Woman sues doctors after failed abortion

[deadparrot]

BOSTON - A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.

The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.

Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_re_us/abortion_lawsuit

[liberalnurse]

1. I'm sensing she may of had

a dual uterus....one behind the other.....It sounds like an GYN abnormality.

[Ian David]

7. The doctor that "missed" the pregnancy sounds like he may have been a Fundie...

Perhaps he had an agenda?

http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/thelist.php?searchValue=Eleonu&searchField=last_name&sortBy=last_name&sortDir=ASC&page=1&anchor=list#list

[salin]

10. doubtful - working at Planned Parenthood?

Or did I read that incorrectly?

[Ian David]

17. You read that incorrectly. The fundie doctor worked at Boston Medical Center.

The fundie doctor, Benjamin Eleonu, from Boston Medical Center, "missed" the fact that she was 20 months pregnant after the abortion attempt.

All the doctor at planned parenthood did was botch the abortion... which happens occasionally.

My theory is that Dr. Benjamin Eleonu knew she was still pregnant, and didn't tell her, because he didn't want her getting another abortion.

[yardwork]

39. Pregnancy tests are easy, inexpensive, and nearly fool-proof

No qualified doctor could fail to detect a pregnancy if he administered the test, and it would be malpractice not to administer the test in the case of a suspected pregnancy. Did the doctor at Boston Medical Center administer a pregnancy test or not? If not, why not? If he did, where is the record of the results?

Nobody needs to go to a doctor to determine whether or not they are pregnant anyway. Home pregnancy tests cost about $20 and are essentially foolproof.

[MonkeyFunk]

73. Damn

20 months pregnant? That'd be hard to miss!

[marshall]

88. There must be extenuating circumstances

For her not to know she was pregnant until 20 months there have to be other factors at play here. She has to have some kind of issue with weight or soemthing else. It just doesn't make sense.

And she could undoubtedly find a family to adopt this child so that she is not burdened with raising her or him. Somewhere out there Jane Roe's child that she was not allowed to abort is living in quiet anonymity after having hopefully been rasied well by his adoptive family.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. At least there must be

some pachyderm sanctuary who can take a 20-month term baby.

[pokercat999]

91. Months? Guess we all know that's a typo....weeks

20 months would be an 11 month old baby.

[marshall]

93. oops, sorry

I meant 20 weeks. My supposition is that the woman was overweight. My father is a doctor and both of the incidents he told me about in which he delivered a baby to a woman who wasn't even aware she was pregnant happened with a woman who was extremely overweight. So it can happen.

[pokercat999]

97. I've read of that happening several times over the years.

[proud2BlibKansan]

89. LOL

[boilerbabe]

16. Wow! where did you find that link?

This sort of lawsuit is going to set back the right to choose and the access to decent healthcare big time!! I didn't know Planned Parenthood provided abortions. Way back when, they could only counsel and refer.

[MonkeyFunk]

74. This lawsuit will do no such thing...

it's a medical malpractice case.

And PP has been providing abortions for many, many years, as well as a full range of reproductive health care.

[bleedingheart]

56. I think she didn't have an abortion or she got pregnant after the abortion

Abortion Date: April 9
Delivery Date: December 7

I added the weeks = 37

Now the only way I would believe her would be if she had delivered in November or October....why? Because most women who go for surgical abortions are those who are approximately 6 weeks or further along in their pregnancies. Even if she was full term 40 weeks when she delivered...that means that she was only 3 weeks pregnant when she got her abortion...and most women don't know at that stage that they are pregnant....and clearly this woman was no genius regarding the signals her body was sending her...she didn't even know she was pregnant when she was 20 weeks along and she would have missed more periods and have been experiencing the "quickening" feeling...

[demigoddess]

72. of course he had an agenda, I could tell stories about doctors

that you young people do not know about.

[youngdem]

2. Uh, you don't get just one shot. Did she not realize that she was still prego?

Unless this woman waited until the last moment to get the abortion, she still should have had time to get another procedure should she still have been pregnant. After all, this must have been a very early abortion for the doctor to be unsure of the completion.

She didn't realize something was amiss before the water broke? Jeez....sounds pretty weak.

[420inTN]

3. if you read the article...

you'd have read that she did go to another doctor who failed to detect the pregnancy. after she went to a third physician due to pelvic pain, they found that she was still pregnant.

[Ian David]

18. She went to Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center, who "missed" the fact she was pregnant.

I think he did it on purpose.

How many people do you think are against gay marriage but in favor of abortion?

My theory is that Dr. Benjamin Eleonu knew she was still pregnant, and didn't tell her, because he didn't want her getting another abortion.

[hedgehog]

4. It's one thing to keep the baby, but quite another to keep her

and then sue over a failed abortion! This poor kid should have been given to someone who wanted her!

[liberalnurse]

5. Really!

This poor child enters this world being a "cash cow" for the mother who didn't want her in the first place. What a miserable start.

What kind of life will the child have if the mother looses the court case? I agree, it's a good reason to place the child up for adoption.

[Ian David]

6. See prior threads:Boston woman sues after failed abortion.Anti-gay doctor failed to detect pregnancy

See:

Boston woman sues after failed abortion. Anti-gay doctor failed to detect pregnancy

<snip>

Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.

