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
A Stirring Motto for the Princeton University Pro-Life Student Group
I stopped by the Princeton Pro-Life website this morning, after noting that Dr. Russell Moore spoke at their Respect Life banquet last night. I was moved by the student group's motto, Condiscipulorum Absentium Gratia, which translated means "for the sake of our...
PA Coalition Against Domestic Violence Absurdly Wrong on SB 732
Today, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) sent a memorandum to members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, encouraging them to vote against Senate Bill 732, a bill that would simply apply the same health and safety standards to abortion...
Congress Investigating Planned Parenthood
For the first time in history, Congress has launched their own investigation into the well known abuse scandals and sex-trafficking cover-up within the walls of the nation’s biggest abortion chain, Planned Parenthood. Just seven months ago, Live Action’s undercover...
Obamacare Lawsuits Head to US Supreme Court
The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional. Read...
Obama Denounces NC Marriage Amendment
The Obama administration has denounced approval by the North Carolina legislature of a ballot initiative to define marriage as between one man and one woman. “The President has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as...
New VA Abortion Clinic Regs. Misportrayed in News
The abortion regulations recently adopted by Virginia’s State Board of Health have generated considerable criticism from mainstream media outlets. But the purpose of the rules is to regulate abortion clinics in a manner similar to hospitals. Read more... ...
Australians Can Choose Gender X on Passport
The Australian government, to remove discrimination against intersex or transgender people, changed the country's passports will to now offer three options: male, female and indeterminate (X). Read more...
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Edges Out Christian Adoption Agency
The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) informed the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA) — a 61-year-old group that has been contracting with the state to place foster children in homes since 1965 — that its contract will not be renewed...