Aiming to limit damages, Catholic hospital argues a fetus isn’t the same as a ‘person’

[Gordy327]

Full story here:

Aiming to limit damages, Catholic hospital argues a fetus isn’t the same as a ‘person’

Excerpts from the article:

• Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, a faith-based health care provider, is arguing in a medical malpractice case that the loss of an unborn child does not equate to the death of a “person” for the purpose of calculating damage awards.
• In recent court filings, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne argue that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.” They also argue the Andersons’ unborn child should not be considered a “patient” for purposes of calculating damages.
• “There is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law,” attorneys for the hospital have told the court, citing an Iowa Supreme Court ruling in a 1971 case that held “there can be no recovery (of damages) on behalf of, or for, a nonexistent person.”

Implications to other areas of law is likely one reason why no state has ever granted full personhood with rights to the unborn. For those who believe a fetus is a person, both the law and the church disagree with you. But this just shows what is really important to some religions, money!

 

[Mr Person]

One of the countless reasons I've never turned towards faith of any sort is that judging by others' actions, it's rigid and absolute in word but extremely selective in practice...

At least they landed on the right view, if for the wrong reasons.

 

[Gordy327]

One of the countless reasons I've never turned towards faith of any sort is that judging by others' actions, it's rigid and absolute in word but extremely selective in practice...

Indeed. It's all about control. And apparently money too.

At least they landed on the right view, if for the wrong reasons.

I'd say that is still progress.

 

[OrphanSlug]

This conversation should end well...

 

[Gordy327]

This conversation should end well...

I say, bring it on!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If they win using this argument, would it set a precedent for other judges to follow?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The church is foursquare against abortion, saying it is a mortal sin, an abomination to end an unborn human life in the eyes of God. That is, until that argument could potentially cost them big bucks in a liability lawsuit. Then they change their tune.

 

[Gordy327]

If they win using this argument, would it set a precedent for other judges to follow?

It could. Or at least a precedent for similar cases in the future.

 

[Gordy327]

The church is foursquare against abortion, saying it is a mortal sin, an abomination to end an unborn human life in the eyes of God.

The Church does have a flair for theatrics, do they not?

That is, until that argument could potentially cost them big bucks in a liability lawsuit. Then they change their tune.

I suppose some theatrics isn't worth it.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If they win using this argument, would it set a precedent for other judges to follow?

It depends. If a jury renders verdict, no precedent is set. If a judge renders a ruling and cites the church's position as a basis for the decision, this could be considered precedent, particularly if the decision is not subsequently reversed by a higher court.

 

[Mr Person]

If they win using this argument, would it set a precedent for other judges to follow?

It depends on how you use the word. That is, in the strict legal sense or in a more layman's English sense.

There is "binding precedent", which is when an appellate court above whatever court you're in made a ruling and the court you're in must therefore follow it no matter what it thinks (or be reversed). So if the trial court rules that a fetus is not a person in this context, that exact ruling is appealed, and an appeals court affirms the trial court on the point, then that is binding precedent for trial courts in that jurisdiction aka Iowa. And that would remain the case unless the state's highest court reversed the appeals court on that point.

But, for example, that precedent would not bind some trial court in another state. You could still cite it for it's persuasive authority, which is simply saying "see, this is good logic. You should do the same thing". But it wouldn't compel the judge to rule the way you want.



Whereas in layman's English, a precedent is just a thing that has happened in the past and its happening might conceivably be relied on as a justification for doing the thing again.

 

[Loulit01]

They'll settle out of court and nothing will change.

Unlike FoxNews/Pravda winning a lawsuit on the grounds that no rational person believes a word Tucker Carlson says.

 

[SavannahMann]

I am always entertained by hypocrisy.

 

[Gordy327]

...hypocrisy.

Thy name is religion.

 

[bongsaway]

Full story here:

Aiming to limit damages, Catholic hospital argues a fetus isn’t the same as a ‘person’

Excerpts from the article:

• Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, a faith-based health care provider, is arguing in a medical malpractice case that the loss of an unborn child does not equate to the death of a “person” for the purpose of calculating damage awards.
• In recent court filings, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne argue that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.” They also argue the Andersons’ unborn child should not be considered a “patient” for purposes of calculating damages.
• “There is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law,” attorneys for the hospital have told the court, citing an Iowa Supreme Court ruling in a 1971 case that held “there can be no recovery (of damages) on behalf of, or for, a nonexistent person.”

Implications to other areas of law is likely one reason why no state has ever granted full personhood with rights to the unborn. For those who believe a fetus is a person, both the law and the church disagree with you. But this just shows what is really important to some religions, money!

Money is the name of the game, period. To sum it up for the folks who believe abortion is murder the church says a fetus is not a person, now what?

 

[Lursa]

Full story here:

Aiming to limit damages, Catholic hospital argues a fetus isn’t the same as a ‘person’

Excerpts from the article:

• Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, a faith-based health care provider, is arguing in a medical malpractice case that the loss of an unborn child does not equate to the death of a “person” for the purpose of calculating damage awards.
• In recent court filings, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne argue that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.” They also argue the Andersons’ unborn child should not be considered a “patient” for purposes of calculating damages.
• “There is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law,” attorneys for the hospital have told the court, citing an Iowa Supreme Court ruling in a 1971 case that held “there can be no recovery (of damages) on behalf of, or for, a nonexistent person.”

