Mississippi Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Death Law to Cover Unborn Fetuses

Aug 22 13:57 UTC 2003

The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized by one of its members
as an assault on Roe v. Wade (search), held Thursday that a fetus is a
"person" under state law and wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf.

  
 
 
 
The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a wrongful death claim
(search) after she alleged emotional distress and a mistake by her doctors
caused her to have a miscarriage (search) in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old
at the time, according to doctors. 

Attorneys for the defendants couldn't be reached or declined comment.

Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent, described the decision
as an assault on Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in
America.

The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in wrongful death statutes
to include an "unborn child."

Current law allows people to sue for the wrongful death of a newly born, or
prematurely born, fetus that would have been expected to live.

Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said Thursday's ruling
in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had nothing to do with abortion. He said
doctors performing abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.

"Tucker's interest is to protect and preserve the life of her unborn child,
not in the exercise of her right to terminate that life which has been
declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court," Smith wrote.

Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of Jackson, said while the
decision may not directly affect Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal
protection when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8 weeks.

Sondra Goldschein, state strategies attorney for the American Civil Liberties
Union said she was troubled by the court's definition of a fetus as a
"person."

"Anytime the fetus is recognizable as a person it chips away at the foundation
of Roe," she said.

It appears that these rednecks have more brains than most grexers.

response 2 of 116:

Aug 22 16:51 UTC 2003

Yeah, right.

I don't see how this is that much different from criminal law where a perp
can be charged with murder of an unborn child (e.g. shooting pregnant woman
in abdomen).

response 4 of 116:

Aug 22 19:49 UTC 2003

That must have been reproduced without permission from "Analogies from Hell".

response 6 of 116:

Aug 22 20:18 UTC 2003

If a fetus is "an unfinished human being," what do you call those who 
are born well before the end of the normal gestation period?

Cannot "all sorts of things go wrong" AFTER birth?  Is it, therefore, 
permissible to kill an sickly newborn after he has emerged from the 
birth canal?

response 8 of 116:

Aug 22 22:23 UTC 2003

Re #2:  I don't agree with either.  If a perp shoots a pregnant woman in the
        abdomen, it's attempted murder on the woman.  That ought to be enough.

response 10 of 116:

Aug 22 22:31 UTC 2003

What an image.

response 12 of 116:

Aug 23 01:16 UTC 2003

*yawn*  could you see the strings on the bush puppet being
tugged by cheney?

response 14 of 116:

Aug 23 12:47 UTC 2003

Genesis 2:7 says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"
(KJV).

response 16 of 116:

Aug 23 17:11 UTC 2003

What do any of your refrences have to do with the price of tea in China?
Your analogies are weak and your refrences are inaccurate. Post me a 
verse SALIENT with the issue. I have read the entire bible many times. 
I have found one verse that deals with an unborn baby. I have posted 
it. You have said in prior posts that a baby doesn't have life until it 
was BORN. gelinas posted gen 2:7 and you agreed that is pretty much 
what you were talking about. That verse fortifies my position and not 
yours. Adam was never BORN. This makes him a non-person by your 
definition. He was created. The verse merely descibes the finishing 
touch. Adam was never in the womb.You cannot compare his creation to an 
unborn baby.As for the tree of life...well Adam never tasted it. He and 
Eve chose the tree of knowledge and were cast out of the garden BEFORE 
they had a chance to taste the tree of life.

response 18 of 116:

Aug 23 19:16 UTC 2003

re16:

pRoVE iT.

response 20 of 116:

Aug 23 22:05 UTC 2003

Rane, your conclusion is incorrect: myths have a great deal to do with every
day life.  We _know_ you wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.  *LISTEN* to
what people say, and you will realise that these things are quite important
and very relevant to understanding their views and intentions.

Bluntly, perhaps Reason SHOULD rule, but it does NOT.  (And yes, 'tis often
a pity that it does not.)

response 22 of 116:

Aug 24 00:08 UTC 2003

Re #20: as I said, if taken in reverse, Mickey Mouse has as much to do
with "anything" as do biblical myths. That is far from asserting that
myths don't have "a great deal to do with every day life". They do,
because some people think there myths should be adopted as reality by
others. But I do insist that we *shouldn't* be talking myths when dealing
with reality. 

Re #21: "clearly" my foot: there is no social wrong in killing a fetus, as
permitted by national law. Therefore Mississippi *shouldn't* have a law
that is more restrictive since, as stated by the Mississippi Attorney
General, Mississippi will not try to act "above the law".