iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Wrongful Birth Bill: New Abortion Legislation Passes Arizona Senate

Arizona Wrongful Birth Bill

First Posted: 03/ 9/2012 1:23 pm Updated: 03/12/2012 12:05 pm

The Arizona Senate passed a bill Tuesday that will prohibit medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors who withhold information from a woman that could cause her to have an abortion.

The "wrongful birth, wrongful life" lawsuit legislation passed the Republican-controlled Senate 20-9 Tuesday, setting up a coming battle in the GOP-dominated state House of Representatives. The legislation -- which is currently law in nine states -- is sponsored by a Republican senator with close ties to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The approval comes as Kansas lawmakers consider similar legislation.

Sen. Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) told the Claims Journal that she sponsored the law because she did not want claimants to blame a doctor for a baby born with disabilities. Under the provisions of her bill, a doctor could not be sued for medical malpractice if the doctor withholds information from a mother about a child's potential health issues that could influence her decision to have an abortion. In addition, a lawsuit could not be filed on the child's behalf regarding a disability.

The suits and laws have been deemed "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life."

Barto's legislation will allow for medical malpractice suits in the event for "intentional or grossly negligent" acts and for any acts that violate criminal law. Barto proposed the legislation after it was proposed by the conservative Center for Arizona Policy.

Barto did not return a message left at her Phoenix office for comment.

In 2011, Barto was named legislator of the year by ALEC. A press release she issued on the award noted she was on the executive committee of the group's Health and Human Services Task Force and touted her opposition to the federal health care reform law.

Barto's legislation is quickly drawing opposition from House Democrats, including Rep. Matt Heinz (D-Tucson). Heinz, a physician, said that he does not believe the proposal fits with the role of a doctor and noted that in many cases a woman needs to know of the potential disabilities to prevent health problems that could potentially kill her during child birth.

"I cannot think of a time that it is right to withhold information from a patient that would cause them pain or death," Heinz told HuffPost. "That is not consistent with the Hippocratic Oath."

Heinz, who is running for Congress, said it is tough to know if the bill will pass the House, noting it has come over from the Senate late in the legislative session.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix) agreed with Heinz that the late date in the session may not bring the bill to the floor, but said that he believes the bill will likely pass if it reaches the full House. The House and Senate have mirrored each other in the passage of conservative leaning bills in the last year, he said.

Currently Pennsylvania, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota and North Carolina have wrongful birth laws. A 1994 challenge to the Pennsylvania law ended with the law being upheld by a federal appeals court; the U.S. Supreme Court declinedto hear the case. Kansas lawmakers are currently debating a measure that would allow doctors to withhold information from a mother in order to prevent an abortion and not face a malpractice suit.

In 2011, a Florida jury awarded a couple $4.5 million in a wrongful birth lawsuit they brought against a doctor who had not told them their son would be born with one leg and no arms. The couple had said they would have sought an abortion if they knew the information.

Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has not indicated her position on the bill. Last year, Brewer signed a bill prohibiting abortions based on the race and gender of the fetus.

"Typically, the governor does not comment on bills before they reach her desk," Brewer spokesman Matt Benson said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
The Arizona Senate passed a bill Tuesday that will prohibit medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors who withhold information from a woman that could cause her to have an abortion. The "wrongf...
The Arizona Senate passed a bill Tuesday that will prohibit medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors who withhold information from a woman that could cause her to have an abortion. The "wrongf...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,512
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (87 total)
09:10 AM on 10/31/2012
What this article fails to mention is the OTHER aspects of this bill. It only covers section A of the bill. The rest involves language that sets up a christian healthcare corporation as the state standard of care, bans the sale of science-based pregnancy tests, then protects the christian corporation from liability when THEIR tests don't work right. Here's language copied directly from the bill itself. Pay close attention to C-E.

A. A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE IN ANY CIVIL ACTIONS BASED ON A CLAIM OF MEDICAL INCOPMPETENCY DUE TO AN ACT BY THE DEFENDANT NOT INFORMING A WOMAN SHE IS PREGNANT.

B. WHILE CARING FOR A PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WILL ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES PRESENTED BY THE CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE SERVICES CORPORATION.

C. THE SALE OF SCIENCE-BASED HOME PREGNANCY TESTS ARE FORBIDDEN IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

D. THE ONLY HOME PREGNANCY TESTS ALLOWED WITHIN STATE BORDERS WILL READ ’NOT PREGNANT ‘ OR ‘NOT PREGNANT, BUT GO TO YOUR DOCTOR RIGHT NOW!’