Implications to other areas of law is likely one reason why no state has ever granted full personhood with rights to the unborn. For those who believe a fetus is a person, both the law and the church disagree with you. But this just shows what is really important to some religions, money!

Oh good! Add this one to where TX tried to do the same thing when incompetency in a TX prison resulted in the loss of a prison worker's fetus. In order to avoid (some aspects) of the civil suit, they all of a sudden had to start claiming the fetus wasnt a person or whatever legal status TX is conferring on the unborn now.

"But the prison agency and the Texas attorney general’s office, which has staked its reputation on “defending the unborn” all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are arguing the agency shouldn’t be held responsible for the stillbirth because staff didn’t break the law. Plus, they said, it’s not clear that Issa’s fetus had rights as a person.​

​

“Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” the Texas attorney general’s office wrote in a March footnote, referring to the constitutional right to life."​

 

[Lursa]

If they win using this argument, would it set a precedent for other judges to follow?

From the looks of it, it's all state law at this point. Would either side challenge it in federal court (depending on current outcome)? I dont know.

Nevamind, just see post 11.

 

[weaver2]

Full story here:

Aiming to limit damages, Catholic hospital argues a fetus isn’t the same as a ‘person’

Excerpts from the article:

• Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, a faith-based health care provider, is arguing in a medical malpractice case that the loss of an unborn child does not equate to the death of a “person” for the purpose of calculating damage awards.
• In recent court filings, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne argue that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.” They also argue the Andersons’ unborn child should not be considered a “patient” for purposes of calculating damages.
• “There is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law,” attorneys for the hospital have told the court, citing an Iowa Supreme Court ruling in a 1971 case that held “there can be no recovery (of damages) on behalf of, or for, a nonexistent person.”

Implications to other areas of law is likely one reason why no state has ever granted full personhood with rights to the unborn. For those who believe a fetus is a person, both the law and the church disagree with you. But this just shows what is really important to some religions, money!

LOL and OMG Does the Catholic Church realize just how hilarious this is?

 

[Gordy327]

Oh good! Add this one to where TX tried to do the same thing when incompetency in a TX prison resulted in the loss of a prison worker's fetus. In order to avoid (some aspects) of the civil suit, they all of a sudden had to start claiming the fetus wasnt a person or whatever legal status TX is conferring on the unborn now.

"But the prison agency and the Texas attorney general’s office, which has staked its reputation on “defending the unborn” all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are arguing the agency shouldn’t be held responsible for the stillbirth because staff didn’t break the law. Plus, they said, it’s not clear that Issa’s fetus had rights as a person.​

​

“Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” the Texas attorney general’s office wrote in a March footnote, referring to the constitutional right to life."​

Ah Texas, where a fetus is not a person when there's litigation and money involved. And where women are not persons when there's a pregnancy involved.

 

[Gordy327]

LOL and OMG Does the Catholic Church realize just how hilarious this is?

I doubt it. But I do.

 

[quip]

In the interests of the church, they seem all too eager to abort the "fetus is a person" discussion ....though, I'm sure their pregnant laity aren't provided such convenient duplicitousness.

 

[trump_a_pimp47]

One of the countless reasons I've never turned towards faith of any sort is that judging by others' actions, it's rigid and absolute in word but extremely selective in practice...

At least they landed on the right view, if for the wrong reasons.

it is called righteous judging and many 'christians' do not use it correctly and abuse the meaning of it and decide to break the barriers. But the people in the religion aren't the religion itself, much less the representatives of faith.

 

[Napoleon]

The church is foursquare against abortion, saying it is a mortal sin, an abomination to end an unborn human life in the eyes of God. That is, until that argument could potentially cost them big bucks in a liability lawsuit. Then they change their tune.

Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa is not The Church and no longer exists. This case is from 2013 and the Bishops issued a joint statement chastising them for it at the time.

 

[Lursa]

Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa is not The Church and no longer exists. This case is from 2013 and the Bishops issued a joint statement chastising them for it at the time.

From the OP article:

"The lawsuit in which CHI is currently embroiled was filed in Polk County District Court and involves the treatment provided to Miranda Anderson of Poweshiek County. Anderson was 34 weeks pregnant when, on April 13, 2021...

A hearing on that issue is expected later this month, while the case itself is scheduled for trial on May 12, 2025." link

 

[Napoleon]

From the OP article:

"The lawsuit in which CHI is currently embroiled was filed in Polk County District Court and involves the treatment provided to Miranda Anderson of Poweshiek County. Anderson was 34 weeks pregnant when, on April 13, 2021...

A hearing on that issue is expected later this month, while the case itself is scheduled for trial on May 12, 2025." link

CHI merged with another company 6 years ago and formed CommonSpirit Health. I meant to hyperlink this case:

In Malpractice Case, Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Aren't People - The Colorado Independent

Lori Stodghill was 31-one years old, seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in Cañon City on New Year's Day 2006. She was vomiting and short of breath and she passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff...

www.coloradoindependent.com