<snip>

Dr. Benjamin Eleonu and his wife, Clara Elenu, both apparently hate gay people.

Could Dr. Eleonu have had a hidden (fundie) agenda?

http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/thelist.php?searchValue=Eleonu&searchField=last_name&sortBy=last_name&sortDir=ASC&page=1&anchor=list#list

More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=6589&mesg_id=6589



And here:

Boston woman sues after failed abortion. Anti-gay doctor failed to detect pregnancy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=49428&mesg_id=49428

[marshall]

92. Is the woman a lesbian?

Is she alleging she did not receive adequate treatment from the doctor because he disagreed with her lifestyle?

[uppityperson]

8. Another interesting thing, once she found out she was still pg, she didn't seek late term abortion

She was told at 20 wks that she wasn't pregnant. Once she found out (2 months prior to giving birth) she didn't get a late term abortion. Sounds like she wanted one early on, tried to get one, but didn't get a late term abortion once she found out she was still pregnant. All sorts of conclusions could be speculated about here as to why she did not get a late term abortion. Did she not believe in them? Had she changed her mind? looking at different people's opinions on the difference between 1/2/3 trimester abortions, could be most anything.

[dflprincess]

11. Contrary to what the prolifers tell you,

it's very difficult to get a late term abortion anywhere for reasons other than risks to the mother's health or major fetal abnormalities.

[uppityperson]

14. Believe me, I know. I argue the wastage of time, energy,emotions

trying to pass laws for something that is rare.

[Hekate]

13. Late term abortions are both dangerous and hard to obtain

That's just how it is. She has a good case for malpractice, that's for sure. But given that the unwilling mother is THAT unwilling, she really should be considering adoption.

Hekate

[uppityperson]

15. I know. Along with that some people won't seek them either due to personal reasons.

I really wonder about the doc that misdiagnosed her at 20 wks.

[nitestar41]

76. If she found out 2 months before...

Isn't that considered a partial birth abortion?

From what I see the Partial Birth Ban was signed in Nov of 2003. It has been challenged and two Federal appeals courts found it Unconstitutional in 2006. At the time she found out she was 2 months from delivery there had been Federal District Judge and a New York District Judge who said it was unconstitutional because it didn't make an exception if the fetus was not viable. A US District Judge said "The court does not determine whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional or unconstitutional when the fetus is indisputably viable." It seems to me that it was still undecided. I have a personal opinion about Partial Birth Abortion, I agree that the Ban's intention is good but there should be an exception for a non-viable fetus, the health of the mother, and if the mother wants the child, I think there should be a safety net of sorts.

From what I can see though the Ban was/is still in existence... Unfortunately Wikipedia information stops at February 21, 2006 when the Supreme Court agreed to review a lower courts ruling and doesn't mention anything else about it. If the Ban was still in effect then a Partial Birth Abortion was not even an option for her.

Also "Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability."

It also is possible that A)she thought "God" was telling her she should have this child or B) She doesn't agree with Partial Birth Abortions (although it doesn't appear to have been an option), there is a third one too C)Perhaps to her adoption isn't an option there are people who feel that way.

References are off of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
and
http://www.abortionaccess.org/partial-birthabortion.htm

[Xithras]

9. A malpractice suit is valid, but not child rearing costs...that's her choice.

She decided to take those costs on herself when she failed to put the child up for adoption. If she doesn't want the expense of raising a child, she shouldn't have kept it. "Choice" doesn't begin or end with an abortion.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. I agree. As someone else said, using

the baby as a cash cow is wrong.

[JNelson6563]

19. Seems to me

if you have a baby that you don't want you put it up for adoption.

Julie

[noamnety]

20. Seems to me

It's not your goddamn business.

People have a hell of a lot of nerve here trying to decide who does or doesn't deserve to have kids, and referring to unwanted pregnancies as a cash cow, like women who have failed abortions won some kind of lottery.

[qwlauren35]

21. I think you're misunderstanding.

The "cash cow" reference is the idea that this woman would sue for the amount it would cost to raise the child, when she could put the child up for adoption instead.

I can understand the problem with a botched procedure (although I don't quite know what you would sue for other than medical costs.) But to sue for the cost of raising the child seems absurd.

[noamnety]

23. Oh, I'm not misunderstanding anydamnthing.

I completely understand that women aren't entitled to decide for themselves whether or not they should have an abortion, whether or not they are allowed to keep a child. Everydamn person knows better than a pregnant woman what family decisions she ought to be making.

And if other people affect the financial security of a woman, she needs to either suck it up and deal with a life of poverty or live with giving a child up for adoption. Been there, done that, got the deadbeat prolife dad to prove it.

Everydamnbody has a thousand reasons that women aren't entitled to make their own decisions, and a thousand reasons why they need to shut the hell up and deal with the consequences of every other person's decisions.

Everydamnbody is prochoice until a woman makes a choice they don't approve of.

Yeah, I understand it all too well.

YOU don't get to decide if someone else gives up a child for adoption. That's a life changing experience that's got no damn thing to do with you. GET IT?

And YOU don't get to decide who pays the bills if the consequences of someone else's illegal actions result are financial.

