She Wanted An Abortion. Now The Embryo Is Suing Her Doctors

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Amanda Marcotte
@AmandaMarcotte
·
Follow
Anti-choice sites are awash with men rolling out these self-pitying narratives about how an ex “took” a child from them. It’s all horseshit. They are just abusers who refuse to accept rejection. It’s part of anti-choice misogyny that they romanticize abuse.

Stacey Burns
@WentRogue
Two years after her abortion, her ex-husband created an estate for the embryo and is now pretending that the nonexistent embryo can file a wrongful death lawsuit against her. https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/abortion-arizona-personhood-roe-wade-1234598516/…
9:18 AM · Sep 24, 2022

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/abortion-arizona-personhood-roe-wade-1234598516/

No paywall
https://archive.ph/dfKCT

FOUR YEARS AGO in Arizona, a woman had an abortion. She was not ambivalent about the decision: She was upset to learn she was pregnant, scared of giving birth, and she did not want — she had never wanted — children. Even so, Arizona law requires a pregnant person absorb a litany of information before terminating: medical information (like the risks associated with the procedure), and legal information (like the fact that the father would be liable for child support if she carried the pregnancy to term). In Arizona, a person must sign a consent form officially acknowledging receipt of that information, then wait 24 hours before she can obtain an abortion. The woman signed her paperwork and returned the next day to pick up the pills. Six days later, she came back for a follow-up visit: The abortion was successful.

Two years later, that woman’s ex-husband, Mario Villegas, created an estate for the aborted embryo, and filed a lawsuit on behalf of the embryo against the doctors and clinic who provided the abortion. Villegas accuses the clinic and doctors of failing to obtain his ex-wife’s informed consent, thus committing malpractice, causing the wrongful death of his potential child and violating his “fundamental right” to parent.

Last week, a lawyer representing the doctors and their Phoenix practice, Camelback Family Planning, made a last-ditch effort to avoid a trial in the case, asking the judge to issue a summary judgment finding that the woman had indeed given her informed consent. In depositions, the woman and her doctors “all said the same thing: that [she] knew what she was doing, she was fully advised, and they did the abortion according to Arizona law,” the doctors’ lawyer, Tom Slutes, says. “The purpose of the statute is to make sure that the mother is properly advised, and makes an informed decision, and this young lady did.”

Villegas’ lawyer, J. Stanley Martineau, doesn’t dispute that she signed paperwork consenting to the abortion. He argues her consent wasn’t informed because, among other technical faults, the clinic’s paperwork didn’t use the phrase “unborn child” when describing the embryo, as Arizona’s informed consent statute does. (He also faults the clinic for not offering a printed-out copy of the Arizona department of health services website, which the law says can be made available to pregnant person “if she chooses to review” it.) “If you interpret [the statute] literally, any slip-up in what kind of information you give is going to create a potential liability,” Martineau says.

*snip*


Neato.... New ways to punish women.

[Phoenix61]

1. Can't imagine why she divorced him. /s nt

[Emile]

13. +1 lol

[Baltimike]

2. I hope she says it wasn't his anyway. nt

[Nevilledog]

3. Perfect

[Arazi]

4. Am I the only one who hopes this goes all the way to SCOTUS

Let them have to deal with the bullshit they’ve unleashed

😈

[EmmaLee E]

12. be careful what you wish for

Should we trust their dealing?

[Jade Fox]

5. This is absolutely sick.....nt

[Tickle]

6. There are times when

I have nothing to say but my mouth just hangs open.

This has to be a joke

[magicarpet]

8. He says,...

If you have the audacity to deny me my right to bare your children,.. I will sue you,... tangle you up in endless litigation,.. and make your life a miserable living hell.

The bonds of holy matrimony gone bonkers - while toxic masculinity is allowed to run dangerously amok. Men asking that courts rule women are to first and foremost to remain servile for them, is patently absurd.

This case should be immediately tossed by the courts as being blatantly malicious litigation and entirely without merit.

[betsuni]

9. There is no bottom to this barrel.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. The evil cruelty will continue until we fix it. That includes the infections in the Judiciary.

Roe, Roe, Roe your vote
against theocracy!
Republicans revoke your rights
and kill democracy!

THESE are the races that will determine control of the House of Representatives:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217175231

Stick 'em up for a blue wave: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217078977

[Genki Hikari]

11. Funny

Some men live in this fantasy land that all women are too childlike and charmingly stupid to know what they're doing about things like, oh, abortion.

100% projection is what I call it.

To all such men (not the ones with a normal brain):

I realize this will come as shock to your quark-sized brain, but we know what we're doing. We don't need your help. With anything. In fact, the less you're involved, the better. No involvement would be ideal.

Go away. Forever.

Signed,

All women with functioning brains.