Personal Choice... based on...?

The state Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether doctors should be required tell a pregnant woman seeking an abortion that the procedure would kill a human being and whether the woman should be required to sign a consent form indicating she knows it.

The question arises from a long-running civil lawsuit brought by a South Bound Brook woman who claims her doctor did not provide enough information when he advised her to end her pregnancy. An appeals panel ruled last spring that the case should go to a jury, but that decision was appealed and now the highest court has agreed to step in.

The case, however, has much wider implications, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief and participated in today's oral arguments.

"This case isn't about what happened to her in 1996," said ACLU attorney Talcott Camp. "This case is about what happens to every woman seeking an abortion going forward."

Harold Cassidy, a well-known anti-abortion lawyer representing the woman, Rosa Acuna, in the case said the doctor should be required to inform patients seeking abortions that the embryo is a "human being" and the procedure could end the life of an "existing family member." He would also require patients to sign consent forms explaining they understand an abortion terminates a "human being."

"There is a moral judgment to be made in an abortion and that judgment belongs to the woman," said Cassidy. "But the woman cannot (make the decision) ... if she doesn' t know the facts."

John Zen Jackson, who represents the physician, Sheldon Turkish, argued the doctor did, in fact, provide an explanation of the medical risks involved in the abortion even if he did not tell Acuna it would kill the embryo. "In terms of the procedure ending the life of a person ... that is the purpose of the procedure," Jackson said.

According to the court documents, Acuna was a 29-year-old mother of two in 1996 when Turkish advised her to have an abortion because her pregnancy was complicated by a kidney disorder.

Acuna claims Turkish didn't say her 6- to 7-week fetus was a baby when she asked. She contends he told her: "Don't be stupid, it's just some blood."

The doctor testified he did not remember Acuna asking such a question but would have advised her that a "7-week pregnancy is not a living human being."

A few weeks after the abortion, Acuna had to be hospitalized. According to court papers, nurses told her the physician had "left parts of the baby inside of her." Acuna sued on grounds that she had agreed to the abortion based on "erroneous information."

Contributed by Rick Hepp

*************************************

I would LIKE to think in 2007, the human animal has evolved enough to see how personal accountability and responsibility rules the day.

A 29 year old mother of two has the right to seek a second opinion... does she not?

Doctors are NOT God... they just like to THINK they are!

Amazing how Vets don't have these moral issues and lawsuits against them, eh?   A bitch goes into heat, it's likely she'll get puppies... provided a male dog jumps on her.

Next?