Issue
Abortionist Shield Laws
Key Points:
-
Abortionist shield laws make it harder to bring doctors who harm women during abortions to justice.
-
These laws would stop an abortionist from being sued or subpoenaed for malpractice.
-
They make it harder to bring relief to victims and their families.
-
Abortionist shield laws are also categorically unconstitutional.
Abortionist shield laws, like House Bills 1786 and 1788, are intended to protect abortionists at all costs, at the expense of women and their families. By carving out exceptions to interstate cooperation laws, these bills create a safe haven in Pennsylvania for abortionists and all related “service providers” who facilitate abortions for women and children outside of Pennsylvania. These bills would shield abortionists from liability for the harms they cause to women, even where that harm involves criminal or negligent actions.
These bills would stop Pennsylvania from cooperating with out-of-state criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits that seek to hold a law-breaking abortionist accountable for their actions and the harm that they have caused. HB 1786 would even stop someone from being sued or subpoenaed for malpractice when performing an abortion or providing medical care, such as hysterectomies, for pregnancy-related reasons.
This includes abortionists who send women chemical abortion pills, which can be especially dangerous when taken later in pregnancy and where the abortionist negligently fails to verify gestational age. Complications for chemical abortions are exponentially rising and risks can include internal bleeding and even death.
House Bill 1785 creates a new section to Pennsylvania’s law on medical liability, which has a stated purpose of “providing for patient safety.” Proposed section 741.1 carves out a special exception prohibiting “adverse actions against legal reproductive health care” for a provider who uses chemical abortion “to terminate a pregnancy to an out-of-state patient by means of telemedicine.” By creating this exception to “patient safety,” it is clear that this new legal protection for the abortionist, even a negligent abortionist who causes great harm, is provided without regard to the risk and detriment to the patient.
Abortionist shield laws would stop abortionists from facing accountability and the families of victims from receiving justice.
This is shocking considering Pennsylvania’s experience with the gruesome practices of Kermit Gosnell and his Philadelphia “House of Horrors” – or the infamous Dr. Steven Brigham who was responsible for consistently harming women through botched abortions while practicing in various states, including a stint in Pennsylvania.
The abortion industry knew about Kermit Gosnell and chose to do nothing. The abortion industry is about protecting abortion – their big moneymaker – not women. Their support of these bills just shows their continued support for abortion – no matter what.
Additionally, this type of legislation is categorically unconstitutional. The United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause, Article 4, section 1, reads as follows: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceeding of every other State. . .” This constitutional provision has, from the founding of our country, ensured that courts of each state will honor the court orders and judgments from another state. The proposed abortion shield laws not only deny that interstate cooperation, but they provide new legal tools and protections that will be used proactively to prevent other states from enforcing their laws. Any law that prohibits another state from enforcing its own laws blatantly violates the Full Faith and Credit clause.
HB 1786 carves out a special exception to Pennsylvania’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act to protect abortionists from arrest. This special exception amends section 9123 of the Act to prohibit the extradition of any person charged in another state “with treason, felony or other crime, who has fled from justice and is found in this Commonwealth” when that person is charged with “a criminal offense of another state involving the provision or delivery of reproductive health care services that would be lawful under the laws of this Commonwealth.” (emphasis added). No matter what the crime is, if it can be characterized as “involving reproductive services” that would be lawful in Pennsylvania, the offender who flees to or stays in Pennsylvania is shielded from extradition to face justice in another state.
RELATED RESOURCES

Related Articles
SCOTUS – Don’t make Texas learn the hard way on abortion standards
Playing by the same rules. It's one of those simple life-lessons you learn as a kid. Yet grown-ups tend to forget and make things more complicated than they should be. Why do some states have a different set of rules for surgical abortion facilities than for every...
Abortion Clinics’ Fight Over Safety Standards Goes to the Supreme Court
Texas has abortion clinic restrictions like those recently passed in Pennsylvania that require clinics to meet the same standards as other surgery centers. After Texas’ law was passed, roughly half of the state’s clinics closed. Rather than improving safety, various...
Counseling student punished for helping man with same-sex attraction—now obtains degree
Victory for our First Amendment freedoms A graduate student in psychology was about four weeks away from completing a year-long internship necessary for obtaining a master’s degree, when a Chestnut Hill College Dean wrote the student an alarming email. The Dean told...
Two positives, one critique from my experience at the March for Life
By: Dan Bartkowiak My first hands-on experience at the March for Life was Snowmageddon 2016. Whether you were able to join or not, here were a few things I took away from my time in DC: There really were a large number of young people present. As I boarded the subway,...
Top quotes from the Evangelicals for Life conference
An new opportunity this year leading into the March for Life is the Evangelicals for Life conference - a national event to help equip voices for life. Some of the staff at the Pennsylvania Family Institute are in attendance. Here are a few quotes to highlight from the...
It’s been 5 years since the Gosnell grand jury report was released. Here are five things to remember.
On January 19, 2011, the findings were released of the grand jury that was charged with investigating the activity of the Women's Medical Society in West Philadelphia; operated by Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell eventually stood trial and was convicted of three counts of...
After five-year decline, abortion up [slightly] in Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Department of Health recently released their latest report on abortion statistics that revealed 32,126 abortions in 2014; up by 18 from the previous year. This ends a five-year stretch of decline in annual abortions. From 2008-2013, abortion dropped...
These Pennsylvania officials took money from Planned Parenthood
Here is a list of 29 current Pennsylvania officials who accepted direct campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood: Governor Tom Wolf (D) Lieutenant Governor Mike Stack (D) Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) Auditor General Eugene Depasquale (D) Mayor of...