Super pro-life sleuth Lynn has discovered a lawsuit filed January 28, accusing Hodari of assault and battery for committing a intrauterine abortion on a mother who was actually carrying an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.
On March 4, 2009, the mother went to an abortion mill in Dearborn but was turned away when the ultrasound tech couldn't find a baby.
On March 6 she decided to try Hodari's Womancare of Southfield mill, where an ultrasound was performed and an abortion committed by Hodari.
On March 15, still not feeling well, the mother returned to Womancare, where it was learned her pregnancy hormone was still elevated. She was told to go to the hospital, where the ectopic pregnancy was discovered. She underwent surgery and had the baby and her left fallopian tube removed.
Just another case of a legal front alley abortion. The mother is suing for $25k.
[Photo via the Detroit News]
I'm actually kind of surprised that they didn't do an abortion anyway when they couldn't find the baby.Posted by: carla at February 4, 2010 4:32 PM
The Dearborn abortuary should be sued too. Your patient has a positive pregnancy test, no baby visible on ultrasound, and you do no follow-up? How irresponsible. Of course, it's no grand revelation that they care more about money than about women's health.Posted by: Kelsey at February 4, 2010 4:35 PM
I've been wondering why we haven't seen more of these types of lawsuits. If every woman who was lied to or physically hurt at an abortion clinic would sue, the mills would go out of business pretty quick! Or at the very least would seriously clean up their acts!Posted by: Peg at February 4, 2010 4:37 PM
Her fertility was diminshed by 50% and she's only suing for 25K???? She must not value her fertility very much . ..Posted by: Nora at February 4, 2010 4:57 PM
I agree the first abortion clinic shares some blame. How hard would it have been to check her tubes? This is something that I've had done early in every pregnancy as part of standard care. It's not that difficult to move the wand over a few inches to make sure the tubes are clear.
Of course, I suspect that those running the ultrasounds at abortion clinics aren't actual ultrasound techs at all...Posted by: Lauren at February 4, 2010 5:15 PM
I found something on P today, and I've sent it to jill, and operation rescue to verify everything.Posted by: RJ Sandefur at February 4, 2010 5:20 PM
"I've been wondering why we haven't seen more of these types of lawsuits. If every woman who was lied to or physically hurt at an abortion clinic would sue, the mills would go out of business pretty quick! Or at the very least would seriously clean up their acts!"
This is really an excellent point. Where are the ambulance-chasing attorneys? They should have people outside of the mills passing out business cards. It's a vast, untapped reservoir of potential clients.
Seriously, how do we get the word out? A whole new field of med-mal law just waiting to bloom, and all at the expense of these bottom-feeders who never should have made it out of medical school.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 4, 2010 5:58 PM
The $25,000 might be based on a court rule instead of actual damages. She might be looking for damages "in excess of $25,000" and phrase it as such just to qualify for a certain division of the courthouse - leaving actual damages for later.Posted by: Alex at February 4, 2010 6:06 PM
Her fertility was diminshed by 50% and she's only suing for 25K???? She must not value her fertility very much . ..
Posted by: Nora at February 4, 2010 4:57 PM
And, not every woman values her fertility. I actually had a doctor cut mine off completely, permanently. AREN'T I JUST TOO CRAAAAZY?!Posted by: xalisae at February 4, 2010 6:39 PM
I am wondering if there is a statute of limitations to sue?? Many of us who regret our abortions do not do so for 10-12 years after and some even later.
Have often thought to call up Meadowbrook and ask for my records.
Absolutely agree with you, Gerard.Posted by: carla at February 4, 2010 6:57 PM
Nora, this woman is suing for assault and battery, which would be for the abortionist performing the wrong procedure. That's separate from malpractice (a type of negligence suit), which is what she'd probably have to sue under if she were going to take on Hodari for his failure to properly diagnose her, resulting (possibly) in a more invasive/damaging surgery later on.
