Here is another point to ponder. Why are damages payable if the delay was pre-birth when the child was not a child but only something that could legally be aborted? If there was lack of proper care after birth, then fine, but until abortion is outlawed why should a doctor pay for damages that occur before the delivery?
Au contraire, abortion is legal in all 50 states for the entire duration of pregnancy by judicial fiat, despite the 10th Amendment. Thank the Supreme Court for that “emanation of a penumbra.”
As the article states, “It was a six- to eight-hour delay in performing a C-section in a baby that was showing signs of fetal distress on a fetal monitor”. I read this to mean that they tried to deliver the baby vaginally for a few hours but couldn’t, then did a c-section. I could be totally wrong on that. But Pat, are you saying it’s ok to abort a child during birth if it isn’t going as planned??? I’m pro-choice but that is a pretty harsh statement. And your referring to the child as “something that can be aborted” is… I’m speachless. You have a right to voice your opinion, but WOW, I’m really surprised that no one has hammered you on that one.
I’d like to know if it was proven that the child’s disabilities were actually caused by the delay or if they existed in-utero? The article states that the mother had risk factors and that she had problems prior to arriving at the hospital for delivery.
Can Cerebral Palsy be caused by delay or truama in-utero?
John Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections. He actually channeled these babies’ voices for juries, and won millions of himself (oh yeah, and his clients) doing so (NY Times January 31, 2004).
So the trial lawyers in this case are disciples of John Edwards. See, you only =thought= you knew why these lawyers disgusted you.
Actually, I am strongly pro-life and support a variety of organizations that are trying to outlaw abortion. My post was intended to make a point that if this child can legally be aborted, doctors should not be liable for pre-birth injuries to them. Not something the pro-choice movement has addressed.
Exactly, Pat. The pro-abortion crowd’s spin is that if the mother wants it, it’s a baby, if she doesn’t (until the very moment of birth), it’s merely the parasitic products of conception to be disposed of for any -or no- reason. This is known as being “pro-choice,” and it is the official position of the democrat party.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Here is another point to ponder. Why are damages payable if the delay was pre-birth when the child was not a child but only something that could legally be aborted? If there was lack of proper care after birth, then fine, but until abortion is outlawed why should a doctor pay for damages that occur before the delivery?
Au contraire, abortion is legal in all 50 states for the entire duration of pregnancy by judicial fiat, despite the 10th Amendment. Thank the Supreme Court for that “emanation of a penumbra.”
As the article states, “It was a six- to eight-hour delay in performing a C-section in a baby that was showing signs of fetal distress on a fetal monitor”. I read this to mean that they tried to deliver the baby vaginally for a few hours but couldn’t, then did a c-section. I could be totally wrong on that. But Pat, are you saying it’s ok to abort a child during birth if it isn’t going as planned??? I’m pro-choice but that is a pretty harsh statement. And your referring to the child as “something that can be aborted” is… I’m speachless. You have a right to voice your opinion, but WOW, I’m really surprised that no one has hammered you on that one.
Just out of curiosity, do you have children?
Hank, she was being sarcastic, I think. The fact is that a mother in labor may legally decide to abort and no one can stop her.
These parents should be thankful for having a living child. Greed, and not just that of the lawyers, drives things like this.
I’d like to know if it was proven that the child’s disabilities were actually caused by the delay or if they existed in-utero? The article states that the mother had risk factors and that she had problems prior to arriving at the hospital for delivery.
Can Cerebral Palsy be caused by delay or truama in-utero?
They probably don’t know for sure. It will boil down to who has the most credible expert witnesses.
John Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections. He actually channeled these babies’ voices for juries, and won millions of himself (oh yeah, and his clients) doing so (NY Times January 31, 2004).
So the trial lawyers in this case are disciples of John Edwards. See, you only =thought= you knew why these lawyers disgusted you.
Actually, I am strongly pro-life and support a variety of organizations that are trying to outlaw abortion. My post was intended to make a point that if this child can legally be aborted, doctors should not be liable for pre-birth injuries to them. Not something the pro-choice movement has addressed.
Exactly, Pat. The pro-abortion crowd’s spin is that if the mother wants it, it’s a baby, if she doesn’t (until the very moment of birth), it’s merely the parasitic products of conception to be disposed of for any -or no- reason. This is known as being “pro-choice,” and it is the official position of the democrat party.