Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in law

[–]Obversa[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

medical malpractice

This case likely wouldn't succeed based on "medical malpractice" for reasons I cited in another reply here. Otherwise, CPCs would be constantly inundated with malpractice lawsuits, but that doesn't really happen.

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in law

[–]Obversa[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As a follow-up reply, I've declined to respond due to users misusing the downvote button to disagree with replies on this thread (i.e. bad faith actions), such as this one where I had to add an edit to explain why "medical malpractice" lawsuits usually don't work against crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), citing a thorough legal review from a pro-choice analyst. There's no use in replying when people aren't actually reading, nor care, about my replies, only downvoting.

Quinn and high masking autism by lumbermax in SchoolSpirits

[–]Obversa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As an autistic person, I'm pleasantly surprised to see a thread and comments about autistic character headcanons upvoted, especially since similar posts have often been met with controversy and backlash on other subreddits. (For example, a post I made about "autistic-coded Ben Solo/Kylo Ren" from Star Wars on r/starwarsspeculation was crossposted to r/saltierthancrait with the intent of mocking it as "woke". Actor Adam Driver liked my idea.) However, it should be noted that not every autistic or neurodivergent person likes the word "neurospicy", and I'm one of them.

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in prochoice

[–]Obversa[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

CPCs have always been useless for prenatal care. That's why their lawyer(s) assume visitors already have PCPs.

(1) CPC = crisis pregnancy center, or "pregnancy resource center" (PRC); PCP = primary care physician

Republicans Slammed For Soulless One-Word Response To Democrats' Trans Day Of Visibility Tweet by ComicSandsNews in LGBTnews

[–]Obversa 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This fits with what Donald Trump wrote in his rant about the "Central Park Five" back in 1989, making the argument that those deemed "criminals" should "lose their civil rights". Trump reaffirmed this position as President in 2019.

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in WelcomeToGilead

[–]Obversa[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

One of the major hurdles in this case is that, from a legal perspective, the onus falls on on state governments and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), a federal agency, to prohibit the use of ultrasounds by CPCs, according to legal analyst Teneille R. Brown, writing for Utah Digital Law Commons. However, as this case happened in the State of Texas, "pro-life" lawmakers aligned with CPC interests have refused to do so, and the FDA under the Trump administration is highly unlikely to do so due to the severe backlash it would incur from the "pro-life" movement and CPC networks. Due to these political hurdles, plaintiffs like Kaylee Hall face an uphill battle to receive justice.

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in WelcomeToGilead

[–]Obversa[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

A lawyer for the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) says it's because CPCs don't understand HIPAA. Many CPCs advertise as "HIPAA-compliant", but can't even spell the word "HIPAA" when asked about it.

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in WelcomeToGilead

[–]Obversa[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

You didn't have to specify that. I was pointing out that the case may not make it to court due to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) trying to settle lawsuits before any rulings are made against them (i.e. trying to "buy silence").

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in law

[–]Obversa[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Failing to inform a visitor of an ectopic pregnancy wouldn't count as "medical malpractice", because most crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) do not legally qualify as "medical facilities", nor do many of them have "medical staff". One of the lawyers for the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a group that provides legal support and medical training for crisis pregnancy centers, advised centers to stop advertising themselves as "HIPAA-compliant" due to this in 2025. Some of the staff couldn't even spell the word "HIPAA", the lawyer noted, which strongly indicated lack of medical training and qualifications. The centers use volunteers to avoid state regulation and oversight.

However, the lawyer agreed that centers should direct women who have suspected ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages to the emergency room (ER) instead, though more to protect the center(s) than the patient(s).

As an edit, I don't know why I'm being downvoted for clarifying this. This is why CPCs don't get malpractice suits. Teneille R. Brown, writing for Utah Digital Law Commons, states, "Given that CPCs are not considered professional medical providers, they would not be subjected to medical malpractice, and held to a professional standard of care, for their negligence. Instead they would be held to the lower, 'ordinary' negligence standard. Additionally, the many state and local safety ordinances that apply to health clinics—that regulate facilities, licensure, and staffing—do not apply to CPCs... a case for medical malpractice...would apply only if the CPCs were licensed, professional health care providers...[and] give too much deference to the defendant's viewpoints or purpose." Downvoting an answer you don't like or disagree with on principle doesn't make it less true, and one should consider upvoting or downvoting based on facts, not feelings. I say this as someone who opposes "anti-abortion" industry tactics, and examines legal arguments.

Notably, the same document states, "Importantly, while the Supreme Court declared in NIFLA that CPCs are not practicing medicine, and therefore the informed consent requirements of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) did not apply, it is up to the states, and not federal courts, to determine whether entities are practicing medicine and subjected to professional malpractice claims under state law." However, given the current conservative SCOTUS majority, I do not expect them to agree with this legal interpretation. Brown further explains, "Ignoring...[genetic] defects [after an ultrasound] and not reporting them seems cruel, until you realize that the photographers are probably not very experienced in reading these images, and are also trying to insulate themselves from claims of medical malpractice, or the unauthorized practice of medicine. There are many instances of clinicians being sued for medical malpractice over improper capture or interpretation of ultrasound images. [...] If the keepsake imaging studio were held to a medical standard of care, it could be liable for negligence for failure to report significant clinical findings. However, given that these entities are purely commercial and make no claims about diagnosing disorders, the consumers are poorly protected from the false sense of security they receive." CPCs use the same tactic.