[nick303]

81. So does the doctor owe her the amount of money

required to raise the child or not?

[Zhade]

83. Damn straight, and well-said.

NT!

[JNelson6563]

53. Wow!

Pardon me for joining the discussion!

I can see suing for the botched procedure and recovering some sort of damages on that but if she doesn't want the child she should give it up and make her and her child's life better.

Have a glass of wine or something, hysterics are unbecoming.

Julie

[iverglas]

87. ditto

Many women have children as a result of unwanted pregnancies. Many. For a lot of reasons. Imagine if they all abandoned their children to adoption ...

Not wanting to have a child does not equal not wanting the child one has. As many women (and men) can attest.

The fact remains that it was not her choice to have the child, and that she specifically chose not to continue the pregnancy because of her financial situation, which undoubtedly did not magically improve when she had the child.

The fact also is that in most situations, barring extreme cases where a birth parent is truly unfit, it is undeniably better for a child to be reared by a birth parent, even one who did not choose to have the child, than to be reared by adoptive parents.

The sharp tongues of the self-righteous finger-pointers never cease to wag ...

[iamjoy]

94. Julie, You Have A Point

However, emotionally, if she could give the child up for adoption, don't you think she would have decided on that rather than trying to have an abortion?

I think you've been unfairly attacked by some of the other posters here, but that's another point to consider.

Somehow, for some women it's easier to abort than to give the child up for adoption. I guess when they abort they don't really think of it as giving up their baby, because they don't see it as a baby.

But, I don't think that's being judgemental to say either way. It's a legitimate question - if she's choosing to keep the child (for whatever emotions are behind the decision) how liable for child support is Planned Parenthood?

This is going to be an ugly business.

[Coventina]

22. I feel sorry for that child.

The medical community failed, and the "mother" has failed.

That's all I have to say.

[noamnety]

24. The mother hasn't failed anything.

She's trying to raise a kid she knew she couldn't afford. She's trying to make the person responsible for that situation take responsibility for the financial burden that resulted from it.

You and everyone else here got one hell of a lot of nerve passing judgment on her, and deciding what any mother's reasons are for keeping a child.

[Coventina]

25. If she wanted an abortion for financial reasons, she had NO reason

to not give the child up for adoption once it was born.

I'm perfectly fine with her suing the doctors for malpractice. But the cost of raising the child? Puh-lease.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coventina]

27. When did I say a fetus = a child?

I said no such thing.

I think this woman should sue the crap out of the dr. who gave her the "abortion" and the fundie who "misdiagnosed" her pregnancy.

Her right to choose was clearly violated by both those doctors.

But now that there IS a child, that child's health and well-being take precedence over the mother's. I do not believe that the child is best served by being raised by a mother who did not want the child in the first place, and obviously considers it a burden.

And guess what? It IS my business if she raises a screwed-up kid that receives messages that it was never wanted and its existence is resented. That's a price to society that we ALL ultimately pay.

[noamnety]

28. Why are your beliefs relevant at all?

"I do not believe that the child is best served by being raised by a mother who did not want the child in the first place, and obviously considers it a burden."

It ain't YOUR baby. YOU don't get to decide who is worthy of keeping their babies and who isn't. Go stick your nose up someone else's uterus, please. This woman didn't ask your opinion.

[Coventina]

29. I am NOT sticking my nose up her uterus.

I said VERY CLEARLY that her right to choose to terminate her pregnancy had been violated.

[noamnety]

32. It's so far up her uterus I'm surprised you can breathe.

I guess it's a sacrifice you make so the rest of us can have your services as the morality police.

[Karenina]

38. MY KEYBOARD!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Coventina]

40. Once again, I never said anything about her right to her uterus.

But go ahead and resort to insults and namecalling.

It really helps your argument.

[noamnety]

41. There IS no argument about YOUR right to plan HER family

This is part of the way women are oppressed and forced into poverty.

We take away their family planning choices, and culturally we've come to accept that - oh well - that's the breaks.

This is what happens when you got a buncha white guys making laws that everyone else gets to follow. Our definition of "equality" gets so screwed up and distorted that it has no real meaning any more. "Equality" is not "men fuck you over and give you your choice of two unacceptable options that you had no input on, and your reward is dealing with a buncha people that are gonna judge you as a gold-digging b**** if you don't shut up and smile while they hand you a gilded piece of shit on a silver platter."

[Coventina]

42. As I stated before: I agree with you that her rights were violated.

She definitely deserves to be awarded damages. She was forced to have labor she didn't want! She deserves brazillions of dollars in damages.

But that does NOT mean that she should be mother to that child. There is definite cause for concern that she will not act in the child's best interests.

I don't think that the child should be forcibly taken away from her, but I hope that child protective services check on her early and often.

[noamnety]

45. And every woman in the US military overseas

who may have wanted an abortion but was denied access is unfit to be a mother, and needs social services to check on her early and often because they are likely to harm that child?

You feel like explaining what exactly you are basing your unsolicited "concern" on?

L. W. Fern
US Army Veteran

[Coventina]

46. Sure, I'm happy to explain why I think she may not be the best person to raise this child

1. She did not want to have the child in the first place.

2. Now that she has the child, rather than thinking of what the child's best interests may be (i.e. adoption), she is suing for child support. Not malpractice, but for the "burden" she anticipates the child will be.

