Suing The Church For Allegedly Forcing Her To Have An Abortion

[BardoThodol]

I believe in a woman's right to make choices about her body. Whether she will carry a child or not...

Before I had kids, I never thought twice about abortion. If I'd been a participant in one, I would now look back with profound sadness. I would constantly wonder what that child might have been like.

To me, forcing a woman to have an abortion amounts to murder. It wasn't her choice. She was forced into it.

Murder has no statute of limitations.

So, why should the CofS get a free ride on the issue?

So much death and destruction.

And this is the greatest good?

Excuse me while I puke.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I believe in a woman's right to make choices about her body. Whether she will carry a child or not...

Before I had kids, I never thought twice about abortion. If I'd been a participant in one, I would now look back with profound sadness. I would constantly wonder what that child might have been like.

To me, forcing a woman to have an abortion amounts to murder. It wasn't her choice. She was forced into it.

Murder has no statute of limitations.

So, why should the CofS get a free ride on the issue?

So much death and destruction.

And this is the greatest good?

Excuse me while I puke.

She's not accusing them of murder. That would be the governments job.

The coercian is the complaint.

It is a civil matter.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Beacon]

Why isn't this a criminal case?

I am sure she can settle on the civil action but how can the police let this go criminally?
As far as I understand, the plaintiff can not settle a criminal case that is a "crime against the state"

Violation of child labor laws
Taking a kid out of school
Having a contract with a minor
Child abuse


Can any one explain this to me?

They get away with this with their religious exemption. This is how they defended the Headly lawsuit.

 

[Reasonable]

They get away with this with their religious exemption. This is how they defended the Headly lawsuit.

I could understand that with an adult (sort of) but maybe a child is something different I don't know...maybe

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... To me, forcing a woman to have an abortion amounts to murder. It wasn't her choice. She was forced into it. ...

It was her choice or no doctor would have agreed to it. No doctor is going to risk his medical license on that. What is the issue is the question of undue influence and coercive persuasion by agents of the church used to impel that choice.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Free to shine]

Good media here and there is also a link to a video of Laura near the end of the article.

The lawsuit is seeking loss of earnings, general damages, loss of education damages, restitution of unpaid wages, injunctive relief preventing forced abortions, and unspecified damages.

According to RadarOnline, there is a status conference in the case scheduled for Wednesday, July 18. The trial is scheduled to begin July 29, 2013.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ishments-explosive-lawsuit.html#ixzz20yBzJbOq

 

[lkwdblds]

Not to be a nitpicking hairsplitter but to my knowledge contracts with minors aren't illegal nor are they void - rather they are voidable... meaning you're bound to it but the minor can cancel at any time; thus cancelling the contract altogether.

I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that there are child labor laws on the books. How can any organization hire a 9 year old and put them to work for 100 hours a week and deny providing them any education?

Religious cloaking can probably get around some of this. A religion can claim they received religious education in place of a standard education. They might be able to justify working them 40 hours a week under some kind of religious umbrella. Working a child 100 hours a week seems like it would be impossible to defend even when done by a religion and the hardest of all to defend would be hiring a 9 year old. Certainly there are laws on the books to protect children.

Is there a lawyer on the board who could clarify some of these issue?
Lakey

 

[NoName]

I think there might be a statute of limitation issue.

In the U.S., civil cases may also be barred by the statute of limitations. In fact, I sort of doubt that's what's going on.

HOWEVER, for a criminal case, you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For most civil cases, you only need to prove that the defendant is liable by a preponderance standard. I say "most" because there are some higher standards of proof in some situations, but they're the exception.