3/3/09

101 Uses For "Roe vs Wade"

Use #36: Defense against gross negligence during childbirth

Ed White:

...Jail officers are being sued in federal court, accused of violating the girl’s constitutional rights by not getting her mother, an inmate, to a hospital for the delivery.

Their unusual defense? Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion decision. Attorneys for the officers say they’re not liable because the child had no 14th Amendment right before she was born....


This is pretty interesting. Especially the judgement of U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III :

“[The Guards} had sufficient warning that the child was on the way and did not get her the medical care she needed immediately prior to, during, and after the birth,”

The injury, he wrote, was a “continuous one” and “there is no principled reason to distinguish those injuries sustained before the birth from those sustained after the birth."

The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment says government shall not deprive any person of life or liberty without due process.

Because the girl’s mother was in jail, county officers “had a duty to protect and care for Chelsie,” Murphy wrote Jan. 22, rejecting a request to dismiss the lawsuit.


This is a point that opponents of 'Roe vs Wade' have been trying to make since the beginning.

It is unlikely that higher courts will allow any judgement to stand that in anyway diminishes or brings into question the validity of 'Roe vs Wade'. However,this simple case out of a county jail incident,serves to highlight the leap of logic necessary to support an activist judiciary that seeks to distinguish between the humanity of one second of your life and the next.

(h/t jivinjehoshaphat)

1 comment:

GrannyGrump said...

Let's see how much outrage there is among the abortion supporters, who claim it's about the woman's choice.