Not a good recipe for a nurturing childhood.

[noamnety]

48. And THERE'S our judgment.

If you considered abortion, you are a potential child abuser.

Thanks, I knew that was lurking in there.

Followed closely by "If you are poor, it's in the child's best interest if you give it up for some rich folks to raise."

Cause lord knows poor folks are bad parents, right?

[Coventina]

49. Nice strawman, won't work on me, though

I never said people who get abortions are child abusers, that is just downright unfair.



This is a specific case where the woman tried to abort a specific fetus, and is now using the child resulting from the failed procedure to sue.

I never said poor people don't make good parents.

I don't care how rich or poor parents are, I just think that they should love and want their kids.

Nice try putting words in my mouth.

c ya

[noamnety]

50. Ah, so parents who prefer not to raise kids in poverty

don't love or want their kids.

Nice.

[Coventina]

52. Your post is a complete contradiction of what I said.

Have a nice day.

[noamnety]

54. You are being incredibly offensive

She didn't want to raise a child in poverty, so she was trying to prevent that. There are a hell of a lot of people who have children because they were trying to prevent that but their birth control failed and they don't have access to abortions for one reason or another. The ex and I were both active duty military, so we were trying to prevent a pregnancy because I didn't want an infant while we were both in the field overseas. Did I WANT a child at that point in my life? NO. It wasn't practical.

Your implication that I was therefore an unfit mother, or should have given up my kid for adoption, or was a potential child abuser is offensive beyond belief. "Not a good recipe for a nurturing childhood."

If I found out I was pregnant because someone had sabotaged my birth control, I would still be the same exact parent I am. But I would hold them financially accountable for what THEIR decision cost ME.

Every dollar of my salary this year went to supporting my child.
Every dollar of my salary last year went to supporting my child.
Every dollar of my salary next year will go to supporting my child.

All of that, that's all money I won't have when I need it to retire. And so it goes for millions of people - who are disproportionately female - no matter if someone else forced the woman to get pregnant or to give birth.

If she keeps her child, as I kept mine, there is a good chance she won't be able to save anything for retirement, because the money she could have put away for that will go toward raising the child. And that's okay - but when she dies in poverty, if she does, that will be the direct result of HIS decision to deceive her and withhold medical care. He caused that expense in her life. The expectation that women should have to give away children to prevent expenses that arise from malpractice is backwards and misogynistic and disgusting.

He isn't one damn spot better than a rapist. And the trauma and financial burden he imposed upon her does not render her an unfit mother.

[Coventina]

67. This thread isn't about you. And I find your rapist comment incredibly offensive.

Rape is a violent crime, a medical misdiagnoses, no matter how egregious, cannot be compared with a violent, physical attack.

[noamnety]

70. Your assumptions pertain to me, and are offensive

And I will not retract my likening his actions to rape.

It's a pretty pathetic doctor who can't figure out if a woman is 20 weeks along and complaining of pelvic pain (thereby directing attention to her reproductive system) that she might be pregnant. This leads me to the conclusion that he didn't "misdiagnose" anything. He maliciously used his position of power to dominate a woman and use her body without her consent, knowing that it would cause her agony. That isn't any better than rape. The fact that there wasn't violence involved isn't relevant. When you get a woman drunk so you can have sex with her, that's not violent either. It's still rape.

[Coventina]

78. If you are identifying yourself with this woman, that's your issue.

And your comparison to rape is still illogical and offensive.

[AngryOldDem]

68. Chill.

Follow the discussion! If she wants to sue for the botched abortion, fine. THAT was the right of hers that was violated. But to then turn around and also sue for child support...

I don't think it's being judgmental to say that if she really wanted this child, she probably wouldn't have wanted the abortion to begin with. And the fact that now she has the child, she sees it as a burden to be
"paid for," is kind of telling that she is being forced into motherhood against her will. Nice recipe for an abusive relationship, there. Maybe she'll be mother of the year. But right now from what we know, she did not want this child.

Sue for the damages for the botched procedure and give the child up for adoption. That is about as close to a "win-win" situation that you can come in this sorry case.

[noamnety]

71. It is judgmental, and it's not a prochoice position

"if she really wanted this child, she probably wouldn't have wanted the abortion to begin with."

First off, YOU don't get to decide what another person is thinking about her pregnancy. You do not know what's in her head, so quit acting like you do.

Again, LOTS of people use birth control (i.e. don't want a child at this time), and then when it fails, they don't want to give up the child for adoption. If failed birth control was in any way related to causation for abusive relationships, we'd need a hell of a lot of social workers. 8 to 30 MILLION children are born each year as a result of failed birth control.

For some (judgmental) reason, people are acting as though an abortion attempt is morally different than using birth control. Apparently people are using the fact that she scheduled an abortion as some sort of circumstantial proof that she will be an abusive parent. You feel the same about those who get pregnant cause birth control failed? No? If you think one is more likely to be abusive than the other, you need to check yourself.

Furthermore, she hasn't called THE CHILD a burden. The extra expenses required to raise the child are the burden. Next thing you know, people will be arguing that every mother who expects a dad to pay child support is potentially abusive because she obviously wants it to be "paid for."

