What, she’s not suing the stork, too?
Woman Sues Doctor for Child-Rearing Costs After Failed Abortion
A woman who had an abortion but still gave birth has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and a family planning organization seeking the costs of raising her child.
The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.
Raper claimed in the suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons, The Boston Globe reported in its Wednesday editions.
Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it “was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant,” according to the complaint.
Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.
It was only when Raper went to the New England Medical Center emergency room for treatment of pelvic pain in late September that year that she found out she was pregnant, the suit said. She gave birth to a daughter on Dec. 7, 2004.
Raper and her lawyer, Barry C. Reed Jr., refused comment when contacted by the newspaper, and a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood said the organization does not comment on pending litigation.
Massachusetts’ high court ruled in 1990 that parents can sue physicians for child-rearing expenses, but limited those claims to cases in which children require extraordinary expenses because of medical problems, medical malpractice lawyer Andrew C. Meyer Jr. said.
Raper’s suit has no mentions of medical problems involving her now 2-year-old daughter.
I wonder how the 2-year-old will feel to know Mommy didn’t want her. Surprised she hasn’t been put up for adoption yet.
The real lesson here should be, if you don’t want a kid, be responsible enough to take the steps to prevent getting pregnant in the first place.
“Can I use that dead baby when you’re done with it? I need something to blog about.”
Well they should at the very least refund her money back.
#1: A lot of people take steps to prevent pregnancy and then get pregnent anyways, through either product defect or just outright ‘accident’. No birth control is 100%. That said, terminating a pregnancy is, indeed, a form of birth control and she chose that method. It really isn’t her fault some quack of a doctor didn’t do it properly.
#2: Who said her life was destroyed? Despite what Fox News tells you, lots of people who have happy, productive lives get pregnant, have abortions, then continue to have happy, productive lives. The fact is she decided not to have the child for financial reasons (a totally valid decision), and not one, but two doctors provided her with incompetent service.
Despite Uncle Dave’s sensationalist headline about ‘killing a baby’ (Last I checked, this isn’t Fox News), it really does sound like this woman has a case.
Brainchild of a personal injury attorney with a light case load. We use to call them ambulance chasers.
Keep suing doctors… it’s a great way to put the competent out of business right along with the incompetent. Ask any OB in Illinois. There is no question the doctors were inept. Give the woman her money back and include a sizable -but not devastating- penalty paid DIRECTLY by the doctor rather than the insurance carrier.
The drivel about subsidizing the child’s welfare should be immediately tossed out court so no other person attempts the same stunt.
Why not take the baby back to the doctor?
I agree with Mike (1) – how would you like to know that your mother sued because you weren’t killed …
Adoption was created for situations like this. If you don’t want your baby, give it away. Lots of people out there would love it and are financially secure enough to care for it without having to sue the pants off somebody.
#10, American rules for adoption are too discouraging. The foster parents have to go through lengthy tests for fitness to adopt a baby that no one else wants. Either of the real parents can demand the child back at any time, regardless of the fitness of the parent, the bonding of the foster family or the feelings of the child. I’ve had the unpleasant job of helping give two children back to an abusive ghetto father without a job who wanted the kids back simply for racist reasons.
#5 There is a 100% birth control method: abstinence.
#11 – You’re right. In the tug-of-war between parents’ rights, children’s rights, and potential liability of careless adoption screening, the need of such children for parents who accept them seems to get lost.
On the other hand, the situation may be better for them now than a hundred years ago, when anyone who needed help at the farm could take a couple orphans in, feed them poorly, make them sleep in the barn, and work them half to death.
#11, Sorry, but once again you are wrong. That is a common misconception about adoption. Every state has a long list of children waiting for adoption. Yet they sit there while so many look outside the country to adopt some poor little oriental girl. Even if you do adopt a foreign child, you must still pass the inspection and qualifications.
At least here in Indiana and several other states I seen, once the child has been adopted, there must be extremely strong reasons to remove the child from the adoptive parents home. Great care is taken to ensure that both parents have either voluntarily given up or have had their parental rights removed by a court. Once the adoption is final, it is final.
That you “had the unpleasant job of helping give two children back to an abusive ghetto father without a job who wanted the kids back simply for racist reasons. ” is what I call bull crap. Only if you worked for Child Services or whatever the name of the state agency, would you be involved. Even court personnel do not get involved in removing children from a home. The police only get involved to protect the worker and enforce the law if needed.
