I’m surprised this case hasn’t received more attention in the press.
An underaged woman (a few weeks shy of her 18th birthday) obtained a false ID and then obtained an abortion. She later sued the Doctor, saying that he and the clinic should have not provided the abortion. She says the clinic should have known she was underage because her ID was fake. The clinic says it’s not their fault that she lied to them.
There are some interesting family issues here, too. The woman’s father is a minister. It was not reported in the article, but whe was quoted on tv as saying she didn’t know her father’s stance on abortion and would not have obtained one had she known.
The case was decided with 90% fault to the woman and 10% to the doctor, and no monetary award was given to either party.
I find it hard to believe she even brought the suit, and wondered what her ultimate purpose in doing so is/was. I can’t say I’m too sympatheric toward her position as I know she lied about ther age and I strongly suspect she is lying about her not knowing her father’s stance on this issue. That she continued to see the father of the pregnancy, had two more children with him and then marry him makes me think she’s just flakey (and that her Dad hasn’t been able to get his mesasage across). I guess there’s no crime in that but it does detract from her credibilty (even more) to me.
I supose it depends on whether or not the clinic was diligent in making sure she wasn’t underaged.
In french law, there’s a rule stating that “nul ne peut se prevaloir de ses propres turpitudes” (Not sure how to translate it since it has quite a large scope, but it means amonst other things that you can’t use your own crimes as a defense). In particular, it means that you can’t seek damages for something which was a direct result of your own unlawful actions (for instance, you can’t seek damages if you tried to hit me in the face and broke your hand on my jaw). However, one’s unlawful conduct isn’t necessarily the direct or the only cause of the resulting damages.
I was refering to french law, but it seems to me it applies (frm a common sense, not legal) point of view in this case.
If for instance the girl looked like a 13 y.o. and the ID was a blatant fake, one could suspect that either the clinic was extremely negligent or actually willingly provided the abortion to someone they knew was underaged. In both case, I think they would be at fault.
Besides, since precisely we assume that underaged people aren’t fully responsible for their actions, the fact that the girl acted in a deceitful way doesn’t absolve the clinic from its own responsability.
I too would tend to have a very poor view of her behavior, but it might be possible that she was really a very irresponsible teenager when she requested abortion, is really full of remorse now, and think that the clinic’s staff should and could have prevented her for getting the abortion. That say, from an ethical (not legal) point of view, even if it’s actually the case, though perhaps the clinic could be blamed, I don’t thing she should receive damages for having lied and faked documents. Except once again if the clinic was negligent to an extreme extent.
Not that such a suit could happen over here, anyway, since underaged girls can get abortions without their parent’s consent. Which is, IMO, a good thing.
The case was ultimately decided on what the parental notification law says specifically about the situation. At the time of the abortion the law only stated that the clinic had to verify age with picture ID. It didn’t say what type of ID it had to be or to what lengths the clinic had to go to in order to accpet it as valid. The jury found that the clinic didn’t technically break the law enough to warrent damages.
But I still think that the clinic should have been held 50% responsible (but no more than that) for performing the procedure. If bartenders and store clerks are held responsible for accepting fake IDs when selling beer then why shouldn’t clinics be held to the same standard?
I don’t think any of them should be held to that standard. You can’t expect every clerk to be able to catch every fake ID. If there’s a set procedure for validating IDs, they followed it, and they still didn’t catch the fake, then any blame should fall on whoever made or used the fake.
Rabid pro-lifer here who thinks the lawsuit was BS.
The law didn’t require a government ID at the time. The clinic acted in good faith that the girl wasn’t lying (I doubt they would have cared either way but on paper their noses are clean). She committed fraud and now she wants money? Puhleze.
Why didn’t they sue the grocery store that sold her the fake ID?
It was not reported in the article, but whe was quoted on tv as saying she didn’t know her father’s stance on abortion and would not have obtained one had she known.
I think she’s lying about this, too.
Her dad is a Pentecostal preacher and she “doesn’t know” what he thinks? I’m Pentecostal. We aren’t quiet about subjects like this, and besides: he’s a preacher. Odds are VERY heavy that Dad’s a pro-lifer and wouldn’t have approved of the abortion. Even on the (less than 1%) chance that Dad had NEVER mentioned his feelings on the subject in the 17 years she’d lived with him, was she really dumb enough to think that Dad would have been okay with it?
I imagine she knew Dad would freak out and talk her out of it, so she got a fake ID and had it done. Then a few years later she started regretting it, and besides she’s got 2 new kids to feed so she needed some cash.
Maybe this is the cynic in me, but is it possible this was a stunt? She and her father cooked up an idea-she’s pregnant, and has an abortion, to lie about her age, and THEN make the clinic look bad?
It wouldn’t surprise me. Considering the lengths people have gone to in the abortion debate…
However, once she found out, maybe she decided she didn’t want the kid, and maybe dad said, “well, get an abortion-but we’ll do it in such a way that will make them look bad instead of us.”
Or something.
You know what-I just realized, my theory is really stupid. Dammit, never mind.
Thanks for the sarcasm, Dan. I always need a little on the weekends.
I asked because it is my understanding that an underage girl still doesn’t need parental consent for an abortion, at least here in CA. Does it now require a parent’s permission, just like every other surgical procedure on the planet?
Depends on the state. SCOTUS has struck down several abortion-limitation clauses as unconstitutional; however, Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft (along with numerous other cases) established that parental consent requirements were legal IF the statute contained a provision allowing the minor to get consent from a judge instead (if she was worried about physical violence if she informed her parents, for example).
A sensible concept, but not really one that applies to US tort law. Juries are expected to apply common sense in deciding tort cases, but generally they aren’t much good at it. Liability is usually established by determining who is most at fault, whether or not their actions were legal.
I smell a big fat rat-sized stunt here, myself - Guin, I really don’t think you’re too far off.
First off, we have a young girl who resorts to deception in order to subvert a known law (i.e. parental notification) in order to receive an abortion in a state with that particular legal requirement. Then, four years later - I’m guessing this trial didn’t last four years - the girl and her father sue the clinic for failure to properly observe the legal requirements of the state of Texas. Note particularly this quote from Daddy:
In other words, the suit was brought basically to provide the clinic with a legal hassle. Then we have the young lady’s Appeal to the Majority:
And so she’d rather sue a clinic over her own deception than maybe actually question the parental notification law.
End result? Making it harder for teenaged girls, who are already in a desperate situation, to exercise some form of control over their own lives. Clinics in Texas, to avoid similar lawsuits, will have to examine IDs in detail and reject anything that looks even remotely fake, forcing a patient who isn’t yet 18 onto the mercy of their parents, who may not yet know their daughter is pregnant (or even sexually active) and whose reaction the girl obviously fears if she’s trying to get an abortion without their knowledge and consent in the first place.