I half expect to hear someone argue now that divorced women SHOULD have to give up their kids for adoption if they can't afford to raise them on their own.

I can't find any reason for hateful crap to be posted about this woman.

1. Abortions don't mean you are likely to be abusive, any more than the pill means you are likely to be abusive.
2. The fact that she wants to be able to provide financially for the child (oh, I don't know, pay for health care?) doesn't make her abusive.
3. The fact that she doesn't want to give her child away doesn't make her abusive, although those who think it's their place to decide she SHOULD give her child away have some human rights issues they need to address.
4. Expecting the person responsible for a child's existence to be financially responsible is normal law. That's why moms and dads pay child support. Asking for child support from a responsible party doesn't make you abusive.

[Zhade]

86. Actually, it's spot-on.

NT!

[Zhade]

85. You're not qualified to decide her abilities as a mother.

It's none of your fucking business in the first place.

[Coventina]

96. Oh for the love of Pete!

People here on DU talk about people's parenting abilities all the time!

Just check any of the Brittany Spears threads.

If the mods decide this is an unfit topic for discusssion, they will lock it.

[Zhade]

84. It's not your decison, or your place to judge someone you don't know.

NT!

[Sterling]

69. "the person responsible for that situation "

The daddy?

[Hosnon]

30. She chose not to put the child up for adoption. The doctor isn't

responsible for that decision.

She should be able to sue him for medical malpractice but not for her choice to keep the child.

[noamnety]

31. Her financial burden is the result of HIS negligence

Lord.

I imagine if you had a 5 year old son, and a doctor ended up causing some problem through deliberate malpractice that created an unanticipated financial burden in raising him ... oh, I don't know, amputating his legs, let's say, you'd get why this is offensive.

You'd understand that the first time someone referred to your son as a "cash cow" and said if you didn't want the cost, give him up for adoption.

Why are the woman's choices "give your child up for adoption" or "give up what little financial security you might have had"? Apparently NEITHER of those options is acceptable to her. NEITHER of those options was her choice.

[Hosnon]

34. No it isn't. His negligence is part of the cause. Her decision to

keep the child, i.e., not give it up for adoption, is also part of the cause.

Why must she choose between a child and greater financial security? Because that is a choice that every potential parent must make. It is not peculiar to her situation.

[noamnety]

35. HER choice was to have an abortion.

HE opted to take HER choice away from her.

HER second choice is neither to live in poverty, nor is it to give up a child for adoption. Yet those are the choices he attempted to force upon her.

Giving up a child for adoption when you don't WANT to give up a child for adoption, is traumatic. And you are WAY out of line acting like that ain't no big deal.

I have no clue why you think SHE should have to chose between poverty or giving up a child to adoption against her will, as a result of HIS actions. Both of those choices which he attempted to force on her are clearly unacceptable to her.

[Hosnon]

44. We appear to disagree on

how far we are willing to hold someone legally liable for the results of his/her actions.

An extreme example illustrates my point. Assume I yell at Bill during a fight outside of a restaurant. Then Bill gets into his car and drives away, extremely flustered. Another driver passes him with a Bush/Cheney sticker on her bumber and, due to our fight, Bill shakes his fist at her and gives her the finger. This pisses of that driver who abruptly ends her conversation with her husband on her cell phone without saying "I love you" as is usually the case. Unbeknown to his wife, he was on the roof putting up Christmas lights and slips because he is so hurt that she doesn't express her affection towards him. He falls off the roof and breaks his neck.

No reasonable person would try to hold me liable for the damage resulting from the fall.

Now, that is a very extreme example but it illustrates the distinction between legal cause and actual cause. At some point, we say that one is not liable for the results of his or her actions.

I do not think that the doctor should be held liable for her decision to keep the child after the failed procedure.

[noamnety]

51. That's completely unrelated

She wasn't forced to carry a child because the doctor had a bumper sticker on his car.

THIS is an accurate metaphor:

Bill is on the roof putting up Christmas lights. You climb up there and shove him off the roof.

[SayWhatYo]

63. Nahhh that metaphor isn't accurate... This one is though... oh yeah, this will be bad.

A better metaphor would be this. Bill is on his roof putting up Christmas light and you come around and borrow his ladder. When Bill is he done, he notices his ladder is gone so he decides that he will jump from his roof into the deep end of the pool... Bill dies. Bill shouldn't be able to sue you because, a) he is dead, b) he made the choice to jump from the roof into the pool.

Although, I don't like that and these metaphors are fun, so I'm going to make another one.

Bill gets pregnant... no no wait, that won't work.



Captain Kirk is on a strange alien planet when a strange alien parasitic life-form jumps into his mouth
and begins to grow within his body. Bill Shatner, excuse me, Kirk, goes to McCoy and asks for the strange life form to be removed from his body. McCoy attempts to remove the parasite and it seems successful. However, later that year Kirk still feels as if he is infected, so he goes back in time to the year of 2007(or 6) and finds a doctor named Dr. Benjamin Eleonu, a known parasite. Dr.Eleonuma tells Kirk that he is not infected any more. Kirk then goes back to his time so that he could continue to seek out new life and new civilization and boldly go where no man has gone before.