Gerard and Carla, I think statutes of limitations (often only a couple years) are part of the problem, as well as shame and a reluctance to go public abut one's abortion. But several states have capped malpractice awards, so most lawyers won't even take them anymore. The costs involved in a med mal case are pretty high (for example, expert witnesses, required to even file the case in some states, are quite costly), and a lot of lawyers don't find it worth the time spent.Posted by: Courtney at February 4, 2010 7:19 PM
What is the option for a pro-life woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Is there a way to avoid killing the baby? Not a trick question, I'm really asking. I'm not sure what the medical options are, if any, and it seems like a terrible quandary for a woman who doesn't want an abortion.
Jennifer, there's no way for the baby to survive. It's actually ethical (under the principle of double-effect) to remove the fallopian tube and the baby, because an abortion is not directly intended; it's just an unfortunate side effect. What the doctor intends is to remove the growing cells (which in this case are a baby) which are causing a treat to the mother's life. Since the alternate is sufficiently grave (the mother will die), the also grave (but not directly intended) effect of ending the baby's life is permissible.
I know this sounds like a fancy way of justifying abortion, but it's not. Double-effect is a real ethical principle.Posted by: Courtney at February 4, 2010 8:04 PM
I didn't say I would sue because I regret my abortion. I was lied to about the fetal development of my child. I was told I was 8 weeks along when I was really 10. I was not shown an ultrasound. I was told it was just a bunch of cells. I was shown a filmstrip of a bunch of red circles. I was questioned what kind of mother I would be because I didn't have a job, a nice apartment, a nice car or a husband. I was told nothing about the possible effects of abortion. The regret, the shame, the depression, the drinking, the relational difficulties, the nightmares, the suicidal thoughts and attempts are what I experienced after my abortion.
The question was whether women could sue if they were lied to. I answered that most women do not feel regret or remorse for years later. Most would not come forward right away.Posted by: carla at February 4, 2010 9:35 PM
Abortionist James Pendergraft, is suspended accoring to a order I found on the Florida board of medicine websight. RJPosted by: RJ Sandefur at February 4, 2010 9:50 PM
Carla, that is my thought. My cousin is angry at PP because they lied to her about her baby. An ethical doctor doing ethical work would never lie to a patient like that!Posted by: Peg at February 4, 2010 10:12 PM
I am angry too! The abortion industry is based on LIES! Their lies and deceit will result in thousands of dead babies today and thousands of wounded women and I am wondering when we will say ENOUGH?!
Question--not a trick one either. I truly am curious. Is it wrong to take methotrexate/misoprostol for an ectopic pregnancy instead of surgery to remove the fallopian tube if you don't want to diminish your fertility?
I always thought tubal pregnancy was the only ethical situation where a mother could "abort" because her life IS in danger and the baby cannot unfortunately be saved.
When I conceived my son I had severe pain in my left side. I went to the doctors and a urine test was negative for pregnancy. They sent me for an ultrasound thinking I had ovarian cysts but the ultrasound revealed no cysts and nothing in my uterus. When the blood work came back positive for HCG (pregnancy hormone) they were concerned that it was tubal since the ultrasound revealed no baby. They were all set to give me methotrexate/misoprostol (however you spell it) and I was very very upset. They said they don't do surgery anymore because the medicine is less invasive and there is less risk of complication to future fertility.
Fortunately they kept monitoring my hormones and they kept steadily increasing. An ultrasound at 5 weeks revealed my son, firmly in my uterus with arms, legs, a head and a FACE and a big , strong beating heart! They couldn't see him in the first scan because he had only been in the womb for a day or two at that point and was in the lining of the uterus, just a little defenseless ball of cells.
