"Just Tissue" on Monday, "Baby Parts" on Tuesday

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Deal, Is Sen. Casey really posing as a pro-life abortion funder?  Is it any wonder women are confused? 

Here's another example how abortion doublespeak wrecks women's lives.

Within the body of a single opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged last week that what's "just tissue" to the botched-abortion abortionist on Monday can be "parts of a baby" in the clean-up procedure on Tuesday.  The court, nevertheless, ruled that no one in the medical community has a legal obligation in the state of New Jersey to warn women of this schizophrenic state of the womb. 

Acuna v. Turkish reversed a lower court ruling allowing Ms. Acuna to proceed to a jury on the abortionist's alleged nondisclosure of medical information:  in response to Ms. Acuna's simple, pre-abortion inquiry, "Is there a baby already there?", Dr. Turkish allegedly replied "Don't be stupid.  It's only blood."  Dr. Turkish denied this response, saying he more likely responded, "a seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being.  It is just tissue at this time."  (Acuna v. Turkish, pp. 6-7, 16).  Subsequently, when Ms. Acuna was hospitalized for persistent bleeding, a nurse advised her that Dr. Turkish had performed an "incomplete abortion" leaving behind "parts of the baby inside of you" which had to be removed.  (Acuna v. Turkish, p. 8.)

Now, in New Jersey, we learn there is no remedy for Ms. Acuna - a woman who claimed she would not have aborted her 6-8 week fetus if told it was a living, human being.  Ms. Acuna - like so many women mistakenly and reluctantly misled into destroying their young - is abandoned by the government, the courts, the abortion industry, the medical "caring" community to the grief and shock of having torn to shreds "just tissue" that turns out to be comprised of "baby parts".  That, the court admits, imposes on women the painful consequences of allowing each of us, in our individual god-like way, to determine "when life begins."  People like Ms. Acuna, who rely on their abortionist's "opinion" which fails to disclose the living, beating heart and baby parts of that "just tissue", get .. well, sympathy.   "We are sympathetic to the deep pain plaintiff has suffered in the aftermath of the termination of her pregnancy.  However, the common law doctrine of informed consent requires doctors to provide their pregnant patients seeking an abortion only with material medical information, including gestational stage and medical risks involved in the procedure. Under that doctrine of informed consent, the knowledge that plaintiff sought from defendant cannot be compelled from a doctor who may have a different scientific, moral, or philosophical viewpoint on the issue of when life begins."   (Acuna v. Turkish, p. 29).

Too bad Dr. Turkish wasn't around to help Ms. Acuna with the aftermath of his "viewpoint".  But, no doubt, that's not his job either.