I have read the article over a couple times and don't see where the babies were proven to be viable outside the womb at the time of the abortion. If they weren't viable outside the womb and the abortion ocured within the 24-week period under the law, I don't think they will be able to convict him for murder of the aborted baby. How, other than employees "rolling over on the doctor", will they even prove the babies were born alive and intact?
Look for the defenzse to be something like:
1. The abortion was performed during the foirst and second tri-mester as required by law;
2. None of the babies were born alive;
3. None of the babies were even viable (had they been born alive). The use of the "surgical scisors" as opposed to a scalpal was the fastess way to painlessly end the babies life; and of course
4. The mothers are to blame too for the death of their babies because they wanted the abortion.
As to the number of med-mal lawsuits that, in and of itself, could mean nothing at all given the doctor performs abortions, which include a much greater proportion of claims against doctors than in other areas of medicine.
Lastly, uterus damage/perferation is a well-known risk/complication of even the most [properly performed, safest abortion. I am not saying that negligence may be a cuse of it, just that ever perferation is not necessarily malpractice.
Now, if the only hardcore issue that can be proven is a terribly messy, unclean clinic, then look for a fine and the possible suspension or loss of the doctor's medicle license.
We'll see...
rfenst wrote:
