Alabama's Wrongful Death Laws Protect All Life (Is the Alabama Supreme Court on a Collision Course with Federal Abortion Law)
Last week, the Alabama Supreme Court issued its decision in Hamilton v. Scott. The case involved a claim for wrongful death under Alabama law. Yet, this was not a normal wrongful death claim. Instead, it was a wrongful death claim alleging that a doctor caused the death of an unborn child who was not yet viable.
Alabama law already allowed claims for the wrongful death of an unborn child where the death occurred after the child reached viability. In Hamilton and the earlier case of Mack v. Carmack (issued last September), the Alabama Supreme Court extended the protections of Alabama's wrongful death laws to unborn children prior to their viability.
This case is sure to spark some debate on an already heated issue. The on-line story from The Huntsville Times about this case already had over 125 comments at the time I read it. I am pro life. So, I applaud a decision that confirms the value our law places on all life. It will be interesting to see if a growing conflict occurs between this decision and current Federal law.
While I agree with the Court in this decision, I remain concerned that our courts and legislatures are still failing to fully value life. I say this as our legislature debates a bill that would greatly harm disabled workers (who already are often forced to exist below poverty level). I say this as our Federal government has far too often failed in its mission to protect us from dangerous drugs marketed to the public, a topic I have discussed on many occasions. The value and protection of life at all points should be a fundamental concern of our laws.
Alabama's Wrongful Death Laws Protect All Life could prove to be a controversial subject.
Put another way, you believe "[the suppression of women] should be a fundamental concern of our laws." Nice. I like to see lawyers put their controversial beliefs for all the see on the internet. If you're trying to catch a bunch of nut jobs, then it's great marketing. If you're trying to catch the rest of us, it might not work quite as well.
Corporate Jets Lawsuit,
I agree that this could be a controversial subject. It is a subject of great policy debate. Also, from a purely legal standpoint, our Court has not only entered the policy debate surrounding abortion but also made a decision that impacts Alabama tort law and intersects Federal law. That's what makes it such an interesting topic to discuss.
MB,
This is a difficult issue. Many reasonable people have different beliefs on the topic. My goal with this blog is to address interesting legal issues. What could be more interesting from a legal standpoint than a single decision from Alabama's Supreme Court dealing with abortion, personal injury law, damages, science, and Federal law, all at the same time?
I respect and appreciate that you may have a different opinion on such an important issue. What concerns me is the lack of civility in your comments. I feel strongly that discussions should be honest and civil. We see and hear too much negativity and name-calling in our public debates. While I respect your ultimate opinion on the issues, I would urge you to reconsider how you refer to those whose opinions differ. How can you simply label a belief held by a substantial number of Americans as "controversial" when it differs from yours? How can you label those who disagree with you as "nut jobs" simply because of an opinion on one issue? How can you take an opinion on one single issue(from our Court or anyone else)and make assumptions as to all other issues affecting women?
Again, I find an Alabama Supreme Court decision on an issue that has been openly debated for many years to be a noteworthy topic for a discussion. Instead of negativity and name-calling, let's have a friendly discussion.