Abortion
Parental Involvement
ESCR/ Cloning
Fetal Protection
Woman's Right to Know
Abortion Clinics/ Doctor's Staff
Sidewalk Counseling
Prejudice/ Discrimination/ Racism
Overpopulation/ Underpopulation
Pro-Death Groups
End of Life Issues
Palliative Care/ Pain Relief
Politics
Hawaii
Mainland
World
Media
Bias/ Fair Reporting
Lack of Reporting

"Good ends never justify the deception of women or the destruction of their children." David C. Reardon, Ph.D Director of Elliott Institute

Source:   Pro-Life Infonet; February 10, 2003

Pro-Life Groups File Brief in Florida Informed Consent Case

Tallahassee, FL -- Today the Catholic Medical Association and the Christian Medical Associations filed a brief in defense of a Florida law which requires that women have the right to know about the consequences of undergoing an abortion. Together, the two associations represent over 20,000 physicians. Last year, a state trial court judge ruled that the informed consent law violates Florida's right to privacy contained in the state constitution. The case of Presidential Women's Center v. State of Florida is now pending before the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Associations are represented by Teresa Collett, professor of law at South Texas College of Law, along with Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel.

The brief first argues that the abortion clinic and its doctors have no standing to challenge the law, because their position as medical providers is in direct conflict with the rights of women considering an abortion. The abortion providers have an obvious profit motive. It is not in their best interest to inform women of the consequences of abortion. The interest of the abortion providers is not the interest of women who have the right to know about the procedure.

The brief also argues that women make better choices when they are fully informed of the consequences and, like any other medical procedure, women simply have the right to be fully informed. The brief criticizes the trial judge who struck down the law, stating: "The order of the trial court reflects a failure to recognize that a right exercised in ignorance is not freedom. It's just tyranny once removed."

Staver commented, "Abortion providers arguing that they should not be required to inform women about the consequences of abortion is akin to the fox guarding the hen house. Abortion doctors have an incentive to spend as little time with their patients as possible in order to increase their profit margin. Although abortion providers claim they act in the best interest of women, their actions are to the contrary. The best interest of women, and for that matter the best interest of any patient, is to be fully informed of the impending medical procedure. Women have a right to be fully informed."

More articles on Woman's Right to Know:

bullet Oregon House Supports Right to Know Measure
bullet Pro-Life Groups File Brief in Florida Informed Consent Case
bullet Minnesota Women's Right to Know Bill Passes Another Committee

Help support Hawaii Right to Life today!
News ] Education ] Hawaii's Legislature ] Research Links ]
March for Life ] Pregnancy Help ] Support ] Mission ] History ]