Ala Supreme Court rules: "nonviable fetuses have been regarded as persons."

[dixiegrrrrl]

MONTGOMERY, Alabama -- Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker took aim Friday at U.S. abortion law, using a DeKalb County case to call for states to reject the concept of "viability" of a fetus and give legal rights to the unborn.

The state court ruled unanimously Friday that a DeKalb County woman has the right to pursue a wrongful death claim against her doctors on behalf of her unborn child. The child was not old enough to live outside the womb, but a 2011 Alabama Supreme Court ruling said that such a claim could be filed even for a "pre-viable fetus." The decision did not break new legal ground in abortion law.

Snip:
"Roe's statement that unborn children are not 'persons' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant to the question whether unborn children are 'persons' under state law," Parker wrote.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/02/alabama_supreme_court_justice.html

[Drale]

1. Seriously the South gets more and more stupid every year.

I'm sorry for anyone who lives in the south but its true.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Since when did state law trump the rulings of the SCOTUS?

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. The Judge's reasoning was along these lines:

( Note: I am merely sharing what I have read, not stating agreement)

This is the expanded news report, I could only find the Fox News version:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/20/alabama-courts-wrongful-death-ruling-used-to-recommend-abandoning-viability/?test=latestnews

Parker wrote that 38 states have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, of which 28 protect life from conception, and noted a ruling from last year by his own court that concluded that Alabama's wrongful death law applies to an unborn child at any stage of gestation. He added that at least nine other states permit recovery for the wrongful death of previable unborn children.

"This court recognized the arbitrariness of 'draw(ing) a line that allows recovery on behalf of a fetus injured before viability that dies after achieving viability but that prevents recovery on behalf of a fetus injured that, as a result of those injuries, does not survive to viability,'" Parker wrote.

Extending the argument, Parker, whose opinion was signed by three other judges, wrote that "Roe's statement that unborn children are not 'persons' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant to the question whether unborn children are 'persons' under state law. Because the Fourteenth Amendment 'right' recognized in Roe is not implicated unless state action violates a woman's 'right' to end a pregnancy, the other parts of the superstructure of Roe, including the viability standard, are not controlling outside abortion law."

so this will go up the ladder of courts, I assume, since the ruling is against the doctors who were being sued.

[enlightenment]

6. This was a slippery slope when it started.

I remember thinking that after one of the first cases made the books. Everyone felt so sorry for the woman who miscarried the pregnancy (actually, I think she died and the husband/SO wanted the prosecution) that they didn't stop to think about what it might mean down the road.

Law is built on precedence; the door to this insane decision was opened a long time ago.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I wonder when OB/GYN's and Nurses will stop practicing their specialty?

The law of unintended consequences is going to eventually catch up with these people.

[rocktivity]

3. State laws that violate Federal laws

are unconstitutional by default.


rocktivity

[atreides1]

4. Hope this woman is prepared

Because her entire medical history will be displayed before a jury, who will not only judge her doctors, but her as well!

[Old and In the Way]

8. Did she drink any alcohol during her pregnancy? Smoke? Strenuous exercise/recreation?

She could be tried for manslaughter of this "person".