Imagine visiting your doctor and asking his or her recommendation on a medical procedure and what complications may arise. Your doctor gives you blatantly false information, and based on that information you decide to have the procedure. Would you believe the doctor should be held liable for the inaccurate medical information given to you, specifically if you can prove he or she knowingly provided you with false information? Any rationale human being would agree that doctor should be held liable in such a case. That is of course unless the false information given was done so in order to convince a woman to have an abortion.

In the case of Acuna v. Turkish, Rose Acuna had asked her doctor if “the baby was already there”, to which Turkish replied it’s “nothing but blood”. During his deposition, Turkish readily admitted he routinely tells pregnant mothers that unborn children early on in pregnancy are “nothing but some tissue.” At the time of her abortion Rose Acuna was 6 to 7 weeks into her pregnancy. According to Medline Plus a medical encyclopedia, the formation of a child is as follows:

• 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

  Obviously this child was past the stage where it could have been referred to as a blob of tissue, as evidenced by the fact that the doctor left parts of the unborn child inside of Acuna! The case before the New Jersey Supreme Court was not one of medical malpractice relating to the incomplete abortion, I would think that would be obvious even to the ACLU who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Turkish, the issue was wether or not Dr. Turkish was required to inform Acuna that her child had already begun development.

  The Court decided not to reconsider it’s prior ruling in favor of Turkish in which they stated:

  “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,” Justice Barry Albin wrote for the court.

  Albin claimed the statement that an abortion kills a human being “has no broad support in either the medical community or society.”

  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.

  “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.”

  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. It will be interesting to see the “women’s rights” groups reaction to this ruling. I am guessing they will somehow view this as a victory, completely disregarding the fact the Court ruled they do not have a right to accurate medical information.

  Sphere: Related Content
  
  

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

  ACLU, Abortion, Appellate Court, Constitution, Features, Health Care, Supreme Court