

The article's contention that because of this ruling, if a doctor determines that the 'health of the mother' requires an abortion, one can be mandated despite the wishes of the mother simply isn't true.


I knew there was a reason I don't take WND's articles at face value anymore. :wink:
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
Post Reply