New Laws Will Provide More Protection For Women
by Amy R. Sobie
Every day in America, women undergo abortions without receiving adequate counseling, being properly screened for known risk factors, or even being told that they could be at risk for physical or psychological trauma.
Traditionally, the courts have allowed states very little control over the abortion industry. When injuries do occur, many women find themselves without legal recourse because of the short statute of limitations on most medical malpractice claims. The emotional shame associated with abortion often keeps women from taking legal action until it is too late.
However, there is increasing concern among some state legislators about the growing number of post-aborted women suffering from physical and emotional trauma. Lawmakers in a few states are taking a hard look at existing abortion laws and looking for new ways to protect women.
Louisiana — Expanding Right to Redress
In Louisiana, state representative Tom Thornhill says that the state’s existing informed consent law is flawed. In effect, it allows abortionists to hide behind the consent forms by claiming that since the woman has signed the forms, the abortionist can’t be held responsible for her physical or psychological injuries. Thornhill says that this is a major problem because the informed consent process provides only “limited disclosure” and doesn’t reveal the full range of possible injuries.
To rectify these problems, the Louisiana state legislature passed a bill last year expanding women’s rights to seek civil retribution for physical or psychological injuries caused by abortion.
The law, which was sponsored by Thornhill, bases the amount of damages the plaintiff can recover on how much information she receives before the abortion. If full disclosure of the risks was not given, then the abortionist would be held responsible for what he or she failed to tell the woman.
“The amount of disclosure may limit a woman’s right to recover damages, but it would not negate the cause of action,” said Robert Barbor, an attorney for the Louisiana Department of Justice. “The real underlying issue is the clinics’ failure to inform women of the risks.”
Simply signing a consent form would not prevent a woman from suing if she did not understand what she was signing or if the abortionist was clearly negligent. Thornhill says that the law allows the courts “to weigh all the facts in the case.”
“This law sets the same standard for abortionists as it does for other physicians,” Thornhill said. “This will hold them to the same level of accountability as everyone else.”
While pro-abortionists argue that the state malpractice law already provides an avenue for injured women, Thornhill says that “the state’s position is that failure to disclose information about the risks of abortion is an ethical issue, not a medical one.”
Medical malpractice law in Louisiana currently gives a woman only three years to bring charges against an abortionist. The new law gives her ten years–and it also removes a $50,000 cap on the amount of damages she can recover.
Predictably, the law is already facing stiff opposition from abortionists who claim that they would be forced to shut down, placing an “undue burden” on women by making it harder and more expensive to obtain abortions.
In January, U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous sided with the abortionists and issued an injunction preventing the law from taking effect until it has been reviewed by an appellate court.
Mississippi — Protecting Women at Risk
Meanwhile, legislators in other states are looking at passing tougher versions of right to know and right to redress laws. Pro-life lawmakers in Mississippi have introduced a bill called “The Protection from High Risk and Coerced Abortion Act,” based on a model developed by Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon.
The model bill would expand women’s right to full disclosure of abortion risks, expand their right to seek retribution for abortion-related injuries, and require doctors to screen patients for known risk factors.
By examining the publications of abortion providers and researchers who support abortion–including researchers with Planned Parenthood–Reardon has documented dozens of risk factors that have been identified and confirmed by abortion providers. These risk factors reliably predict which women are most likely to experience severe psychological or physical complications after abortion.
In practice, however, abortionists seldom attempt to identify these risk factors or to counsel their “at risk” patients appropriately in light of their heightened risks. Although this failure to properly screen abortion patients is contrary to all good medical practice, it is routine in the abortion industry.
Reardon estimates that as many as 80 percent or more of abortion patients fall within one or more of the known “high risk” categories. A partial list of these risk factors includes feeling pressured to have the abortion, strong maternal tendencies, a desired pregnancy, feelings of attachment to the unborn child, a history of psychological illness or emotional instability, lack of support from their parents or their male partner, adolescence, prior beliefs that abortion is immoral, a history of prior abortion(s), or abortion in the second or third-trimester.
Real Help for Women
Expanding women’s rights to seek compensation for post-abortion trauma and injury will make physicians more aware of the dangers abortion poses to both the well-being of their patients and the doctors’ own personal fortunes. Proper liability will ensure proper screening, which will in turn encourage the medical community to look for better ways to address problem pregnancies.
In the end, this means that social workers, churches, charitable organizations, and others will have to do more to provide real alternatives for women in crisis pregnancies. Contrary to moving back into the “dark ages,” as so many pro-abortionists predict, we will be moving forward–toward a truly pro-woman, pro-life society.
For women, this is a win-win situation. It is one that truly respects their ability to make informed decisions, not blind “choices” based on pressure and false information. It allows women to hold abortionists properly accountable for abortion-related physical and emotional injuries. Hopefully, it will cause more women to stop, weigh their options, and make a choice for life.
Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review 6(2) Spring 1998. Copyright 1998 Elliot Institute.