Most adoption problems actually happen with private adoption agencies. The public agencies are usually much better although they handle the more difficult and harder to place children.
1) the waiting list for adoption is because so many states allow a calling off period for birth parents – imagine bonding with your child, and they get taken away? And there have been cases of lawsuits for return of child by birth parents years down track,post adoption. (Rare, but hey, the US uses courts to solve everything).
2) this woman may have been raped. it may have been incest. her own parents may have been awful, and she is afraid of having the same awful skills – but has found out she is better than that. her boyfriend (there IS a father walking off scott free here) may have deserted her. she may be economically disadvantaged, and not wanting to raise a child in chronic poverty.
well, now she is raising a child. and while this case is awful, she has had the child, and may have bonded enough to not give her up, and is asking merely for assistance with the expense (considerable!) of raising a child.
none of us know. everyone is assuming, including me. but we just don’t know, and its easier to just judge, huh?
Again, gay sex is better.
#19 – How do you know there is a “deadbeat” dad?
We don’t know that the father even knows about the pregnancy.
But the word deadbeat plays well with voters, despite the fact that child support laws are draconian and actually do more to damage families than help them.
#19, Gimme a break, this chick is digging for gold.
Maybe.
However, this is a classic tort. She paid someone to perform a service. The service was not performed to the level of expectation or professionalism a normal person would consider reasonable. She has and will suffer harm as a result of the errors committed.
It is irrelevant if the woman was using the abortion as a form of birth control. It is legal and permissible to have an abortion simply because you don’t want the child. She paid for the abortion and it was not done properly. A second physician failed to notice she was still pregnant while there was still time for another abortion. By the time her pregnancy was confirmed, she was seven months + and past the time for a safe abortion.
BTW, At 45, she knew the fetus stood a greater chance of birth defects then someone ten years younger would have. Also, many would consider having a mother that much older a disadvantage. And, the financial hardships presented on a single woman in her position (whatever it is) would be daunting for a woman who will need to sacrifice her future.
The decisions she made were well within any legal obligations. The only problem for many who object is that she chose to have an abortion. In other words, they would have the state decide what she could do with her body.
#17, You are so wrong.
The cooling off period IS NOT considered part of the adoption process. The child is in Foster Care at this point, NOT adoption. This is usually a six month period, or as set by the court. But once the adoption is completed, it is final. A child is not placed on the adoption list until a court has revoked the parental rights. Most states do want a period of Foster Care to allow the family and child to bond and discover their compatibility.
Many children on state adoption lists are there because they are having a difficult time finding a permanent home. They might be the wrong color, or sex, or age for the designer kid the adoptive parents want. There are probably siblings that do not want to be separated. They might even have chronic health conditions that will plague them for life. But damn it, if someone is interested in adopting a child there are many wishing to have more stability in their lives then that found in a Foster Home.
Finally, a remote possibility that the adoption MAY be overturned is a poor excuse. Adoption carries a lot of responsibilities. Anyone who orders designer children should not be adopting because they will obviously be disappointed.
…
How or why she became pregnant is totally irrelevant. That is her business and only her business. What is relevant is that she paid for a legal service and the service was not performed.
There is at least one actress who says the only reason she is alive was because her mother was stopped on the way to an illegal abortion. And this woman is pro-choice.
#23, Ya? So what.
Abortion is legal and a private act. The only ones who care about this “actress” would be those with an agenda of controlling a womans body. The funny thing in the abortion debate is that those who want to ban it just so happen to be mostly men.
I must admit, I’m behind everything you said there on this one, Fusebox…
I would like to point out to all the religious fundamentalists out there, the states in the bible belt not only push the hardest to outlaw abortion but they also have the highest abortion rate. In fact California has the lowest abortion rate in the country.
#21…Mr. Fusion….I disagree with your statement that at 45 y/o the woman KNEW that the feteus stood a better chance of birth defects than someone 10 years younger. How can you say that about a woman who at 45 didn’t know she WAS pregnant until a Test revealed it to her barely 45 days before birth.
I agree that a woman, any woman has the right to control her own body….period. But, having said that, I don’t think anyone has the right to end a life, any life, for any reason. Be it abortion, war, execution, murder of adults, etc.. Murder is murder.