So what is the right thing to do if the pregnancy is ectopic? Is it only morally permissible to have surgery? Or is medication designed to kill the baby permissible in a situation like that?Posted by: Sydney M at February 5, 2010 8:42 AM
I have not yet heard of taking medication for an ectopic pregnancy. I know that it is a case where taking the baby from the fallopian tube saves the life of the mother. Letting the baby grow in the tube puts the mother's life in danger, the tube could rupture. The unfortunate result is that the baby dies in an ectopic pregnancy.Posted by: carla at February 5, 2010 9:00 AM
I'm writing an article for my blog addressing continuing unsafe abortion practices in the United States
Legal but No Safer - Shoddy Abortion Practices Continue in the U.S.
And I need more information on abortion providers who've been in trouble with the law, had their medical license suspended or revoked, or had multiple lawsuits for medical malpractice or neglect. So far, I've covered Andrew Rutland, Pierre Renelique, Alberto Hodari. Who are some others I can cover?
RJ pointed out Pendergraft's license was revoked earlier this month for performing illegal third trimester abortions. Can't wait to read your article! Can you believe the media isn't all over this?Posted by: Sydney M at February 5, 2010 9:32 AM
Rachael, I've got you covered!
There's also this list of women who have died in legal abortions from Life Dynamics. However, because their database goes all the way back to the 1970s, a lot of those abortionists have long ceased their business.
Also, I took a look at your blog and noticed that you include a link to Exhale. Be very, VERY careful about this organization. It was founded by self-described "pro-choicers" and includes the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood in its "pregnancy options and counseling" links. (There are no links to pregnancy centers). Their acknowledgement of PASS while the rest of the abortion industry shuts its eyes is admirable. But by referring women to abortion businesses, they are contributing to the problem.Posted by: Kelsey at February 5, 2010 10:46 AM
Rachael C.: Some important information here
Alicia Ruiz Hanna, Santa Ana, CA "clinic operator" killed 27-year-old Angela Sanchez and stuffed her body in the trunk of her car as 2 of Angela's 4 living children sat in the waiting room. Sentenced to 16 years. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-31/news/mn-18933_1_santa-ana
More details here http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl93asanchez.htm
Andrew Rutland killed Ying Chen & her child. He awaits a disciplinary hearing, his defense is asking that his most recent 100 abortions he's performed with only the intended victim be taken into consideration in his case:
Unfortunately, just the tip of the iceberg. The 365 womens' deaths documented here (scroll down for their abortionists' names, when known) do not get into what, if any, "disciplinary measures" their murderers faced. http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTMPosted by: klynn73 at February 5, 2010 11:01 AM
I think that part of the reason no good solution has been found for ectopic pregnancy is because doctors don't care about finding one. It's the same as recurrent miscarriages being considered a fertility problem--many times they won't even test for problems unless a woman has had three miscarriages. Let's put that another way--two children have to die unnecessarily in order for a medical problem to be looked for.
Because medical personnel don't see unborn children as human beings, they treat them in ways that would be unconscionable in dealing with born persons. Any condition that affects born children or adults is studied and attempts continue to treat it (killing is not treatment) even if it is guaranteed to be fatal.
Some attempts have been made to move children who implant in places other than the uterus. If it were me, I would insist on a doctor who would attempt to move the baby. Would it work? Probably not. Might my fertility be more damaged in the attempt? Possibly. But I have an obligation to a living child in my body above and beyond children God may or may not give me later. I would not allow any doctor who did not intend to try to save the child's life to touch my body while that child was alive. And hopefully at least in trying to save the child they would learn something so that someday children in such pregnancies could be saved. The only way I would allow outright removal is if there were another embryo/fetus in the womb, and a doctor who would otherwise be willing to try to save the ectopic child judged it too dangerous to the correctly-implanted child. Because such a thing would be highly experimental, I certainly don't object to women having a right to abort an ectopic pregnancy at this point in time, but I would die before I would kill my child.
Also, in a lot of cases, a child who implants somewhere other than the uterus will die without medical intervention. Because the blood flow to the fallopian tube (and most other places an ectopic pregnancy occurs) is less, the child often does not get enough nutrients to grow correctly or sustain his or her life. So monitoring the pregnancy closely as long as possible is an ethical alternative when ectopic pregnancy is discovered in a non-emergency situation (like early ultrasound).
