Alabama Supreme Court Rules Unborn Baby Is a Person.
Is the Alabama Supreme Courtroom Looking for the Right Case to Strike A Blow Against Roe v. Wade?
Prepared past Christina May Bolin
Nov 6, 2020
On October 30, 2020, the Alabama Supreme Court released its stance in Ryan Magers, individually and on behalf of Baby Roe, a deceased unborn child 5. Alabama Women's Middle Reproductive Alternatives, LLC, Alabama Supreme Court opinion number 1190010. In this case, Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of his unborn child. Per Magers, he learned that his girlfriend was pregnant and advised her that he wanted to keep the baby. She went to the Alabama Women'due south Centre at approximately 6 weeks pregnant wherein she was prescribed an abortifacient, thus terminating the pregnancy. Magers sued the Alabama Women's Center for wrongful death as personal representative of the manor of Baby Roe also naming fictitious parties including the pharmaceutical manufacturer of the abortifacient[1]. The trial court dismissed the complaint and Magers appealed.
Ane Argument
Magers presented only one argument for consideration by the Supreme Court: Whether the trial courtroom erred in ruling that "the manor of a kid killed in utero cannot sue the abortion providers for wrongful death." Equally the Supreme Court in its per curiam opinion cited, the entirety of Magers argument is below:
Under Alabama law, an unborn kid is a legal person and the estate of a child who was killed past ballgame in utero tin can sue the ballgame providers (et al.) for wrongful decease. Ala. Act 2017-188 (to be codified in Ala. Const. 1901); § 1, Ala. Const. 1901; § vi-5-391, Ala. Code 1975; § 13A-6-1(a) (three), Ala. Code 1975; § 13A-5-40 (10), Ala. Lawmaking 1975; § 13A-5-49(ix), Ala. Code 1975; § 26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975; § 26-22-1(a), Ala. Code 1975; Ex parte Phillips, No. 1160403 (Ala. Oct. nineteen, 2018), sideslip op. at 41, 70-71; Hamilton v. Scott, No. 1150377 (Ala. Mar. ix, 2018) (Hamilton II), sideslip op. at 11; Stinnett v. Kennedy, 232 And so. 3d 202, 203, 215 (Ala. 2016); Ex parte Hicks, 153 So. 3d 53, 66-72, 84 (Ala. 2014); Ex parte Ankrom, 152 And so. 3d 397, 411, 421, 429, 439 (Ala. 2013); Hamilton v. Scott, 97 So. 3d 728, 734 n.4, 737, 739 (Ala. 2012) (Hamilton I); Mack v. Carmack, 79 So. 3d 597, 599, 600, 607, 611 (Ala. 2011) (per curiam); Zaide five. Koch, 952 So. 2d 1072, 1082 (Ala. 2006); Gentry v. Gilmore, 613 And then. 2d 1241, 1249 (Ala. 1993) (Maddox, J., dissenting); Ankrom v. Country, 152 And then. 3d 373, 382 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). Therefore, the trial court should be reversed.
Two Sentences
To be clear, the entirety of the argument consisted of those two sentences[2]. The Court, noting the complete deficiency of statement and failure to comply with Rule 28 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, denied the appeal on procedural grounds. The Court fix forth a reasoned opinion every bit to the insufficiency of the argument and the rigors of the Rule 28 requirements.
While it is certainly noteworthy that this appeal was lost as the result of the well-nigh incomprehensible failure to properly make an appellate argument, the more interesting aspect of this stance really lies in its existence. The Alabama Supreme Court has done a truly admirable job of plowing through the volume of cases information technology sees. As a necessary result, the majority of decisions affirming the trial court'south ruling are issued without opinion. Indeed, those that are denied on procedural grounds usually contain a statement by the Court citing the deficiency and affirming the trial court ruling. Hither, Justice Mitchell's special concurring opinion is perhaps the actual import and noteworthiness of the opinion.
Justice Mitchell'due south Special Concurring Opinion
Justice Mitchell wrote that he took this "opportunity to betoken out what I consider to be several serious problems with [Roe v. Wade and its progeny]." Justice Mitchell goes on to explicate why he believes Roe five. Wade lacks constitutional back up. In what may exist characterized as his terminal statement, he states that "Roe . . . hamstring[southward] states as they seek to prevent human tragedy and suffering." He closes by respectfully urging the United States Supreme Courtroom to overrule Roe v. Wade and for "other courts across the state to raise their judicial voices, as appropriate, by pointing out the ramble infirmities of Roe and Casey and request the court to overrule those highly regrettable decisions."
Chief Justice Parker and Justices Bolin and Wise concurred in this special concurrence.
A Telephone call to Arms or an Invitation?
Clearly, Justice Mitchell sounds a call to arms to other members of the judiciary, but could this as well be construed as an invitation for cases in which this Courtroom might have the opportunity make its bear upon on Roe v. Wade? This action was couched every bit a wrongful death action. The Courtroom never had to address the claim of the merits – and consequently the merits of the response – because the appellant's cursory was then procedurally deficient. This case created the perfect vehicle for this kind of special concurring opinion. Given Justice Mitchell'southward concurrence, this Court seems to actively be looking for the right case to raise its "judicial voice," and potentially render a judicial accident to Roe v. Wade. A wrongful death case, such as this ane, may be a roundabout style of getting the result the Justice Mitchell, at least, seeks. However, if the Courtroom was presented with a procedurally advisable case, all indications are that this Court would jump at the opportunity. The question becomes, will this Court get the opportunity and given the current U.s.a. Supreme Court, what will happen adjacent?
[ane] The complaint is the barest minimum of notice pleading. Plaintiff does not fix forth under which theory of wrongful death he alleged. Thus, information technology is unclear if the example was medical malpractice, pharmaceutical malpractice, general negligence, products liability, etc.
[2] Those two sentences in the brief were copied from the complaint.
About Christian & Smal
Christian & Small LLP represents a diverse clientele throughout Alabama, the Southeast, and the nation with clients ranging from individuals and closely-held businesses to Fortune 500 corporations. By matching highly experienced lawyers with specific client needs, Christian & Small develops innovative, effective, and efficient solutions for clients. With offices in Birmingham, metro-Jackson, Mississippi, and the Alabama Gulf Declension, Christian & Small focuses on the areas of litigation and business, is a fellow member of the International Society of Primerus Law Firms, and is the only Alabama-based fellow member house in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity. Our corporate social responsibility program is focused on education, and variety is one of Christian & Small'southward core values. P
No representation is made that the quality of legal services to exist performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed past other lawyers.
Source: https://csattorneys.com/2020/11/06/is-the-alabama-supreme-court-looking-for-the-right-case-to-strike-a-blow-against-roe-v-wade/
0 Response to "Alabama Supreme Court Rules Unborn Baby Is a Person."
Post a Comment