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 1641, 1643, and 1966 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 would create a safe haven in Pennsylvania for abortionists and all related “service providers” who facilitate abortions for women and children outside of Pennsylvania.
HOUSE SHIELD LAWS
- House Bill 1638
- House Bill 1640
- House Bill 1641
- House Bill 1966
- House Bill 1644
- House Bill 1643
- House Bill 1645
SENATE SHIELD LAWS
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 1642 would even stop someone from being sued or subpoenaed for malpractice when performing an abortion or providing 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 1641 creates a new section to Pennsylvania’s law on medical liability, which has a stated purpose of “providing for patient safety.” Proposed section 747.1 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 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. www.pafamily.org Page 1Legal Shields for Abortionists at the Expense of Women 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 1642 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
Charlotte Lozier Institute’s Analysis on Shield Laws
Abortion pills are now being shipped to all 50 states through little-known “shield laws” in blue states, but these legal protections have yet to be tested in court.
Related Articles
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...
U.S. Supreme Court Doesn’t Have Final Say on Same-Sex Unions
By Emily Kreps A well-written column written by our friends at Family Research Council: To the casual observer, the Supreme Court seems to have given its stamp of approval to same-sex marriage, and both Congress and the states have been trumped in the matter. The...
Brief Filed with the Supreme Court by Lancaster County business and its owners
LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. — A legal brief was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeal of Conestoga Wood Specialties and its owners, the Hahn family, in a case that is being closely watched nationally, along with the case of Hobby Lobby, because...
Geneva College Doesn’t Have to Provide Abortifacients, Judge Rules
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Geneva College doesn't have to provide its employees with insurance coverage for contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and other "preventive services," under a decision issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti. The...
To Gov. Corbett: HB 300 & SB 300 Still Bad Policy
Governor Tom Corbett's sudden and surprising announcement that he now backs special protections for sexual orientation and gender identity contradicts his campaign promises to oppose such legislation. Not only is he going against his commitment to those who elected...
Colorado Baker Ordered to Bake for Same-Sex ‘Wedding’
From ABCNews.com: A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines. [...] In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay...
PA Marriage Case Set for June
Our Pennsylvania marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is now set to go to trial in June, 2014. The ACLU has sued to overturn DOMA, which states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Please pray for this upcoming trial, that the truth will...
