The ACLU recently filed a friend of the court briefing in the matter of Acuna v. Turkish. The NJ Star Ledger is reporting the State Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in regards to a doctor’s obligation to inform pregnant women they will be killing a human being by having an abortion.

The question arises from a long-running civil lawsuit brought by a South Bound Brook woman who claims her doctor did not provide enough information when he advised her to end her pregnancy. An appeals panel ruled last spring that the case should go to a jury, but that decision was appealed and now the highest court has agreed to step in.

The case, however, has much wider implications, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief and participated in today’s oral arguments.

“This case isn’t about what happened to her in 1996,” said ACLU attorney Talcott Camp. “This case is about what happens to every woman seeking an abortion going forward.”

According to the court documents, Acuna was a 29-year-old mother of two in 1996 when Turkish advised her to have an abortion because her pregnancy was complicated by a kidney disorder.

Acuna claims Turkish didn’t say her 6- to 7-week fetus was a baby when she asked. She contends he told her: “Don’t be stupid, it’s just some blood.”

The doctor testified he did not remember Acuna asking such a question but would have advised her that a “7-week pregnancy is not a living human being.”

A few weeks after the abortion, Acuna had to be hospitalized. According to court papers, nurses told her the physician had “left parts of the baby inside of her.” Acuna sued on grounds that she had agreed to the abortion based on “erroneous information.”

Before looking at the issue of Doctor’s providing basic information to women prior to them consenting to an abortion, one thing should be made clear. In this particular case, malpractice is very apparent. I am sure even the ACLU would agree that a doctor who leaves pieces of a human being in a woman’s uterus did not perform the abortion properly.

Moving on now to the ACLU’s claim that “This case is about what happens to every woman seeking an abortion going forward.” Well I certainly hope so!

Many women, particularly teenage girls are unaware of the developmental stages of a fetus, and truly believe that an abortion is not the taking of a life. According to Medline Plus, a Medical Encyclopedia:

• Week 3
  • beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart
  • beginning development of the gastrointestinal tract
• Weeks 4 to 5
  • formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
  • further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm
  • movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels
  • beginning of the structures of the eye and ears
  • the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
  • arm and leg buds are visible
• Week 6
  • beginning of formation of the lungs
  • further development of the brain
  • arms and legs have lengthened with foot and hand areas distinguishable
  • hands and feet have digits, but may still be webbed
• Week 7
  • nipples and hair follicles form
  • elbows and toes visible
  • all essential organs have at least begun to form
• Week 8
  • rotation of intestines
  • facial features continue to develop
  • the eyelids are more developed
  • the external features of the ear begin to take their final shape

  It is imperative young women know the facts about any medical procedure they undertake, particularly one such as abortion. Many women believe a “fetus” does not become a “baby” until around the twenty second week, which is when it is no longer legal to have an abortion. This is simply not true. As you can see above, by week 5 the baby already has a regular heartbeat and a partially formed brain. At 12 weeks, the baby can make a fist and suck its thumb.

CommonDreams.com has more from the ACLU on this matter:

“Forcing women to listen to non-medical, moral judgments from their doctors prior to an abortion violates both state and federal constitutions,” said Talcott Camp, a deputy director with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, who argued the ACLU’s position before the court today. “Doctors should not be compelled to act as an ideological mouthpiece when caring for their patients.”

Acuna’s lawyer, Harold Cassidy, argues that they are simple statements of medical fact. What else is an embryo or fetus, if not an existing human being? Dr. Turkish’s lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union argue that Cassidy’s formulation is an effort to force anti-abortion ideology into the mouths of abortion providers. Women won’t be left better informed about biology. They’ll be made to feel as if they’re killing a child.

The argument “Forcing women to listen to non-medical, moral judgments from their doctors prior to an abortion violates both state and federal constitutions,” is preposterous on 2 levels. For starters, this case revolves around doctors obligations to inform women that a fetus is more than just a blob of blood, or a piece of tissue, this is a medical fact, not a moral judgment. Secondly, laws which would require a doctor to inform their patients of this, is not only morally just, but Constitutionally protected according to the Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992

The rootless nature of the “undue burden” standard, a phrase plucked out of context from our earlier abortion decisions, see n. 3, supra, is further reflected in the fact that the joint opinion finds it necessary expressly to repudiate the more narrow formulations used in JUSTICE O’CONNOR’s earlier opinions. Ante, at 876-877. Those opinions stated that a statute imposes an “undue burden” if it imposes “absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion decision,” (dissenting opinion) (emphasis added); see also Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

Obviously, informing a woman of the developmental stages of her unborn child do not impose “absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion decision”, therefore it would be Constitutionally protected for States to make such a mandate.

If we read further in the decision we see exactly that:

Nor can it be doubted that most women considering an abortion would deem the impact on the fetus relevant, if not dispositive, to the decision. In attempting to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision, the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed. If the information the State requires to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading, the requirement may be permissible.

This case is not about a woman’s right to privacy; it is about a woman’s right to information. by arguing against statutes which would require doctor’s to inform their patients of medical facts, the ACLU is putting abortion dollars ahead of women’s physical and mental health.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

ACLU, Abortion, Appellate Court, Supreme Court