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
The Intolerant Left Strikes Again
(From Gary Bauer's End of Day Report, 11/8/12) Stockton Springs Community Church in Waldo County, Maine, was vandalized earlier this week because its pastor is an outspoken advocate of the biblical definition of marriage. "Our congregation has taken a loving and...
A ‘Foolish’ Reaction to President Obama’s Re-election
We've come to the end of another president election. We're through the damages of Hurricane Sandy and the recent Nor'easter. As the political ads subside and the clean-up from the storms continues, one thing remains clear - the body of Christ needs to rise up and...
Share PAFamilyVoter.com With Your Church. It’s Easy!
PAFamilyVoter.com is Live! YOUR online Voter's Guide is here. Help Spread the Word. Announcement - ready for YOUR church bulletins, E-mails and Facebook! Start this Sunday. . . only 30 days left til Election Day. Please consider running this announcement in your...
USAID/State Dept Announce More Funding for Contraception Around the World
From LifeSiteNews.com: The Family Planning Summit spearheaded by Melinda Gates and held in London last July secured commitments of $4.6 billion for contraceptives for poor women. At the summit the U.S. State Dept announced a partnership with the Gates Foundation and...
Australia Votes Down Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Legalization
Good news from Australia! From National Organization for Marriage: The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. Just 42 MPs supported the private members bill put forward by Labor...
Tragedy Averted at Family Research Council Offices
Wednesday morning at the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC, a man entered the building and made remarks about “not liking FRC’s politics.” An FRC building manager, Leo Johnson, took interest in the man’s intentions for being in the building, at...
24 Hours of Radio-Activity
I always appreciate the opportunity to appear as a guest on talk radio – even when the host or the callers disagree with my viewpoints. The on-air give-and-take on significant issues of the day can help bring light to a subject often missed in the newspaper stories or...
Baker Stands for Traditional Marriage, While Democratic Party Considers Abandoning It
Owner of bakery stands up for his beliefs, no matter what the cost to his business: The owner of a Colorado bakery has been accused of violating the civil rights of a gay couple after he refused to bake their wedding cake — and now gay rights advocates are calling for...