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

Good News for Protecting Life and the Disabled

The Independence Law Center just received good news in a case involving David Hockenberry, a mentally retarded man whose guardians sought court approval to refuse life-preserving medical treatment. Mr. Hockenberry is not permanently unconscious or suffering from any...

read more

Central Institution of Society Takes a Direct Hit

From Dr. Albert Mohler on the overturning of Proposition 8: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/05/the-gavel-falls-on-marriage-the-proposition-8-decision/ "Thousands of cases make their way through the Federal courts each year. Some are important, but only a few have...

read more

“It is not bigotry, it is biology.”

Bishop Harry Jackson, prominent African-American leader, Senior Pastor of Hope Christian Church and Chairman of Stand for Marriage DC Coalition says this about the court ruling overturning Proposition 8 in California: "The implicit comparison Judge Walker made between...

read more

Taxpayer Funded Abortions in Pennsylvania

Headline: Obama Administration sending $160 million to PA for healthcare coverage that includes abortion. What do Sen. Casey and other "pro-life" Democrat members of Congress who voted for Obamacare say now? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

read more

A Supreme Blunder

In a split 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law could legally remove official recognition to a Christian organization called the Christian Legal Society because of its prohibition of gays...

read more

School Superintendent to Parents: Get Lost!

Provincetown, MA elementary school to offer condoms to 1-6 graders, and parents have NO SAY. Watch this CNN story for details. http://bit.ly/bEQS6o This brave new world will arrive in PA if HB 1163 becomes law. Take at stand!

read more