Texas Lawmakers Think Doctors Should Be Able to Lie to Women if the Truth Could Lead to an AbortionThe precedent for this current hoorah is a court case in which parents claimed that they would have killed the disabled progeny in utero, had they known about the disability. The apparent claim is that the doctor did not properly inform them of the in utero defect, thus denying them their right to kill it. Hence the term “wrongful birth” which means denial of opportunity to kill the unborn before birth in order specifically to deny the disabled human the opportunity for life. “Wrongful birth” is a pseudonym for anti-disability bias. The existing, living child was wanted to be dead.
Earlier this week, lawmakers in Texas advanced Senate Bill 25, a bill that would allow doctors to not tell pregnant patients if something is wrong wth their unborn child. Why? Because it’s possible that if you know that there are fetal abnormalities — ranging from severe disabilities to the possibility that the child could be stillborn, or born with its brain outside of its head, or something like that — then you might consider the perfectly legal procedure known as an abortion.
The current Texas bill prevents the punishment of the physician for a condition which the physician did not cause, and purports to support human life as priority. This is a response to the punishment of the physician over denial of the right of the choice to kill (for the purpose of not wanting to care for a disabled person).
Here’s the analysis of the bill, by the Texas Senate Research Center:
AUTHOR'S / SPONSOR'S STATEMENT OF INTENT
The wrongful birth cause of action was first recognized in the Texas Supreme Court in 1975 in Jacobs v Theimer. The parents of the disabled child argued they would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known about the disabilities beforehand. The Texas Supreme Court awarded the parents the recovery of expenses reasonably necessary for the care and treatment of their child's physical impairment for its entire life. This ruling was based on the existence of a life.
C.S.S.B. 25 prohibits the wrongful birth cause of action. This legislation is consistent with Texas values that all lives are valuable and that child birth is prioritized. C.S.S.B. 25 will end the negative precedent that disabled persons should not have been born and also hold doctors accountable for their action, not holding them liable for disabilities they did nothing to cause.
C.S.S.B. 25 amends current law relating to eliminating the wrongful birth cause of action.
Note that “would have terminated the pregnancy” specifically means the intent to kill the disabled before the disabled could be protected under law (after birth). The existence of a living, disabled, post-natal child was a punishable offense deemed to be caused by the physician, who ultimately was forced to support the disabled child for that child's entire life.
So what the “Friendly Atheist” is complaining about is the appearance of loss of opportunity to kill progeny, in utero, for the convenience and financial benefit of the parents. This is anti-disabled, pro-killing of humans which obviously resulted in a living human, a human which was resented for having disabilities causing inconvenience for the parents. So the resentment of the “wrongful birth”, inconvenience to parents, and distaste for disabled humans was cause to punish the physician.
Child to parent:But what about prior conventions and legal commitments for Doctors? Is the doctor ethically and legally responsible for total disclosure?
“Why don’t you work like other people have to do?”
Parent to child:
“We won a lawsuit punishing the physician for allowing you to live, instead of allowing us to kill you like we should have done.”
This leads to an obvious observation: a pregnant woman is considered to be two people if she is murdered and the fetus also dies. Under what circumstances does this two-people-in-one concept not hold? Obviously abortion is claimed to be the removal of part of the woman (not a separate human existence), which she wants rid of. So the woman has rights, and could have a lawyer. The unborn progeny cannot in all likelihood be represented in court as a separate human, at least ever since Roe v Wade.
What is a Doctor's Duty to Disclose?
A doctor is required to disclose all relevant information regarding your medical treatment in order to allow you to make a decision about your own treatment. If a doctor fails to disclose pertinent information, he may be liable for medical malpractice.
What Information Does a Doctor Have to Disclose?
The doctor's duty to disclose includes:
• What the treatment involves
• The possible risks of receiving the treatment as well as the possible risks of not receiving it
• The success rate of the operation
• Alternative treatments
The result is that one of the two-in-one people has the privilege of legal representation for recourse due to perceived harm, but the other of the two people has zero defense or recourse for harm, including murder. The murder, in utero, is now a right of the individual who is imbued with privilege, which is to be forced upon the individual without privilege.
The privilege of condoned murder is an awesome privilege, and one that is cherished as precious by the AtheoLeft. It is part of the tribalist Class War system, in which the fetus has been claimed by some to be an oppressor of the woman in the same sense that a malignant tumor would be oppressive to her. By using tribalist, classist segregation of humans into Victim Classes, disposable Oppressor Classes, and the self-righteous messiah class, the AtheoLeft is able to form its own elite "morality" into classes deserving salvation as well as classes deserving annihilation. Annihilation is perfectly Darwinian, and scientifically acceptable.
So there is no justice available to a fetus, much less a disabled fetus.