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
Inspections are a must for abortion clinics
The Patriot News published this Letter to the Editor on Feb. 6: There are many to blame for the decades of harm caused by the "House of Horrors" and licensed abortionist Dr. Gosnell's clinic - and they all should be held accountable - but first we need to make sure...
Abortion is Not Health Care
Pennsylvania just took a step forward in protecting your rights and the rights of the unborn in our health care system. The Pennsylvania Senate Banking and Insurance Committee today, January 25, approved Senate Bill 3 by a 12-2 vote. Introduced by Sen. Don White...
Rendell’s Political Filter vs. Caring for People
Rendell views the gruesome killings in Philadelphia through a political filter. Here's a quote from the Inquirer: "It's a tragic situation, obviously," Rendell said. "All of those of us who are pro-choice abhor this, because it casts a negative light on that movement....
Law Center Files Brief in Landmark Abortion Case
Independence Law Center Files Brief with Pa. Supreme Court in Landmark Abortion Case The Independence Law Center is busy—even during the Christmas season—working to bring positive change to our culture. For more than two decades, Pennsylvania law has prohibited a girl...
More Dangerous than a Cancer Diagnosis
While Congress and the President use the law to impose political correctness in the language we use to describe those with disabilities, they refuse to take action to end the genocide against children in the womb, especially those diagnosed with Down's syndrome....
Sex Ed in Downingtown
Ok, so a parent or two in a local school district demand that it stop teaching abstinence only sex education, and require teaching of "comprehensive" sex ed. They claim that teaching young people that abstinence is the best way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases...
in Obamacare, Congress showed “Blatant disregard for the Constitution”
“No one should be forced to pay for an unconstitutional federal takeover of health care that will funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of abortionists and lead inevitably toward death panels for the elderly and infirm. Congress showed blatant disregard for the...
Christian Chastity vs Sex in the City
In this video speech, Dr. Pat Fagan of the Family Research Council shows how the Western standard of monogamy is under serious attack. Worth watching. http://www.frc.org/events/culture-clash-in-the-us-monogamy-vs-polyandry