Courtesy of the Left: Woman sues because her baby was born
One of the sickest stories I’ve heard in a while.
Boston Globe: Boston woman sues for child-rearing costs after failed abortion
BOSTON –A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood 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 three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.
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.
She is seeking damages, including child-rearing costs.
To think, even after living two years with the blessing of this little miracle this sick woman still looks at her daughter as an “unwanted child.” Derangement of this sort is exclusively the territory of Leftism. Disagree with the conservatives all you want, Lefties, but nothing as comparably disgusting is seen on this side of the aisle.
Email This
Posted by G. Fortunato on March 7, 2007 10:55 am
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, Child Exploitation, News
Trackback URL:
- Pirate's Cove: Aside
Comments
11 Responses to “Courtesy of the Left: Woman sues because her baby was born”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Actually, Glib, on the facts in the article, this case will be dismissed. The “lefty” state of Massachusetts allows suits for child-care costs, but only if there are extraordinary medical costs because of the malpractice. Here, no medical costs are alleged. And this type of action was first proposed in Texas.
Also, what makes you think she views the child as “unwanted”? She wants help paying for a child she didn’t make financial arrangements for, and, if she has a case, for the extraordinary medical costs of a child with severe disabilities.
Why did she wait 2 years? She could have taken the option of allowing the child to be adopted at birth. She still has that option. I have a feeling the Family Court is going to get very involved with this. She may be looking at this as a “Cha-Ching” moment, but I do believe reality is going to rear its ugly head and she is going to lose big time, as it should be for someone of this stripe.
This is asinine. If the woman didn’t want the baby, then why wasn’t the poor girl adopted by a couple who wants her?
This is another reason why I’m all for sterilization.
Greg: “Also, what makes you think she views the child as “unwantedâ€? She wants help paying for a child she didn’t make financial arrangements for, and, if she has a case, for the extraordinary medical costs of a child with severe disabilities.”
The fact that she tried to have an abortion gives a hint that the child may be unwanted…
Wow. She must have really been on top of things to try to terminate a pregnancy in March for a baby due in December…the baby would have been barely conceived. Assuming that the December 7th date was the actual due date (big assumption), she would not have actually conceived until around March 16th. This means that that particular pregnancy would have been two weeks or less in length when she initially went in for a “terminationâ€.
Misread – she would have been just over 3 weeks along if she went in on April 9th.
“but it “was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant,†according to the complaint”
This part should read:
“but it “was not done properly, causing the child to remain alive,” according to the complaint”
At that point in time, sure. Glib said:
assuming she still feels that way and he had nothing to base that assumption on. In fact, given that she didn’t put the child up for adoption, one should assume the opposite.
Can anyone imagine how this child will feel when she is old enough to understand that her own
mother tried to kill her? But, being unsuccessful, sued instead? Can the birth of a child REALLY
cause so much angst? Where is the mother’s heart that cares about her child?
What have we become?
This is, by far, the lowest we have sunk. Motherhood is supposedly sacred; Mom loves you when
no one else does, no matter what.
Well, not anymore. Say goodbye to another bastion of humanity; Motherhood.
Given that said woman is suing to get the money to raise a child instead of working to raise her child like (most) parents do, I’d say it’s a safe assumption that the money is more important.
The fact that she waited 2 years before starting litigation also points to the money grab angle.
While this is sick, it’s nothing new. For those of you who think she doesn’t have a chance of winning:
From Lexis Nexis:
September 20, 2006 Wednesday
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A22
LENGTH: 440 words
HEADLINE: Abortion suit settled for $4M;
Woman and son, 6, born impaired, accept malpractice decision for medical errors in 1999 procedure
BYLINE: BY ANTHONY M. DESTEFANO. STAFF WRITER
BODY:
A Rockville Centre mother and her injured son won nearly $4.1 million in a settlement of a lawsuit against several doctors who failed to perform an abortion properly.
Karen Sheppard, 38, got $300,000 and her son, Jo’Ell Sheppard-Mobley, 6, received $3.8 million to settle charges that the doctors committed medical malpractice by mishandling the procedure, a misstep that led to Jo’Ell being born with physical and mental impairments, said Sheppard’s attorney, Bruce Cohen of Rockville Centre.
The lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn was settled Monday in the midst of jury selection for a trial, Cohen said.
According to Cohen, the stage was set for a trial after the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled in 2005 that Sheppard could revise her complaint to claim that she suffered emotional distress from the botched abortion.
“This opens up a door for women’s rights,” said Cohen, who said that previously the law generally didn’t allow a woman to recover for such injuries if a child was born alive.
According to court records, the case stemmed from the discovery in 1999 that a pregnant Sheppard was suffering from uterine fibroids, which doctors believed wouldn’t allow her to carry the fetus to term. Dr. Leslie King of Rockville Centre, an obstetrician, advised Sheppard to terminate the pregnancy and referred her to a second doctor, Ira Spector, who suggested she undergo a nonsurgical abortion with the drug methotrexate, which breaks down fetal tissue, the Court of Appeals wrote.
King administered the drug while Sheppard was in her seventh week of pregnancy. At a followup visit to a radiologist, a sonogram indicated there was no fetal heartbeat, according to the court. But Sheppard became concerned about abdominal and pelvic discomfort and, after getting another sonogram from a different radiologist, learned she was 28 weeks pregnant, according to court records.
Jo’ell was born March 3, 2000, suffering from fetal methotrexate syndrome and serious congenital problems that Sheppard claimed were caused by too small a dose of the abortion drug.
The Court of Appeals said Sheppard could seek compensation for emotional damages suffered resulting from having undergone the unsuccessful chemical abortion. The damages Sheppard for which she could be compensated were those that occurred before the birth of her baby, Cohen said.
The attorney said that Jo’ell has had five surgeries to repair skull deformities and a cleft palate. Cohen said Jo’ell also has impaired hearing and cognitive limitations.
Attorneys for King and Spector couldn’t be reached for comment yesterday. Sheppard also couldn’t be reached.