New Ruling Gets Activists Mad Because Other Activists May Exploit It
By Scott Cunning
New Law May Allow Mothers To Be Sued For Injuries To Fetuses
Despite the potential snarkiness you may read into the tone of my headline, I'm actually worried about this one, too--it's one of those where I can clearly see why one might want to hold a mother accountable, but I worry about the permutations of the concept just like the activists:
I'm not sure what I think of this. A married couple in Canada had succeeded in getting a loophole closed that allowed the woman's insurance company to avoid paying for health care for their daughter, who was severely injured in a car accident while the mother was driving.
The kicker - the injuries occurred while the mother was five months pregnant. The daughter wasn't born yet.
I know that the husband has sued his wife so that they can get the insurance company to pay for medical care for their daughter, who was born blind and severely-brain damaged due to the accident. She also has cerebral palsy and epilepsy. If he had been driving, the insurance company would have covered the payments. Since his pregnant wife was driving, the insurance company pays nothing.
Abortion rights activists are leery of the new law, which applies only to car accident cases. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coaltion fears that the law could lead to "suing a woman for causing brain damage in her fetus because she drank or smoked during her pregnancy. And of course the anti-abortion groups could exploit the law as well."
Several newspapers stated that "[i]n a ruling six years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada said a child can't sue its mother for damages suffered in the womb. But the ruling also left a small and very narrow loophole, saying provinces could allow a child to sue its mother, but only in the case of a car accident."
This one hurts my brain.
I can just, just almost go with it.
But it's a little weird--there's enough pressure on mothers already, and there needs to be some room for, you know, accidents. We don't want accidents, whether the people involved are women or not and whether they're pregnant or not, but the mother of a child who was damaged in the womb is going to have enough stacked against her.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, aside from the fact that this is an unpleasant issue--and that this is a clear illustration of something I've brought up here before: "Fairness" is not a simple issue.
This post brought to you by liability and pregnancy.
|
|
