{"id":47771,"date":"2025-04-24T22:42:09","date_gmt":"2025-04-24T22:42:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/47771\/"},"modified":"2025-04-24T22:42:09","modified_gmt":"2025-04-24T22:42:09","slug":"when-pro-life-hospitals-consider-unborn-life-not-actually-alive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/47771\/","title":{"rendered":"When pro-life hospitals consider \u201cunborn life\u201d not actually alive."},"content":{"rendered":"

Sign up for the Slatest<\/a> to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.<\/p>\n

After Roe fell in 2022, MercyOne, a Catholic health system based in Iowa, released this statement<\/a>: \u201cAs a Catholic health system, MercyOne believes all life is sacred including the lives of pregnant women and unborn children. MercyOne does not allow elective abortions\u201d but \u201cwill save the life of the mother\u201d if she has \u201clife-threatening complications in pregnancy.\u201d Abortion remained legal in Iowa for another two years and is still legal if a fetal heartbeat is undetectable. But MercyOne has said it remains committed to the sanctity of unborn life.<\/p>\n

With apparently one exception. Recently, within a medical malpractice lawsuit arising from the stillbirth of a baby at approximately 36 weeks of pregnancy, a MercyOne hospital in Des Moines and its fellow defendants sang a different tune. They argued that this death of an unborn life wasn\u2019t a serious injury or a substantial loss of bodily function. The defendants, again including a Catholic hospital, argue that the baby\u2019s stillbirth wasn\u2019t even a death, arguing that fetal death is not death and referring to the baby as a nonexistent person.<\/p>\n

Why would the Catholic hospital belittle unborn life so? Simply, money. Minimizing the injury is within their financial interests. And apparently, financial interests are strong enough to override the sacredness of unborn life. In the abortion context, a sacred, unborn life is killed. In the context of allegations that medical malpractice caused stillbirth, really nothing happened.<\/p>\n

The hypocrisy is obvious. But don\u2019t overlook the crassness, only adding to the trauma for these plaintiffs grieving their daughter\u2019s potentially preventable stillbirth. Those plaintiffs are Miranda Anderson and Landen Anderson. In 2021, the Andersons were looking forward to the birth of their daughter, whom they had named Eloise Irene. Miranda was 35 weeks, 5 days pregnant when she began having symptoms of preeclampsia. She received medical treatment numerous times in the next week and was always sent home. Eight days after her first visit after the appearance of symptoms, her baby was dead. Miranda gave birth to her dead baby daughter via C-section delivery. The Andersons\u2019 lawsuit alleges that Eloise would be alive today had the medical providers acted properly and timely induced labor.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n Radley Balko
\n The Courage To Be Decent
\n Read More<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The defendants are trying to limit their liability by way of Iowa\u2019s cap on the recovery of noneconomic damages\u2014damages without a market value, like damages for emotional distress and lost parent-child relationship\u2014in a medical malpractice claim. Under state law, plaintiffs in these cases can recover only $250,000<\/a> in noneconomic damages unless the plaintiff\u2019s injury constitutes \u201csubstantial or permanent loss or impairment of bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or death.\u201d\u00a0 MercyOne and its fellow defendants argue that none of these exceptions apply. Again, the Catholic Hospital even argues that fetal death as late as 36 weeks is not death; baby Eloise was not (yet) alive.<\/p>\n

MercyOne\u2019s argument also includes another minimizing sentiment\u2014that the Andersons really haven\u2019t suffered much injury because they can have another baby. This is common in wrongfully caused pregnancy loss cases (and in pregnancy loss narratives generally); the loss is often devalued because the woman can simply have another baby. Specifically, the defendants argue that Anderson\u2019s reproductive abilities still \u201cfunction in a normal manner.\u201d Well, yes, but this sentiment ignores the possible trauma of subsequent pregnancy and the increased risk of stillbirth due to her prior stillbirth. Relatedly, the defendants dismiss the possibility of Anderson\u2019s C-section scar as disfigurement even though it will likely mean more C-sections in those future pregnancies. This problem-solved sentiment that the impacted couple can just have a new baby is yet another curious juxtaposition to the hospital\u2019s apparent view on the sacredness of life lost in abortion. Surely the hospital would never suggest that a sacred life lost in abortion could be so simply replaced with a future baby. Yet, the Andersons\u2019 injury is minimal because, again, their reproductive abilities still function in a normal manner.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
    \n This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only<\/p>\n

    How Sam Alito Inadvertently Revealed His Own Homophobia From the Bench
    \n <\/a>\n <\/li>\n

  2. \n
    \n This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only<\/p>\n

    No One Could Save Sarah Palin\u2014Not Even Trump. She Just Reminded Us All Why.
    \n <\/a>\n <\/li>\n

  3. \n
    \n This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only<\/p>\n

    The Worst Person in the Trump Cabinet Could Have Been Anyone. No One Expected It to Be Him.
    \n <\/a>\n <\/li>\n

  4. \n <\/p>\n

    The Courage to Be Decent
    \n <\/a>\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    MercyOne is hypocritically bending itself into a pretzel to serve its financial interests. Perversely, \u201cdead babies\u201d\u2014those who do not survive childbirth\u2014are much cheaper in medical malpractice litigation that \u201cdamaged babies\u201d\u2014those who do survive but with traumatic injuries\u2014especially in a state like Iowa with a cap on noneconomic damages. A living but injured baby means both economic and noneconomic damages, and the economic damages could be extensive\u2014medical expenses for a NICU stay, possibly long-lasting medical expenses continuing for injuries. Medical expense economic damages are not capped; defendants will have to pay all of them if liable for medical malpractice. But dead, unborn babies create only noneconomic damages for the parents. From a medical malpractice liability perspective, dead, unborn babies are preferred.<\/p>\n

    We wait to see how Iowa courts will handle this Catholic hospital\u2019s arguments diminishing the Andersons\u2019 injury. If the courts agree,\u00a0as I argue in my recently published book\u00a0Stillbirth & the Law<\/a>, the result would not be unique to Iowa. Noneconomic damage caps are common in red states, the same states that are more likely to ban abortion. There is no question in Texas law that if medical malpractice causes the death of unborn life<\/a>, the health care provider is liable to the formerly pregnant woman only for $250,000<\/a>\u2014even though Texas legislators, like the Iowa-based Catholic hospital, claim to believe in the sacredness of unborn life. This may be surprising, but it shouldn\u2019t be. Again, apparently not all unborn life is sacred.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Sign up for Slate\u2019s evening newsletter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":47772,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4316],"tags":[26054,105,4348,24386,1106,26053,26055,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-47771","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-healthcare","8":"tag-abortion","9":"tag-health","10":"tag-healthcare","11":"tag-iowa","12":"tag-judiciary","13":"tag-jurisprudence","14":"tag-reproductive-rights","15":"tag-uk","16":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114395358372656187","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47771","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47771\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/47772"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}