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
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
Christian Bakers Forced to Shut Down After Threats
From the Washington Times: A husband-and-wife bakery shop team in Oregon were forced to close their shop doors and move to cheaper digs — their home — after gay-rights activists hounded them and drove away contract business because they refused for Christian reasons...
Study Exposes Polling Bias with Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Questions
by Tom Shaheen, V.P., Pennsylvania Family Institute We are pounded over and over again in the media and by gay activists with the idea that same-sex marriage is "inevitable," if only those who hold to the time-tested definition of marriage as between one man and one...
Action needed on bill that threatens our religious freedoms
For more than 10 years and with your help, Pennsylvania Family Council has successfully stood against attempts to amend Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act to create special protected classes for “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Why?...
Pa. attorney general ignores ‘rule of law’
By: Randy Wenger (Published in The Morning Call on August 6) Attorney General Kathleen Kane's decision to forgo defending Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act has undermined the rule of law in Pennsylvania. There are plenty of political issues across Pennsylvania...
Appeal in Conestoga Woods Religious Freedom Case
Our Chief Counsel for the Independence Law Center, Randall Wenger, is one of the lead attorneys in this case, fighting for the religious freedom of the owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc in Lancaster. Read the update below. Consider supporting the work of the...
On Marriage, Pitts and Corbett Raze Kane
Pennsylvania makes national headlines: From Family Research Council: Either the President's lawlessness is rubbing off -- or some state officials have forgotten how to read. Nothing else seems to explain the decision by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who...
Corbett Champions Marriage – Tell Him Thank You!
Pennsylvania Governor defending marriage against ACLU lawsuit and Montgomery County's unlawful actions (Harrisburg, PA) - Two recent attacks to marriage in Pennsylvania are being defending courageously by Governor Tom Corbett. Gov. Corbett announced that the State...
State Sues to Stop Rogue Montgomery County Official
AP: Pennsylvania officials are asking a court to stop a rogue county from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The state Health Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Commonwealth Court against D. Bruce Hanes. He oversees the granting of marriage licenses in...