E. THE MANUFACTURER OF THE STATE APPROVED HOME PREGNANCY TESTS – THE CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE SERVICES CORPORATION – IS SHIELDED FROM ANY LEGAL ACTIONS DUE TO THEIR PRODUCTS FUNCTIONING. - bill 1359
02:18 AM on 02/20/2013
You do realize you quoted an article that clearly stated it made up the information you posted here, right?
12:12 PM on 08/04/2012
What this article doesn't make clear is that wrongful birth suits often occur when a doctor doesn't see the disability before the baby is born, not necessarily withholding information. Also, wrongful birth suits are messy. A parent basically has to admit they wished their child was never born. Parents can get backlash from disability groups by doing this. Banning such a destructive lawsuit isn't the worst thing in the world.
02:33 PM on 04/15/2012
Some thoughts:
1) it’s disgusting that such a bill could even be proposed, much less exist as law in eight states.
2) Isn't withholding information that directly affects the health/well-being of a patient ALWAYS "intentional or grossly negligent"?
3) If it's OK for a doctor to withhold information from a patient based on the doctor's PRESUMPTION of the patient's future actions, then who decides what IS an intentional or grossly negligent act? Nancy Barto?
4) If laws like this can be passed regarding the medical profession, why stop there? For example: A building inspector neglects to tell the builder or owner of a mosque that the roof drains being installed are too small per a retroactive code revision passed yesterday. The builder, you see, thinks the mosque is going to be a "terrorist training camp", and therefore should not be built at all. After the building is complete, the drains back up, causing roof leakage and structural damage. The owner then finds proof that the inspector knew about the roof drain size/code issue, but failed to tell anyone, and tries to sue the inspector. The lawsuit is dismissed because of a new state law sponsored by Peter King Jr. (son of congressman Peter King (R-NY)). King defends the new law, saying "we do not want claimants to blame an inspector for building failures in mosques, especially when these mosques may end up harboring Muslim terrorists”. The new law is called the “defective construction/terrorism prevention” law.
12:41 AM on 04/13/2012
Well now I'm just going to have to abort every baby I ever get pregnant with because I'll never be able to know whether or not I'll be having a healthy baby...You lose. I win! Idiots
02:45 PM on 04/15/2012
Thanks for totally misrepresenting the issue, sunnymourning! The issue is NOT about increasing abortion to avoid having children with health defects, it's about the rights of patients to know from their doctors if their baby is going to be healthy or not, so that they adequately prepare for the child to come, and make informed choices about theirs and their child's future. As opposed to finding out the hard way that the newborn baby has health defects, or having the mother be harmed or die during the pregnancy because the doctor THOUGHT that the mother MIGHT have an abortion. Regardless of one's stance on abortion, it's amazing that a patient's right to know their own/their child's health could be a partisan issue!
05:04 PM on 04/23/2012
Oh you seemed to have missed my point. I'm only making statements as illogical and as wrong as this bill is. Nothing more nothing less.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Troy Hunter
Don't Talk. Just Leave. Really.
04:40 PM on 04/12/2012
So it's on the doctor to decide what's best for me without even consulting with me? And to purposely withhold information from me.And that's cool? But if the government says we should provide birth control to whoever wants it? That's Hitler and Dracula all all the other bad stuff int he world?
The kid was born with no arms and one leg. And the doctor didn't think he should say anything? That doctor would be in a coma if it were me.
07:25 PM on 04/11/2012
Withholding information from patients (the parents) is by definition intentional and grossly negligent malpractice, so what is the purpose of this ALEC written legislation?
02:53 PM on 04/15/2012
The ultimate purpose is to change this country so that it perfectly fits the image of neo-conservative ideology. And if that means subverting democracy and taking away people's rights while expanding the "constitutional rights" of corporations, well then so be it!
12:23 PM on 04/11/2012
Anyone still questioning whether there is a GOP war on women?
11:11 AM on 04/11/2012
"Under the provisions of her bill, a doctor could not be sued for medical malpractice if the doctor withholds information from a mother about a child's potential health issues that could influence her decision to have an abortion. In addition, a lawsuit could not be filed on the child's behalf regarding a disability. "

So now we're withholding medical information?? What the fudge.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shawna Lit
creative female twerp
09:36 AM on 04/11/2012
I think it's time AZ got boycotted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shawna Lit
creative female twerp
09:34 AM on 04/11/2012
Personally, I think w should all bombard their emails expressing our displeasure.over their stupidity and irrational decisions. This isn't just about abortion. This is about doctors and their oaths as well. I wouldn't want a doc to tell me everything was fine with my leg and then all of a sudden bring our a chain saw to hack it off without my permission. Doesn't their oaths also include doing no harm? Well not informing a woman of her status has the potential of doing harm. This is also about religious freedom. I am a Christian but I am so against this bill. I don't believe God would really want us if we had to have our beliefs legislated.
09:18 AM on 04/11/2012
Astounding! Lately, I've been feeling like I went to sleep and woke up somewhere else.
08:02 PM on 04/11/2012
Me too, Grannykate! Wasn't all this stuff settled years ago? The ignorant and fearful are being allowed to hijack society.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:34 AM on 04/11/2012
The "wrongeful birth bill," is a terrible bill and these lawmakers should be ashamed. There are circumstances where genetically it is found that if left to term a child might have a short and painful life once the child is born. To think that a doctor would be unable to inform the mother of this is appalling. There are prolifers who would insist that this baby be brought in the world to let nature "take its course." I find this attitude utterly outrageous. If anyone could go into a neonatal unit and see the needless suffering of a newborn and the parents while waiting for the end no one would advocate for this bill being passed.

Weeks can go by, and even months with tubes and all kinds of measures done with the newborn finally mercifully taking it last breath. This never should take place. Arizona, what has happened to you.
10:57 PM on 04/10/2012
Yes sometimes it is embarrassing to be Republacan 0_0
12:23 AM on 08/21/2012
It's especially embarassing when you can't even spell the word Republican.
12:57 PM on 08/29/2012
It's even worse when you correcting someone else and misspelled "embarrassing."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ok3apples
It's all interesting
08:30 PM on 04/10/2012
I think these bills are just more tightening of the noose around a population that is slowly giving up all it's rights to privacy, freedom of choice and quality of life. Not just in Arizona but all across the country. A restrictive bill here, one there and bit by bit the police state slides into place. Along with the downsizing, outsourcing, privatizing of everything that can turn a profit, union busting, wage stagnation. health care that hardly anyone can afford unless lucky enough to have a job that offers it, a clamping down on birth control and family planning, the foreclosure crisis, the overcrowded prisons, the ongoing wars and insane military budget, the high unemployment rate and the constant attack on the middle class, I foresee bleak times and people will want to take to the streets. But by that time there will be laws forbidding dissent. Just wait and see...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TranceAnd
Paul the Alien
07:55 PM on 04/10/2012
Nice. State-sanction lying. What's next, GOTaliban?