Court Won’t Rule on Life’s Beginning

Maria Newman | Trenton, NJ | September 12

NYT - A doctor is under no obligation to tell a pregnant woman that she is carrying “an existing human being” before performing an abortion, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today in a decision that had been eagerly awaited by both foes and supporters of abortion rights in this country.

The 5-to-0 decision came in a case brought in 1996 by Rosa Acuna, who was 29 years old and married when she and her husband, who already had two children, agreed to an abortion about six to eight weeks into her pregnancy.

People on both sides of the abortion debate said that Mrs. Acuna’s medical malpractice case was essentially asking the court to weigh in on the long-debated issue of when life begins.

Mrs. Acuna charged that the doctor, Dr. Sheldon C. Turkish, did not provide her with “material medical information” before she and her husband signed a consent form allowing him to perform the procedure. Specifically, she said in her lawsuit, the doctor had a duty to tell her that the procedure would “terminate the life of a living member of the species Homo sapiens, that is a human being.”

The New Jersey justices apparently chose not to weigh in on that matter, as they reversed a lower court ruling that had sent the case to be reheard being initially dismissed.

“On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public 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,” Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for New Jersey’s highest court.

===

[Decision and Syllabus] (PDF)


Raja September 12, 2007 - 5:25pm
( categories: News | Liberties | USA: Domestic Issues )

Specifically, she said in her lawsuit, the doctor had a duty to tell her that the procedure would "terminate the life of a living member of the species Homo sapiens, that is a human being."

So was she pro-life after or before the abortion? LOL.

Lesly September 12, 2007 - 11:49pm

I'm scratching my head.

The woman seeks an abortion, signs a consent form, has the procedure, and then sues the doctor for "not telling her she was pregnant?"

What am I missing here?

Doug Richardson September 13, 2007 - 4:40am

The abortion is in 1996....has this been pending that long? Hard to believe that. Is she one of those nutters that was outlined in the NYT Sunday magazine last year who goes around preaching that abortion has ruined their lives? If I remember that story the woman they featured had a lot of probems (drug use, psychotic problems, relationship problems, etc.) and ALL of these she blamed on an abortion. (Yeah, sure)

abo gato September 13, 2007 - 4:56am

If I remember that story the woman they featured had a lot of problems (drug use, psychotic problems, relationship problems, etc.) and ALL of these she blamed on an abortion. (Yeah, sure)

That would make a fantastic SNL skit.

Lesly September 13, 2007 - 10:46am

who have suffered years of trouble - (drug use, psychotic problems, relationship problems, etc.) precisely because they did NOT have an abortion. (People have babies rarely giving consideration to those same children as angst-filled, incorrigible teenagers!)

Chickadee September 13, 2007 - 11:33am

eom

Ian Welsh September 13, 2007 - 11:44am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.