One day when he surveying an asteroid in the Beta Delta Omega sector, a small red elephant like creature popped out his, well, you know where. Kirk was shocked and was about to vaporize the thing with a large stick, but he decided to keep it instead. Kirk brought his new friend back to earth. That is when things went horribly wrong. The little red elephant began to destroy the planet and kill everything. Wait, it doesn't kill everyone... It just ends up costing Kirk a lot of money and brings him lots of joy and whatever.

Should the ancient doctor be forced to pay Kirk for the cost of raising the alien? After all, he could have easily vaporized the thing when he had a chance. Just like this mother could have easily vaporized her child(or put it up for adoption, if you're not into the whole vaporizing other human-beings thing)

[bleedingheart]

62. what is the legal limit for abortion in MA?

Just curious..here in PA it is 20 weeks. By law...once you pass 20 weeks, you can't get an abortion unless the mother or fetus have conditions that make it medically necesssary.

[noamnety]

36. Are you this judgmental for all malpractice suits?

If a 5 year old is injured and wheelchair bound through negligence, the parents have the choice to give their kid up for adoption or accept the cost of raising the kid. The negligent person should never be responsible for the financial burden he created, right? After all, why SHOULD he pay ... if the parents don't want the cost of raising that child, they can just give him away.

[Hosnon]

43. There seems to be a distinction between circumstances where the

financial loss of the failed procedure is necessarily borne by the patient and circumstances where the financial loss of the failed procedure is not necessarily borne by the patient.

In the case of an abortion, there seem to be at least two separate, though related, desired ends:

1. No offspring.
   
   and
   
   
2. No legal, i.e., financial, obligation to offspring.

The mere fact of having offspring does not seem to create much of an actionable right at law. Perhaps there may be some emotional aspect involved and the patient should be compensated for such loss. The second purpose seems to be more substantial. Obligations such as child support arise from a legal obligation to one's children. A successful abortion would achieve both of these ends; a successful adoption would not achieve the first but would achieve the second. As a result, the failure of the abortion does not necessarily require that the financial loss be borne by the parent.

This is why I do not think that the doctor should be held liable for the resulting financial obligations. His negligence did not necessarily force those obligations on the parent. However, it is reasonable that the doctor pay the full costs related to the adoption procedure.

The same is true in cases where the wrong appendage is removed. When the incorrect leg is removed, a financial loss is borne by the patient, e.g., loss of future income. To compensate for the loss of the leg, the patient can get a prosthetic leg. As with the adoption example, the doctor should be required to pay for the costs related to that correction.

In other cases, like mental damage from loss of blood to the brain, the negligence of the doctor does seem to necessarily result in a financial loss to the patient. Such as with the erroneously amputated leg, the patient suffers a financial loss e.g., future income. However, in this case, there is no procedure - yet - that can be performed to correct the error. As a result, the doctor should be held liable for the loss of future income.

In essence, I think that doctors should be held liable when a loss is suffered as a result of their negligence. If there is a method that would, in effect, "correct" the negligence, that method should be required. If there is not a method available, the doctor should be required to compensate the patient's loss. In either circumstance, the doctor is righting the wrong. However, some wrongs may be more costly to right for whatever reason, e.g., lack of technology.

[noamnety]

47. Your premise is completely wrong.

It is a human rights violation to force a woman to give birth against her will and then take away her child against her will.

It is a human rights violation to force a woman to give birth against her will and then leave her with the resulting financial burden.

Reducing the options to those two choices - as if they ARE choices - is offensive. Acting as though either one of those options is "righting" the wrong is even MORE offensive. You can't "undo" having a son or a daughter like it never happened any more than you can "undo" being raped, and the implication that paying for the adoption process is a fix is about as reasonable as demanding a rapist pay for the DNA test - and then we can call it even.

The woman did not want to raise a child she can't afford, and did not want to give a child up for adoption.

Why is anyone supporting the doctor's right to take that choice away from her? Unless he gives her the option of not raising a child in poverty AND not giving up a child for adoption, he hasn't "righted any wrong."

Why the HELL are women given their choice of two shit sandwiches, and being told "hey, it's your CHOICE"? That ain't a choice any more than being sodomized in Abu Ghraib vs. having electrodes attached to your genitals is a "choice."

If there's no free will involved, it is NOT a choice.

I don't understand why nobody's recognizing the MAN had a choice and he made it. He chose to make the decision to force a woman to bear a child, and now the consequence should be that he pays for that child. His alternative CHOICE should be that he could have decided not to force a woman to bear a child against her will. He was the one with free will, he was the one oppressing a woman, he was the one withholding medical care. Beats me why everyone is so damned quick to view him as the potential victim here. That's some screwed up priorities when people start defending his rights like he's the one that's been forced into this situation. He's not one damn bit better than a rapist, forcing his will on some woman's body. But oh my lord, people are quick to jump to his defense and view him as the one that's been wronged.

[mikelgb]

33. I'm not a woman

but how do you not know you are pregant?

now a friend of my sister's way back when was obese and she claims that she did not know she was pregnant until her water broke...

is this common?

[Karenina]

37. Not common

but YES, it does happen.

