By this time I assume all my readers have been rightly horrified by the story of Ariel and Deborah Levy in Oregon who won a so-called "wrongful birth" lawsuit because the search and destroy mission against their Down Syndrome daughter failed when she was unborn and now, darn it, they have to raise her. (Minerva and Giubilini have a solution for that, by the way...)
I will take as read the utter evil of such lawsuits and of the premises that underlie them.
Let's turn this into action. This story from last month lists the following states as prohibiting such suits:
Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
According to the story, Arizona is considering similar legislation.
This article, from 2008, says that twelve states prohibit such suits. The states listed there are
Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Alert readers will notice that the lists are not the same. I don't know what this means. One might conjecture that Indiana and North Dakota have added such laws since 2008, but what about Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Georgia? Have they repealed them? Or did the author of the 2012 article just miss them? I hope so. That would mean the grand total is actually fourteen states that prohibit these obscene lawsuits. I decided to get this post up right away rather than doing more research to check into the states that are different in the two lists. If readers want to add info. that will be most welcome. Perhaps part of the answer lies here:
Gary E. Marchant, an Arizona State University law professor who specializes in genetics laws, said nine states bar both “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” lawsuits. There have been about a hundred such lawsuits nationwide, including a few in Arizona, said Marchant, who recently did a study on the subject.It may be that the distinction between wrongful birth and wrongful life suits somehow accounts for the discrepancies in the two lists.
The second link above states that twenty-eight states allow such suits. That could mean either that such suits are recognized in statutory law or that they are not banned in statutory law and have been allowed in the courts. Probably some of each. No list is given of the twenty-eight states.
So here's an assignment: If you live in Arizona, get a-goin'. Contact your legislators to support the bill introduced by Sen. Nancy Barto. Naturally, the feminists are agin' it:
Sen. Linda Lopez, a Tucson Democrat, said she doesn’t understand why the bill is needed, and feels it infringes on a woman’s right to make decisions about her health.
Um-huh. Because it's obviously a matter of women's rights not simply to be able to murder your unborn child if he isn't perfect but also to sue your doctor if he fails to detect the presence of an imperfect child so that you can kill it before it's born.
(By the way, the assumption in prenatal testing is already that false positives are better than false negatives. Wrongful birth lawsuits just push that assumption more stridently.)
If you live in a state about which there is any question, find out and, if such lawsuits are permitted either tacitly or explicitly in your state, suggest to your state Right to Life organization that it urge pro-life lawmakers to introduce relevant legislation, pronto. This is timely. People are upset about this lawsuit which said that the Levys' daughter should have been killed before birth; now is the time to introduce that legislation.