Motion Filed For Reconsideration Of N.J. Ruling That Doctors Do Not Have To Tell Women Seeking Abortions That Procedure Kills Human Being

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Primary Care / General Practice
Article Date: 01 Oct 2007 - 3:00 PDT


Harold Cassidy, the attorney representing a woman who claims she was unable to give informed consent to undergo an abortion, on Monday filed a motion asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling that physicians are not required to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure would result in the death of a human being, the New York Times reports (Kelley, New York Times, 9/26).

According to court papers, physician Sheldon Turkish in 1996 told Rosa Acuna, who was eight weeks pregnant, that she had to undergo an "immediate abortion" because her pregnancy was causing damage to her kidneys. Acuna charges that Turkish "incorrectly told [her] ... that she was not aborting a human life" when she underwent the procedure, adding that she has experienced psychological trauma as a result of the abortion. A trial judge dismissed the case, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a "fetus is not a person," but a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in April ruled that Acuna could sue for damages involving "a question of medical malpractice."

The state Supreme Court earlier this month ruled that physicians are not required to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure would result in "killing an existing human being." The court ruled that physicians only are required "to provide their pregnant patients seeking an abortion with material medical information, including gestational stage and medical risks involved in the procedure" (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/13).

Appeal
Cassidy said he asked the court to reconsider "very clear errors" in its ruling (New York Times, 9/26). "We feel the errors are so patent and palpable that we should ask the court to correct those errors," Cassidy said, adding, "What issue is more important than protecting the constitutional rights of a pregnant mother?"

Cassidy said if the court denies his motion the next step will be to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. John Zen Jackson, Turkish's lawyer, said the motion does not appear to raise any new arguments and that he would wait to "see if the court does anything" with it. He added that the original ruling was a "carefully considered opinion." Tamara Kendig, a spokesperson for the court, said that it is "very, very rare" for the state Supreme Court to grant a motion for reconsideration and reargument once a decision is made (Coscarelli, Newark Star-Ledger, 9/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations