Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Iowa Republican submits bill allowing women to sue abortion providers because of "abortion regret." Remember, though, frivolous medical lawsuits are bad   (slate.com) divider line 57
    More: Stupid, abortion providers, Iowa, Republicans, abortions, abortion regret, emotional stress, mental health professional, informed consent  
•       •       •

2452 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 4:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-02-28 04:26:29 PM  
14 votes:
In that case, I should be able to sue the Catholic church for "religion regret." I'd like millions of $$$ in damages for all of the pain and suffering I've experienced as a direct result of having Catholicism shoved down my throat for the first 17 years of my life.
2014-02-28 04:31:43 PM  
13 votes:
So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?
2014-02-28 04:53:15 PM  
7 votes:
Can we sue politicians because of election regret?
2014-02-28 04:31:33 PM  
7 votes:
I regret going in to debt to pay for college. I don't feel that I was very well informed about the consequences of signing those loan checks. Gimme $.
2014-02-28 04:32:35 PM  
6 votes:
Let's see if yesterday's "why on earth would there be privacy concerns at an abortion clinic" brigade shows up.

Also, for the sake of an informed discussion, here's the bill.
2014-02-28 04:04:52 PM  
6 votes:
If they add a rider allowing suits against the mothers that birthed the jackasses that are proposing this idiotic bill for pain and suffering of humanity by not aborting the members of the Iowa caucus proposing this maybe. It would have to allow suits against the members themselves if their mother is already dead. They have to add a penalty cost ( thinking 2x costs) beyond loser pays legal fees including all appeals costs.
2014-02-28 04:49:45 PM  
5 votes:
The party of personal responsibility strikes again.
2014-02-28 07:31:28 PM  
3 votes:

DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?


Motivate isn't the right term here - it's 'intimidate'.  This is purely a form of intimidation - since they can't ban the procedure, they're going to make life as hard as possible for the providers.

Stay classy, party of small (as in 'uterus-sized') government...
2014-02-28 06:55:02 PM  
3 votes:
Bottom line:  The definition of a frivolous lawsuit is any lawsuit but mine.
2014-02-28 06:05:04 PM  
3 votes:
The group most responsible for "abortion regret" are those that go around trying to convince women that a 2 month old fetus is an actual person.
2014-02-28 05:02:09 PM  
3 votes:
Go home America. You're drunk.
2014-02-28 04:57:15 PM  
3 votes:
Life is filled with regrets, some more than others. If it was a legal procedure, and you entered into it of your own free will, then any regret you have is just something you'll have to live with.
2014-02-28 04:42:41 PM  
3 votes:
Did you go in there to get an abortion?

Yes.

Did he give you an abortion?

Yes.

GTFO.
2014-02-28 04:36:46 PM  
3 votes:

DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?


Of course not! It's all about the health of the breeding cattle, or fu*k dolls, or women or whatever you call them.
2014-02-28 08:27:50 PM  
2 votes:
Alright, so going by their "logic", women should be given the right to sue crisis pregnancy centers for giving them false information and employing fear tactics in order to keep women from getting abortions. There are far more women who regret parenthood than they do abortions. This law is ridiculous, let's start suing tattoo artists because we regret getting that tattoo years ago.
2014-02-28 07:20:27 PM  
2 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: RedPhoenix122: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: RedPhoenix122: Calmamity: DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?

Of course not! It's all about the health of the breeding cattle, or fu*k dolls, or women or whatever you call them.

Hosts.

Fetus factories

I was referring to this

Oh, they actually came out and said it?


Yes, although that's not really shocking.  It's how most pro-lifers view women - unable to make choices and only fit to make sammiches or throw dinner parties. It's disgusting.

My opinion on the matter is, if you don't want an abortion, then don't farking get one. But that does not give you the right to make that choice for someone else.
2014-02-28 07:18:14 PM  
2 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: The "pro-life" coalition is getting preposterously creative with its legislation. In Iowa, a new bill would allow women to sue their doctors for malpractice up to 10 years after their abortion-not because they suffered physical injury (those rare cases are already covered under existing malpractice law), but because they experienced regret.

Retarded law is retarded. Now, you're going to have women getting abortions just to cash in. Nice. This is not going to have the effect you think it will. And there is no way that this bill will pass. Why not put up a bill that says fathers can sue the mothers for emotional distress, for murdering their child without the father's input? If the mother gets an abortion, it's legal, if a father punches his pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, its murder. Not saying either is right, but why does the father, who put up 50 percent of the dna, have no say at all?

I had a gf long ago, who got an abortion behind my back, and killed my baby son. I would have taken him in myself and raised him, but no. I had no right to even KNOW she was pregnant, and no say in if the baby lived or died, but am expected to pay through the nose if she has it. That doesn't piss me off as much as i had 0 say at all, effectively, a non person until it's time to write the checks. Bullshiat.


Because it is not his body, and you can't force a woman to bear your child or abort it against her will.  How often does this need to be explained?
2014-02-28 06:49:41 PM  
2 votes:
Farkin' stubborn misogynistic narrow-minded old men.
The worst kind of human to be placed in-charge, or to pander to.
The sooner we stop listening to the old guys, the sooner we can move on.
2014-02-28 06:09:22 PM  
2 votes:

Robin Hoodie: phaseolus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: ...if it would finally get people to admit that lawsuits are a major cause of expenses in the healthcare industry and that tort reform is necessary.


How much is "major"? Of all the dollars spent on health care in the U.S., what's the percentage that goes to lawsuits? Since you brought it up, I presume you have some numbers handy...

i think its generally estimated at around 2%   http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2010/09/07/the-true-cost-of-med i cal-malpractice-it-may-surprise-you/ when you add in the unnecessary defensive medicine costs

btw that took 8 seconds to look up on google, you should try it


Which part of "Since you brought it up" don't you understand?
2014-02-28 05:41:33 PM  
2 votes:
You know what women regret more than having an abortion? Being denied one.
2014-02-28 05:15:30 PM  
2 votes:
So he thinks women are too feeble-minded and emotional to be held accountable for putting their signature on legal documents (ie informed consent form), huh?

I'm trying to think of a way to phrase the question of whether he thinks women should be able to sign anything at all (including their own "traditional marriage" forms or if they should have to get their daddy to sign for them), but my brain keeps looping back to "OMG this man is a complete and total f*ckwit!"
2014-02-28 05:00:07 PM  
2 votes:
That's creative. Can't backdoor an abortion ban, so drive Dr insurance costs through the roof and make dr afraid to provide them.

Pucking futz
2014-02-28 04:59:38 PM  
2 votes:

DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?


Seems like it. I would like to personally kick the people behind this square in the nuts. They are trying to abuse the legal system to make a point. Fark that noise.
2014-02-28 04:55:57 PM  
2 votes:
I only have a limited supply of punches to the face, but I'm saving one for this asshat.
2014-02-28 04:54:40 PM  
2 votes:
This is a great idea...for elections.
2014-03-01 06:33:08 AM  
1 votes:
Wow, the writer of tfa really is a moron...

By embracing a narrative of abortion regret-which the American Psychological Association does not recognize as a condition

Just because it isn't an APA acknowledged "condition" doesn't mean it isn't real. I regret buying a hdmi cable with my new graphics card without checking if my screen had an hdmi port. The regret is real, even if it isn't a "recognised" psychological issue.

and which the Guttmacher Institute characterizes as extremely rare-

So are people who die from faulty lightning rods. The rarity of an occurrence has no effect on legal issues.

Heartsill and co. are advancing the myth of the fickle woman who doesn't know her own mind. They're implying that in the moment of decision-making, a stranger still has a better grasp of a woman's psychology than she does.

And this is where it gets good. Where are they saying women don't know their own mind? By acknowledging that women sometimes feel regret? Katy is a moron with a cause. An idiot with an hammer seeing nails everywhere.

Doing something as trivial as ordering a new chair online I get a 14 day window in which to decide whether or not I actually like it or if I regret buying it. Within that time period I get to send it back and the store needs to give me a refund. Does this mean that the law maker decided that I was a fickle man who doesn't know his own mind? Or that the law maker knows the psychology of my mind better than I do? It doesn't. Then why would it mean that when talking about something important and life influencing like having an abortion?

The law isn't about women's mental states or actual regret or any pseudo-feminist outrage at assumed male motivations for the law. The man who wrote this law doesn't like abortion and wants to throw up barricades to people having them. It is as simple as that.
2014-03-01 01:20:09 AM  
1 votes:

Terrible Old Man: To be fair, the abortion lobby makes it seem like abortion is perfectly safe with utterly no downsides despite the massive evidence to the contrary.


Abortion is safer than giving birth.
2014-03-01 12:04:40 AM  
1 votes:

SundaesChild: Bit'O'Gristle: The "pro-life" coalition is getting preposterously creative with its legislation. In Iowa, a new bill would allow women to sue their doctors for malpractice up to 10 years after their abortion-not because they suffered physical injury (those rare cases are already covered under existing malpractice law), but because they experienced regret.

Retarded law is retarded. Now, you're going to have women getting abortions just to cash in. Nice. This is not going to have the effect you think it will. And there is no way that this bill will pass. Why not put up a bill that says fathers can sue the mothers for emotional distress, for murdering their child without the father's input? If the mother gets an abortion, it's legal, if a father punches his pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, its murder. Not saying either is right, but why does the father, who put up 50 percent of the dna, have no say at all?

I had a gf long ago, who got an abortion behind my back, and killed my baby son. I would have taken him in myself and raised him, but no. I had no right to even KNOW she was pregnant, and no say in if the baby lived or died, but am expected to pay through the nose if she has it. That doesn't piss me off as much as i had 0 say at all, effectively, a non person until it's time to write the checks. Bullshiat.

Because it is not his body, and you can't force a woman to bear your child or abort it against her will.  How often does this need to be explained?


It needs to be explained in every abortion thread. Someone always tells this story. Not sure if it's the same guy and he's just too bitter to get it or if it's just trolls being trolls.
2014-02-28 11:31:01 PM  
1 votes:

mlorton: I'm really enjoying all the liberals who suddenly realize that by when you do harm to a business --even by allowing customers to sue frivolously -- you do harm to its customers.

If you harm landlords, you harm tenants.

If you harm employers, you harm employees.

If you harm restaurants, you harm diners.


If you impose minimum safety standards on a landlord who is mostly profit taking, yes, he may raise rent, but if he does so he risks losing tenants to other landlords.  In general, the extra safety the tenants gain through regulation greatly outway the minimal cost increase.  In practice, the landlord eats the cost in most market conditions.  Same for employees and diners.  I for one, don't want to go to a restaurant that isn't inspected and doesn't at least have some fear of a lawsuit if they give me food poisoning.

Sure, there are frivolous lawsuits out there, but the cost of filing a lawsuit balances that.  What is the solution?  Not allow lawsuits?  Maybe you could set up a system that examines the evidence of both sides of the claim before allowing it to go to trial?

Of course, we already do that, but don't let that get in the way of your indignant narrative.
2014-02-28 09:28:15 PM  
1 votes:

MyRandomName: indylaw: Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.

After 7 years no liberal can tell me which Bush policy is responsible for the real estate bubble. Not one.


Now pay close attention. I am going to use small words that even you can understand.

They allowed the ratings companies - which were essentially unregulated - to rate mortgage back securities at AAA status. The handsome return of this moderately risky investment created a huge surge in investment dollars being made available. With more and more money being fed into buying these securities the banks lowered their lending standards to increase volume. That meant more unqualified borrowers, nothing-down speculator, and lower rates. This demand and depressed rates caused property values to skyrocket - fueling even more speculation. The leverage here started working backwards with quick bankruptcy filings as prices dropped. The more it dropped, the more bankruptcies, the lower it dropped.

Proper regulation of the bogus ratings would have prevented the whole thing. Without that there would be far less money available, preventing the formation of bubble growing faster than the overall economy.
2014-02-28 08:30:44 PM  
1 votes:
Clearly Iowans have had one abortion too few.
2014-02-28 08:01:51 PM  
1 votes:
Okay, why are all the crazy States now acting in lockstep with stupid plans? It's like they're all synchronizing.
2014-02-28 08:00:33 PM  
1 votes:
So, what do you call it when someone uses unethical behaviour to support what they say is an ethical position?

It seems to me that hypocrisy just isn't a strong enough word for this.
2014-02-28 07:14:18 PM  
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: phaseolus: How much is "major"? Of all the dollars spent on health care in the U.S., what's the percentage that goes to lawsuits? Since you brought it up, I presume you have some numbers handy...

Link



Okay, $54bn savings over ten years. $5.4bn saved per year, more or less. I see that health care's a $1.668 trillion business in the U.S. every year, according to this Link. So doing the math, it looks like the CBO's saying that "tort reform" might reduce health care costs by 0.3%.

Granted, $tens of billions is nothing to sneeze at, and sure, let's talk about it as *part* of a solution to lowering health care costs. But pretending it's the magic bullet is proven wrong when you look at the numbers. It's one of those myths that only conservatives believe. Reform all the torts and the U.S. will *still* be paying almost double per capita on health care than the rest of the world.


Some people arnt smart enough to use the Google. These people should be pitied and helped

Of course I know about web searches. I was using a rhetorical technique -- you took something quantifiable and judged it qualitatively ("major cause of health care expenditures"), and even though I knew I could look up the actual numbers and had heard before that lawsuits accounted for maybe 1-2% of all the health care dollars, I wanted to hear *you* explain how a percent or two was a major component of the total... which of course you ran away from.

Me, I'm not much for pity -- the Buddhists tell me that pity's not good for anything -- but I think people who think 0.3 - 2% is a "major" proportion of anything ought to be helped a little with their math and reading comprehension...
2014-02-28 07:12:58 PM  
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: phaseolus: How much is "major"? Of all the dollars spent on health care in the U.S., what's the percentage that goes to lawsuits? Since you brought it up, I presume you have some numbers handy...

Link


DrBenway: Which part of "Since you brought it up" don't you understand?

Some people arnt smart enough to use the Google. These people should be pitied and helped


In what world is $5.4 billion a major part of $3500 billion?

From your link,
"... save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits"

The other link presented in the thread says,
"A new study reveals that the cost of medical malpractice in the United States is running at about $55.6 billion a year - $45.6 billion  "

But still, how the hell is $55.6 billion a major part of $3500 billion.

Link for the $3500 billion cost of healthcare in 2012:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2012/12/30/2012-the-year-in-hea lt hcare-charts/
2014-02-28 06:53:23 PM  
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: DrBenway: Which part of "Since you brought it up" don't you understand?

Some people arnt smart enough to use the Google. These people should be pitied and helped


It's common practice to require the one making the claim to provide evidence. Though if you had done that you wouldn't have made the "major" statement in the first place because you were clearly wrong.
2014-02-28 06:48:02 PM  
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this. Its not banning or infringing on Roe V Wade in any way. Plus it will be fun to watch the libs that usually love lawyers pipe bombing lawyer offices for them sueing an abortion clinic out of existince.


If only your grasp of the English language were as powerful as your imagination.
2014-02-28 06:28:43 PM  
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Actually you can sue if the bartender kept serving you after he knew you were drunk. I'm not sure if it has ever worked on hangovers but car accidents and injury due to alcohol poisoning has worked. I'm not sure if a lawyer would bother with trying to get compensation for a headache


Can you sue, or is it just your victim who can sue?  I've never heard of the person who was actually drinking suing the bartender (although I suppose parents might sue if their underaged kid was served).

A better comparison might be if the fetuses were suing the doctor, which, if you think about it, may be why the anti-abortion camp is always trying to get fetuses declared human beings.
2014-02-28 05:54:14 PM  
1 votes:
The "pro-life" coalition is getting preposterously creative with its legislation. In Iowa, a new bill would allow women to sue their doctors for malpractice up to 10 years after their abortion-not because they suffered physical injury (those rare cases are already covered under existing malpractice law), but because they experienced regret.

Retarded law is retarded. Now, you're going to have women getting abortions just to cash in. Nice. This is not going to have the effect you think it will. And there is no way that this bill will pass. Why not put up a bill that says fathers can sue the mothers for emotional distress, for murdering their child without the father's input? If the mother gets an abortion, it's legal, if a father punches his pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, its murder. Not saying either is right, but why does the father, who put up 50 percent of the dna, have no say at all?

I had a gf long ago, who got an abortion behind my back, and killed my baby son. I would have taken him in myself and raised him, but no. I had no right to even KNOW she was pregnant, and no say in if the baby lived or died, but am expected to pay through the nose if she has it. That doesn't piss me off as much as i had 0 say at all, effectively, a non person until it's time to write the checks. Bullshiat.
2014-02-28 05:53:48 PM  
1 votes:

phaseolus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: ...if it would finally get people to admit that lawsuits are a major cause of expenses in the healthcare industry and that tort reform is necessary.


How much is "major"? Of all the dollars spent on health care in the U.S., what's the percentage that goes to lawsuits? Since you brought it up, I presume you have some numbers handy...


i think its generally estimated at around 2%   http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2010/09/07/the-true-cost-of-med i cal-malpractice-it-may-surprise-you/ when you add in the unnecessary defensive medicine costs

btw that took 8 seconds to look up on google, you should try it
2014-02-28 05:29:10 PM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: Sounds like the person who wrote this bill is encouraging women to go get pregnant just to get an abortion and sure.

They must really love abortions.


That was my first thought too, but then I realized the consequence of that: making abortion-regret-lawsuit-coverage such an expensive part of malpractice insurance that providers have to stop performing the procedure. This may be a rare case of a GOP legislator actually thinking (one myopic part of) his cunning plan all the way through.
2014-02-28 05:28:46 PM  
1 votes:

indylaw: Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.


Thanks, I needed a laugh before leaving work today.
2014-02-28 05:24:30 PM  
1 votes:
O.o this damn bill needs to die.
2014-02-28 05:23:20 PM  
1 votes:
They only want democratic babies aborted, not republic.
2014-02-28 05:21:02 PM  
1 votes:
How's that laser-like focus on the economy coming along, guys?
2014-02-28 05:08:24 PM  
1 votes:

Gentoolive: Lawsuits bad, killing baby's good.


0/10
2014-02-28 05:06:55 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?


From what I've heard doctors already advise against abortions if they believe the patient has beliefs that will cause them to severely regret the decision.
2014-02-28 05:05:15 PM  
1 votes:
It kind of sucks watching the Republican party implode. Something has to balance out the nutty far left. Unfortunately the right was taken over by the far right.
2014-02-28 05:04:53 PM  
1 votes:
Lawsuits bad, killing baby's good.
2014-02-28 05:03:37 PM  
1 votes:
I think we are nearing the event horizon.
2014-02-28 05:00:03 PM  
1 votes:
Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.
2014-02-28 04:57:16 PM  
1 votes:
Hey, what about circumcision regret? Can I get a couple dollars here for some circumcision regret? C'mon, I had a valuable foreskin! I want some of that sweet, sweet regret money from somebody for somethin'...
2014-02-28 04:56:17 PM  
1 votes:
So when are they going to allow "mothers" to sue the officiating clergyman for regret, etc.?

It seems more fair to me to allow the "mother"s to sue the "fathers" of the dead lump of protoplasm because they regret having sex with them. And really sue their asses off in cases of rape and incestuous rape, of course. But, hey, if you want to sue a professional with the ability to pay, I recommend suing the Pope. Why fark around with dumbass one night stands, idiot husbands and demented brothers, uncles, and fathers? You tried that once and how did it work out for you?
2014-02-28 04:55:28 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?


I'm thinking the reason would be to increase the insurance premiums to the point that no abortion clinic could fund the operation. Which I would be all for if it would finally get people to admit that lawsuits are a major cause of expenses in the healthcare industry and that tort reform is necessary.
2014-02-28 04:55:04 PM  
1 votes:
How about getting-drunk regret? Can I sue my bartender over my hangover?
2014-02-28 04:40:33 PM  
1 votes:

RedPhoenix122: Calmamity: DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?

Of course not! It's all about the health of the breeding cattle, or fu*k dolls, or women or whatever you call them.

Hosts.


Fetus factories
2014-02-28 04:38:10 PM  
1 votes:

Calmamity: DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?

Of course not! It's all about the health of the breeding cattle, or fu*k dolls, or women or whatever you call them.


Hosts.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report