In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people

[Delia]

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren?t people | The Colorado Independent

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

This should prove very interesting. It's only a fetus when - what? What's the deciding factor? Your legal butt isn't on the line?

 

[AmyNation]

Very interesting.

 

[Delia]

The attorneys for the prosecution should have a field day with this one.

 

[AmyNation]

There are several states that have laws on the books that grant some form of personship to a fetus. Terrible laws, with terrible consequences. I wish the MSM would spend more time highlighting the problems inherent in giving the unborn legal standing.

 

[Delia]

I'm still a bit shocked that they chose to take this line of defense. Very shocked, actually.

 

[idb]

As hypocrital as it seems, it's using the law as it stands in a legal argument I guess.

 

[asterism]

I'm not sure what the issue is. The law doesn't consider a fetus a person and this case is being argued based on the law, not Catholic doctrine.

 

[Delia]

Makes it look like they don't have a leg to stand on, if that's the only defense they can come up with.

 

[Delia]

I'm not sure what the issue is. The law doesn't consider a fetus a person and this case is being argued based on the law, not Catholic doctrine.

Really? Well, they've been trying to make their doctrine the law of the land for years now. So what is the truth, to the Church?

 

[idb]

I'm not sure what the issue is. The law doesn't consider a fetus a person and this case is being argued based on the law, not Catholic doctrine.

Really? Well, they've been trying to make their doctrine the law of the land for years now. So what is the truth, to the Church?

What they really believe doesn't matter - it's a legal argument, so, it's based on the law.

 

[asterism]

Makes it look like they don't have a leg to stand on, if that's the only defense they can come up with.

Only if the case were being argued according to the Catholic doctrine. It's not.

 

[Delia]

I'm believing this is going to come back to bite them.

 

[idb]

I'm believing this is going to come back to bite them.

Oh yes, I'm sure that it'll be mentioned.

 

[PratchettFan]

Makes it look like they don't have a leg to stand on, if that's the only defense they can come up with.

Only if the case were being argued according to the Catholic doctrine. It's not.

I agree. It is in a court of law and there only the law matters. Still, it is interesting that a moral position the Church would impose upon others is not something it would impose upon itself - just to save a few bucks. Not much of a moral position.

 

[idb]

Makes it look like they don't have a leg to stand on, if that's the only defense they can come up with.

Only if the case were being argued according to the Catholic doctrine. It's not.

I agree. It is in a court of law and there only the law matters. Still, it is interesting that a moral position the Church would impose upon others is not something it would impose upon itself - just to save a few bucks. Not much of a moral position.

'legal' and 'moral' don't even rhyme.

 

[asterism]

Makes it look like they don't have a leg to stand on, if that's the only defense they can come up with.

Only if the case were being argued according to the Catholic doctrine. It's not.

I agree. It is in a court of law and there only the law matters. Still, it is interesting that a moral position the Church would impose upon others is not something it would impose upon itself - just to save a few bucks. Not much of a moral position.

The paradox is interesting, that's true. That's how the law works sometimes.

The SCOTUS case on Obamacare last year had the same lawyers arguing one day that it was a tax and then the next day arguing that it wasn't a tax.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren?t people | The Colorado Independent

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

This should prove very interesting. It's only a fetus when - what? What's the deciding factor? Your legal butt isn't on the line?

Strange how people think arguments made by lawyers have some sort of real world connection to the clients they represent.

 

[Delia]

Y'all are doing a great job of "nothing to see here, keep moving."

 

[asterism]

Y'all are doing a great job of "nothing to see here, keep moving."

By saying it's an interesting paradox but it's a function of the law?

Some people just look for opportunities to be outraged.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Y'all are doing a great job of "nothing to see here, keep moving."

Can I blame Obama for saying that the federal government recognizing gay marriage would promote pedophilia? That was in a brief filed by the Justice Department defending DOMA after Obama was elected that was specifically asked for by a judge before he ruled on the brief filed by the Bush administration that did not contain that language.