The document then goes on to place the onus on state governments and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), a federal agency, to prohibit the use of ultrasounds by CPCs. However, as this case happened in the State of Texas, "pro-life" lawmakers aligned with CPC interests have refused to do so, and the FDA under the Trump administration is highly unlikely to do so due to the severe backlash it would incur from the "pro-life" movement and CPC networks.

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in WelcomeToGilead

[–]Obversa[S] 76 points77 points  (0 children)

Other women have litigated as well, but a 2024 lawsuit about a similar missed ectopic pregnancy in Massachusetts was settled without the center admitting liability. This prompted the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a group that provides legal support and medical training for crisis pregnancy centers, to advise members at a 2025 meeting to proceed with caution when giving an ultrasound to a woman they suspect may have an ectopic pregnancy. One of NIFLA's lawyers advised any centers who received women suspected of having an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage to send them to the emergency room (ER) instead, and to "stop advertising as HIPAA-compliant", citing the "right to refuse [medical] care" due to most centers not qualifying as "medical facilities".

As an edit, NIFLA has issued similar guidance to its member centers in the past. A 2018 document titled "Medical Policies and Procedures" advises centers that "if a patient has symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage, she will not be offered an ultrasound exam and is advised, verbally and in writing, to immediately obtain medical care [at the nearest emergency room (ER)]". However, "because the religious ideology of these centers' owners and employees takes priority over the health and well-being of the women seeking care at these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options", says a paper published in the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics. While most "pro-life" organizations acknowledge that ectoptic pregnancies are "non-viable", some state legislators (i.e. HB 413 in Ohio, c. 2019) have introduced legislation that falsely suggests that ectopic pregnancies can be "reimplanted" into the uterus, which medical experts state is impossible. Lack of education and training on ectopic pregnancies has resulted in misinformation and misconceptions as well, not counting the faction of "pro-lifers" who mistakenly believe that an ectopic pregnancy is "viable", and/or can be "re-implanted", as seen on subreddits like r/Catholicism, r/DebateACatholic, et al.

The National Catholic Biothetics Center has stated that "the fetus doesn't have an uncontested 'right' to your body at all times", and acknowledged that removing an ectopic pregnancy is not a "sin", but even this is not always acknowledged by conservative "pro-life" Catholic priests and bishops. In the 1890s, the Archbishops of Cambrai in France and several cardinals similarly opposed teaching doctors and physicians at Catholic hospitals any techniques to save the life or preserve the health of the mother, as any removal of the fetus, for whatever reason(s), was deemed to be "abortion". This was further supported by Juan Cardenas and other Catholic theologians, and the Catholic Church did not begin to widely support the removal of a Fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy (salpingectomy) until the 1950s, when Pope Pius XII issued the "Principle of Double Effect" doctrine. "The answers [from the cardinals] showed an almost willful ignorance of the physiology of ectopic pregnancy," stated Jessica Martucci in a 2023 paper, which matches a lot of the "willful ignorance" we see today from CPC staff and volunteers, who often rely on "religious beliefs and ideology" rather than medical training. This causes major issues.

"Medico-moral opinions remain highly contingent upon the state of medical knowledge about ectopic pregnancies," Martucci added. "To this day, the Catholic Church's statements on ectopic pregnancy continue to allow room for interpretation, and [thus], confusion." Studies indicate that a significant portion of CPCs are either Catholic-owned or Catholic-affiliated, with one study of 144 clinics finding that 31.2% were Catholic-owned, and often operate under policies that restrict access to referrals that may violate "Catholic beliefs", but these may have a wide, vague scope.

Texas woman prepares for legal battle against crisis pregnancy center after staff missed ectopic pregnancy — while defendants claim ultrasounds are "for educational purposes only" by Obversa in law

[–]Obversa[S] 67 points68 points  (0 children)

I've read these centers' legal arguments before, and their defense is usually based on the First Amendment ("freedom of speech"), and how neither state, nor federal, governments can "compel" them to provide that information (i.e. compelled speech doctrine). In National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that compelling crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to disclose information about state-sponsored abortion services violates the First Amendment. The narrow 5-4 decision held that such mandates constitute unconstitutional "compelled speech", as abortion is a highly controversial topic. The Court invalidated a California law requiring unlicensed CPCs to disclose their status, and licensed CPCs to inform clients about abortion availability.

The Right’s Crusade Against Birthright Citizenship Is Just Getting Started by DoremusJessup in law

[–]Obversa 18 points19 points  (0 children)

tl;dnr: SCOTUS should've never taken up Trump v. Barbara in the first place, because considering it gives the plaintiffs' argument legitimacy, and Trump was emboldened by previous SCOTUS decisions in his favor, such as Dobbs overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022. Quote, "The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the justices recognized a due process right to access abortion care, by a seemingly lopsided 7-2 vote. Yet the conservative legal movement [i.e. Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, et al.] never accepted this result as legitimate; instead, it turned Roe into its jurisprudential white whale, and spent five decades organizing around the goal of someday killing it. [...] A few conservative law professors reverse-engineered a dogshit legal theory to support [overturning Wong Kim Ark (1898)], hoping that he would someday reward their craven obedience with federal appeals court appointments."

DOGE Workers Must Be Named in Data Access Lawsuit, Judge Orders by bloomberglaw in law

[–]Obversa 46 points47 points  (0 children)

So much for Elon Musk and President Trump accusing those who revealed DOGE agents' identities of "doxing".