I have made it clear to my husband what I would want to happen in the case of an ectopic pregnancy as well.Posted by: ycw at February 5, 2010 11:18 AM
Thanks for your response YCW. I often wondered why they couldn't figure out how to move the baby into the womb when they do many other marvelous, miraculous things in medicine. I mean they can cut out your diseased heart and stitch in a new one and you can live but they can't figure out how to save a baby that implanted in the wrong place?Posted by: Sydney M at February 5, 2010 3:07 PM
Read Ian Gentles's National Post article which was posted online on the National Post Full Comment blog on February 5. It is entitled, "Lessons on 'Reproductive Health' from Europe." I reproduce it all below, except for the introduction and conclusion, which are only relevant for Canadians.
Since the fall of Poland’s communist regime, maternal mortality in that country has plunged by more than 75%. Infant mortality is down by almost two-thirds, and the rate of premature births has dropped by well over a half. The reduction in premature births is important because premature children are prone to all sorts of medical and social afflictions. Perhaps the most serious of these is a much greater chance of being born with cerebral palsy than full-term babies.
In the late 1980s, around a hundred children per year were dying before the age of five from cerebral palsy in Poland. By 2006, the number was down to five or ten per year — a greater than 90% drop. In the United States, by contrast, the preterm birthrate has jumped in recent years from 8.9% to 12.8% of all births, pointing to a corresponding increase in the incidence of cerebral palsy. (Canada’s experience has probably been similar, though no figures are available.)
A woman who has one or more abortions significantly increases her risk of subsequently bearing a pre-term baby, which in turn hugely increases the risk that that baby with be afflicted with cerebral palsy. In addition to the unfathomable human tragedy that cerebral palsy represents, there is the enormous financial burden of caring for people with the disease.
Why has Poland made such strides in improving both maternal and infant health? Certainly not by spending a lot of money on “reproductive health services,” to use the preferred euphemism. Poland is a poor country, much poorer than either Canada or its immediate European neighbours. The money simply isn’t there for any lavish program to improve maternal and infant health. The only change that could have produced such a dramatic improvement is the documented decline in the induced abortion rate.
Since 1989, Poland has virtually banned induced abortion. According to official statistics, the annual legal abortion rate has plummeted from well over 100,000 in the 1980s to a few hundred in the 1990s, and that very low rate has been maintained up to the present. There is little evidence of a widespread resort to illegal abortion, nor have significant numbers of Polish women gone to other countries seeking abortions.
Interestingly, the only other European country where abortion is illegal — Ireland — also boasts very low maternal mortality. By comparison, countries where abortion is completely legal — the United States and Poland’s immediate neighbours, Russia and Hungary — have much higher maternal and infant death rates.Posted by: Jon at February 5, 2010 11:54 PM
Sydney, my understanding is that it's not ethically justifiable to use drugs (methotrexate/misoprostol) to induce the baby's death. In that situation, the baby's death is the directly intended consequence of taking the drugs; they have the sole purpose of killing. Contrast that to removing the fallopian tube or the baby, which merely intends to remove the growing baby from a space too small for him, in order to prevent the fallopian tube from rupturing and causing the mother's death. There, the intent is to remove the baby, not kill him. The unfortunate side effect is that we (currently) have no way to keep the baby alive after that, so he dies. But his death is not directly intended.
YCW, you're right that ectopic pregnancies sometimes just end naturally, but that's not always the case, so the mom has to be monitored pretty closely. I of course agree with you in hoping that modern medicine will discover a way to move the baby and re-implant him in a better spot. I don't know if there's been any lack of effort/interest on the doctors' part; it may just be one of those things that's really difficult (and thus far impossible) for science to figure out. For example, we still don't really know how to heal nerves or get them to regrow or regenerate.Posted by: Courtney at February 6, 2010 8:24 AM