Do women in Indiana who have chosen to have an abortion have a right to receive proper medical care, and if that care injured them, a right to sue the person who botched their abortion to be made whole? Indiana Law says they do. The ACLU says they don’t.
All citizens have a right to expect ALL medical care is proper and to the current state of the art, and that includes the right to report those who harm them with improper treatments.
In most types of medical treatment a person can ask around and learn who is good and who to avoid, but social stigmas conceal abortioneers from public scrutiny. Women who are considering or who have had an abortion deserve better: they deserve a verifiable resource to evaluate the performance of abortion providers, including a list of which ones cause health complications that harm the woman, what kind of complications their malpractice causes, and recourse to use that list in suing a derelict abortioneer to be made whole at law.
Of course, the money rich abortion industry opposes enforcement of such protections for women from abuse. It is good to see that our Attorney General has the backbone to protect our citizens.
Today in email from Indiana Atty. General Curtis Hill:
AG Curtis Hill vows to defend the state
Attorney General Curtis Hill issued the following statement today pertaining to comments made by three of Indiana’s 91 elected prosecuting attorneys in regard to Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 340:
“The Marion County, Monroe County and Lake County prosecutors have issued a statement apparently stating they will not defend the state in a lawsuit in which they have been named as defendants – namely, the recent filing of a constitutional challenge of the Indiana law requiring practitioners to report complications resulting from abortions.
“To their credit, my friends and former colleagues are right. They will not defend the state. I will.
“While prosecutors Curry, Gaul and Carter share the opinion that this case should not be defended, they also share no authority to make that call. Mr. Curry’s ‘directive’ to me to concede the constitutionality of an Indiana statute has zero force or effect.
“I am well aware of the proper role of the prosecuting attorney as well as my responsibilities as Attorney General, and part of my responsibility is the defense of the constitutionality of legislative acts of the Indiana General Assembly that have been signed into law by the Governor.
“The protestations of Mr. Curry and the other prosecutors regarding their being drawn into this type of litigation might find a more sympathetic ear with the plaintiff, the ACLU, which chose these three ‘defendants’ who, if they had the authority, would concede the case. How convenient and disingenuous.
“If these three prosecutors want out of this case, then they can ask their friends at the ACLU to dismiss them out. As for the defense of the State of Indiana and the decisions on how to proceed in this case, I will make that call.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.