[SayWhatYo]

58. Is it typically limited to over weight women though?

[bleedingheart]

60. there are women who are denial until they deliver

that is more a mental issue than a physical issue.

Now there are women who have irregular menstrual cycles, however most of those women figure it out because of other secondary issues related to their pregnancy..

[cmkramer]

79. it happened to a friend of mine

We were out one night and she started having what she thought were stomach cramps so she went to the emergency room. The next day, she calls me and tells me she's in the hospital. I asked if it was her appendix and she says "No, I just had a baby girl!" "Why didn't you tell me you were pregnant?" "I didn't know myself!" She always had very erratic periods and she didn't gain that much weight so it just never occurred to her that she could be pregnant. Since she was in no position to take care of a baby, she ended up doing an "open" adoption with another friend who was unable to have children.

[bleedingheart]

55. I call hoax for the moment until I see more evidence BUT based on current evidence...Hoax

She delivered the baby at full term on December 7.

That means conception occurred in either late March or early April.

What kind of abortion did she have???

I am wondering if she didn't take the morning after pill and it didn't work because she was already implanted with the pregnancy. Planned Parenthood would have warned her about this and if she continued to miss her period...then she should have gone back for a surgical abortion....that makes it her responsibility.

Or...she got pregnant again directly after the abortion...it happens. I have a friend who has two children that are almost 40 weeks apart...we joke that her husband caught her for a quickie on the way to the recovery room...

I counted the weeks...from the date of the abortion to her delivery...it is about 37 weeks. That is full term. Most women don't get abortions until they are at least 6-8 weeks along because they notice the pregnancy when they miss either the first or the second menstrual cycle.

As for the ER doc not knowing...that is odd but there isn't anything listed about why he didn't know what was going on...but then again he may not have ordered a pregnancy test.

[nodehopper]

57. actually

37 weeks is the bottom estimate of a full term. Your estimated due date, given to you by your OB or a midwife is 40 weeks. That is also an average. Many pregnancies go until 42 weeks, and it is still considered normal. After 42 weeks, many places in the US have regulations that require them to induce, but in other countries you can go on being pregnant after that. After 45 weeks chances are something is wrong. But most women don't pop out babies at 37 weeks. And on the average, most first-time pregnancies go a week past the due date, which would be 41 weeks.

Most (not all) women figure out something is up when they miss their FIRST menstrual cycle. Given that ovulation, when conception can happen, is generally two weeks before a menstrual period, many women find out they are pregnant three weeks into it or so. The earlier the abortion is, the easier it is, and the cheaper it is, so it is not uncommon to have early abortions at a month-5 weeks into the pregnancy. Add that to 37 weeks, and you are still in the range of perfectly normal fetal gestation.

You have no reason to suspect she is pulling a hoax, and the conjectures you make based on your assumptions about the mechanics of pregnancy are incorrect.

[bleedingheart]

59. Well if she was at the top range of 42 weeks when she delivered

there will be sonograms from the OB who took her case from September to delivery.

Something just seems wrong about her story in regard to Planned Parenthood, as for the ER doctor..that is just plain odd because she went to an ER for pelvic pain at 20 weeks, but no pregnancy test and at 20 weeks someone should have been able to figure that out.

Now if her story can be backed up, then Planned Parenthood might be held responsible. As for the ER Doc, I don't know how he would be held responsible...she went to the ER for pelvic pain not for another abortion. Plus if she was 20 weeks gestation at that time...she might not have been able to get an abortion anyways....but based on the story...she still hadn't figured out that she wasn't getting her period or that the funny feeling in her stomach was quickening or the kicking of a developing fetus.

[nodehopper]

66. I just reread your post above

and I am confused. What do you mean you wonder if she took the morning-after pill? You mean, you think that was the "first abortion"? If so, they wouldn't have said "it was performed by this and this doctor" in the article.

I am sure they will have her sonograms. It is not unlikely she had her baby at 42 weeks or thereabout, it's not a freak occurrance or anything, on the average 10% of women go past 42 weeks (although it is hard to gather statistics in the US about how long after 42 weeks they would go naturally, because so many of them get induced or C-sectioned), and just FYI, while 37 weeks IS officially considered full-term (in the sense that if a woman goes into labor at that point, they won't try to delay the labor), only 5% of women have babies at 37 weeks. 20% of women have babies at 41-42 weeks (source: http://www.transitiontoparenthood.com/ttp/birthed/duedatespaper.htm)

In rare cases women continue to have period-like bleeding regularly throughout pregnancy. What is much more frequent is episodic bleeding/spotting throughout pregnancy that happens for a few days. I think it is entirely possible that she might have thought her periods were weird from the abortion (which they can be) and didn't put much weight on them.

As for quickening, it varies from person to person. I have no idea if this was her first child (sounds like it), but in first-time pregnancies often quickening is felt later, like 22-24 weeks. I am pregnant right now, and I didn't start feeling the baby kick until 22-23 weeks. Whatever I may have felt before felt exactly like gas.

