Comments on: Analysis: HB 2354 Would Grant Immunity to Doctors Who Botch Abortions and Harm Women: A “Get Out of Jail Free Card” For Criminally-Liable Abortionists

By: Dr. Spock

Dr. Spock — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:55:03 +0000

It appears that there are two possible interpretations of Section 25: (1) it would apply the *same* standard to abortion practitioners as would apply to other medical professionals, or (2) it would apply a *more favorable* standard to abortion practitioners than would otherwise apply under existing law.

If the better interpretation is Option (1), then everyone should be able to agree that Section 25 should be deleted from the bill because it doesn’t do anything. In fact, it would cause harm because parties would spend $ to litigate over what it means, only to find later that it is the same standard that applied before the statute was adopted.

If the better interpretation is Option (2), then the right public policy decision is to vote “no” on HB 2354. Abortion practitioners should not be treated any differently than other doctors, and particularly should not be treated more favorably than doctors that provide care in free clinics or on an emergency basis. A woman who is injured in a botched abortion *should* be able to recover damages from the doctor who negligently injured her. Similarly, a public prosecutor should also be able to pursue an action against an abortionist who is reckless or criminally negligent in harming one or more women.

The botton line is that I don’t think this is truly controversial. It’s just another sign that HB 2354 is an abortion-industry special interests bill.

By: Christina

Christina — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:29:27 +0000

SoMG, it’s the difference between “He thought it was a good idea at the time” and “it’s standard medical practice in the community.” Which is a HUGE difference.

By: SoMG

SoMG — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:05:02 +0000

You wrote: “[Illinois FOCA] shields an abortion practitioner from responsibility for their actions by providing that such person: “is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal penalty relating to a pregnancy termination performed in good faith, in accordance with the attending medical professional’s good faith clinical judgment and accepted standards of medical practice.” This subjective and vague standard would excuse abortion practitioners from the standard of care generally applied to other medical professionals, who must use the “same degree of knowledge, skill, and ability as an ordinarily careful professional would exercise under similar circumstances.””

What’s the difference? “accepted standards of medical practice” means neither more nor less than “same degree of knowledge, skill, and ability as an ordinarily careful professional would exercise”.

Nor will it “immunize an abortion doctor from liability for criminal acts”. Again, the doc must follow “accepted standards of medical practice” which includes, no crime.

Of course the doc should not be responsible for every patient who dies unexpectedly under his/her care. People die unexpectedly all the time. If you have a heart attack and pop off during a play, should the theatre be liable? How about if you’re in a cab, should your children be able to sue the driver?

You wrote: “There is no legitimate reason why abortionists should be treated more favorably than other medical professionals when it comes to issues of liability.” I agree. We should extend the same protections–no penalty unless you violate “accepted standards of medical practice”–to all health-care workers. This bill is a good start.