326….Pat…..In 2002, the last year there are any satistics for abortion by state, all of the south, from Texas to Florida, to Virginia, to the Mississippi River, there were 311,000 abortions. 88,000 of those (the highest number) were in Florida, the second highest rate was Texas, with 80,000 abortions….which means when you take the 2 least bible belt states out of the equation. there were only 141,000 abortions in the rest of the south. California had 326,000 abortions that year…..the most in the country, New York was second with 172,000.
I think your point is moot….since California had more abortions than the entire South.
#27, joshua
Obviously you didn’t read the article. Stupidity can be an excuse, deliberate ignorance can not.
Once she discovered she was pregnant, she arranged to abort the baby through a Planned Parenthood clinic in April. She would have been pretty early at that point, about four weeks.
In July, she sought out another Doctor who opined she was NOT pregnant, regardless of her symptoms. She would have been around four months, late, but still acceptable for an abortion.
In late September when she visited a third facility she was correctly diagnosed as being pregnant. As she was past seven months at that point, another abortion was ruled out.
What part of due diligence don’t you understand? What more would you have had her do? The professional services she sought were poorly performed and she was injured because of that.
#28…Mr. Fusion….I understand the whole article. We have a 45 y/o woman who opted for abortion…2 Doctors screwed up….but the woman went from April until September, gaining weight, having all the syptoms of pregnacy, but not figuring it out on her own. Yet, you think the woman knew that older woman have more problem pregnacies and more chance of problems for the child.
She stated the only reason she wanted the abortion was due to financial reasons. If she had been able to afford the child, she would have ignored the reasons for older woman not to have children…. even though, according to you, she knew those reasons.
I’m saying your wrond in that part of your assumption. Unless you know more than the rest of us what the woman knew or didn’t know.
She has a right to sue for mal-practice. But she can’t meet the threshold for requiring the Docs to pay for all of the child raising expenses.
I am surprised that no one on this thread has said that unlawful birth lawsuits are not new. But then, quite a few of DU’s participants appear to be relegated to their parents basements in rural Ohio with little exposure to real life. The only distinguishing feature of this case is that the child is usually born handicapped, and this child is normal. (In the typical case, the parents have sought an abortion because a test found a birth defect in the fetus or one or both are carriers of a known serious genetic disorder.)
As for the plaintiff, she may have indeed have feared having a handicapped child because of her age, as Mr. Fusion said. Or, perhaps she comes from a shortlived family and would not want to begin parenthood so late. Not that it matters. She has a right to an abortion, regardlessly.
The financial aspect is also in keeping with precedent. Doctors who settle or lose wrongful birth lawsuits cover the usually high costs of parents rearing the handicapped child. In this scenario, their settlement or judgment will be comparatively low.
I too condemn the sensationalistic headline Uncle Dave used on this entry. That’s the kind of thing that brings Traaxx out from under her bridge.
#29, joshua,
Obviously you didn’t read the article. How could it be any plainer ?
She gets an abortion. After an abortion women will often miss a period or two. She started feeling symptoms we would relate to being pregnant. She sees a physician, KNOWING that she had an abortion and should not be pregnant. The physician tells her she is NOT pregnant. We do not know what he did diagnose. She continues with the pregnant symptoms and conditions. She finally sees a third physician who finally makes the correct diagnosis.
Calling a lay person stupid because she followed the advice and treatment of TWO physicians at different times is totally uncalled for. She continued to seek medical care when her conditions persisted. How do you know she didn’t suspect she wasn’t pregnant, she saw two more physicians after her abortion?
It is a fact there is a higher probability of birth defects and problems with older women. Whether that is the true reason or not is irrelevant because she does not need a reason to obtain an abortion in the first trimester. If she could “afford” the child is also irrelevant. If she wanted to live a party life is irrelevant. If she wanted to fornicate continuously during the term she was pregnant and afterwards is irrelevant. She does not NEED a reason to obtain an abortion.
Unless you know more than the rest of us what the woman knew or didn’t know.
I don’t need to know more. All I need to know is what I wrote in #22, which I will repost for you
How or why she became pregnant is totally irrelevant. That is her business and only her business. What is relevant is that she paid for a legal service and the service was not performed. The legal service being the medical procedure and treatment.
Geeze, if you were on the defense team she could ask for the sky and get it. You claim she can sue but not meet a threshold. Why? Damned if I know. She did everything that could be expected from a reasonable person. It has to be your blind bias that decided she isn’t a victim. Yup, Republican blame the victim stance. My, how the Republicans never change.