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
U.S.: A Silver Medal in Abortion?
by Kate Boyle According to a new report commissioned by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), the United States is among just seven countries that permit elective abortions for unborn babies who are above twenty weeks old. China and North Korea also join the U.S. on...
8 Things You Should Know About This Year’s Critical Supreme Court Case (Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius)
One month from today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case Conestoga Wood Specialties v Sebelius. Here are eight things you should know about the case: The Hahn Family, a Lancaster County (Pennsylvania) Mennonite family, owns Conestoga Wood...
UK Subsidizes Jobs in Porn Industry
by Kate Boyle It's no secret that the United Kingdom is fairly progressive, but they've gone to a new level. The British government is offering subsidies to organizations in the adult entertainment industry for hiring unemployed 18-24 year olds. Granted, the subsidies...
Facebook Offers New Gender Options to Users
by Kate Boyle What happened to male or female, boy or girl, man or woman? Well, in the land of Facebook, those gender distinctions are no longer the only options available. Facebook announced on Thursday that they would now be providing over fifty different terms that...
Christian Rapper Receives Death Threats over New Song
By Kate Boyle Christian rapper Bizzle is reportedly receiving death threats over his response to Grammy-award winning rapper duo Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’ "Same Love." The Houston-based rapper wrote his song in the aftermath of Macklemore's performance of "Same Love"...
Justice Dept Continuing to Attack Religious Freedom in the Courts
By Emily Kreps From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Attorneys representing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor [...] appealed two decisions by federal judges in Pittsburgh that went against the Affordable Care Act's contraception...
Abortion Rates Fall to Lowest Since Roe v. Wade
By Kate Boyle At current rates, 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion by the time she is 45. That seems like a staggering statistic to some but recent headlines have announced that the United States has actually reached the lowest level of abortions in forty...
A Tribute to John Stanton, Defender of Life
by Tom Shaheen, VP for Policy The pro-life movement in Pennsylvania lost a pillar in our "community" of allies committed to defending the sanctity of human life and working against the culture of death. In fact, he was a pioneer in the pro-life movement even before it...