I am not trying to be all, like, "here is the lecture on pregnancy" but I don't understand why you would think she was pulling a hoax. Everything that has happened is completely within the realm of statistical possibility, without being wildly improbable. Whether or not we agree with the ethics of what she is doing (I agree with most people that she would be in her right to sue for malpractice, but not for child rearing costs), I see no reason to attribute a hoax to her.

[pinniped]

61. Where the F is the deadbeat dad?

?

[SayWhatYo]

64. Maybe doesn't know?

Maybe he thinks the child is aborted? Or maybe he's on her side the article doesn't say either way... Why assume the father is a deadbeat... although, I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be.

[pinniped]

65. Well, it sounds like someone doesn't have any money.

decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.

[nitestar41]

75. Just a Malpractice Suit itself...

...could pay for the cost of raising her child. There really is no reason to state your suing for child rearing costs.
I'm having a hard time understanding how she was 20 weeks pregnant and didn't realize it herself. I'm currently pregnant with my own 2nd child and am approximately 16 weeks along. I spent most of last month with my bathroom, not to mention being nearly always hungry, and I experience light flutters every so often. Now I realize that everyone is different and everyone's pregnancy is also different but how can you not notice the multitude of body changes?
I think I mostly feel sorry for the daughter... I mean if her mother isn't observant enough to notice something as BIG as being pregnant, then how observant will she be over things that happens to her child?
Anyway just my opinion :-D never posted before thought this was a good place to start :-D

[cigsandcoffee]

77. BY making this so public, the kid will know he/she was a failed abortion

That can't be a pleasant thing for the growing child to ponder.

[Fierce]

80. Some kids know that their mothers considered abortion seriously

before deciding to have them. Depending on how/if it's presented, it can be a powerful bond or a real wedge. Or anything in between.

For that matter, none of us truly know what our mothers thought or felt when they found out they were pregnant.

[cigsandcoffee]

95. This kid will.

He or she will know their mom tried to have them aborted, and that it medically failed. That's a lot for a young person to shoulder.

[Zhade]

82. Good, hope she wins.

NT!

[ends_dont_justify]

98. Amazing

I would like to start off with saying this: I am not looking for an argument, I simply felt the need to state my opinion. Please try to read this with understanding and not as a form of attack, my goal isn't to compound my opinions and beat people over the head with them, but rather...perhaps help people to see what I feel is something important to see. Something overlooked in the my opinion is better debates seen here.

Attitude can be taken on many levels. Sometimes people have a bad day, or often someone can have had a messed up childhood and this will take on many levels account for why one may feel a certain way. Plenty of good people often have aggressive, even selfish sides, so this woman should not be judged on face value.

However the underlying tone I am gathering from many of these posts seems to be the fact that people believe it's okay to not look at a potential person -- a potential human being, and give respect, rights, freedoms to this individual as if they have a choice. As if they have the wills many democrats claim so highly we should be allow to have. That child has the right of pro choice, like we do. That child has the right to choose their future, their education, and whoever they want to be with. Just like we have. To state that this woman's purse is more important than this child on any level; to pass judgement onto a child that seems to be in for a rough ride that far exceeds what many of us will have had to be able to judge whether or not the child deserves to be put into such a situation, is ludicrous.

I have seen some, and somewhat fanatically so, pro choice individuals here. I would like to address we were all children once, and that, in those times none of us would have liked to be persecuted for the vain ideals some people seem to weigh more than the importance of a child; any child, in a way that we feel that what we decide here may be more important in any way.

My point? For anyone to state their opinion and claim another's is unimportant is not only hypocritical but must find a way to better their view of the world, lest they lost the point of holding an opinion entirely. Anyone to claim that their opinion or an opinion at large is more important than a LIFE, a living breathing thing, truly needs to take a look back at the reason they hold their opinion and weigh whether or not they truly have the right views in mind.

I personally am pro choice, but this far exceeds a case of abortion. In that regard, what was done was done, or rather wasn't done and purely into legal matters should that fact remain. No one is saying this woman didn't have the right to have an abortion. Rather that right was stolen from her. What people are getting at is the callous, cold hearted nature of someone who is incapable of seeing that the fetus has, and will grow into a living entity. This is the divide we as americans; no, as human beings have to weigh just when a child is no longer genetic material, but a living thing. Because what I am getting from these debates is people believe that it's okay to ruin a child's life for the sake of a paycheck. That, my fellow democrats, is wrong. We did not stand against the iraq war because we wanted oil to be more precious than blood. We didn't stand against the atrocities of the bush administration because we felt that ski resorts were more important than endangered wildlife or clean air. That businesses were more important than the individual at large, their rights.

So why has it become, so many people are able to pass off a child who will most likely live an unendearing and painful life like so many people are willing to simply blind themselves to? Does the buck of what we fight for stop as soon as it hits a certain topic? No! Certainly pro choice is something americans should be entitled to have, but certainly the right for a child to have a life which isn't to be raised by someone who has no care whatsoever for it should be just as important. So long as we lose the ability to stand up for equal rights, we lose the fight entirely.

Flame as you wish, I did not post this to start flames. I am hoping, maybe blindly, people will start to re-consider the importance of their ideals once the children of this nation start being trampled underfoot because of it. It's wrong for anyone to tell someone else their views are wrong....so if we don't fight for the ones with no voice, when people tell them they have no rights...who will?