Player2 said:
Pineapple said:
I'm not terribly used to American legal language, but I think that is an incorrect interpretation. Your statement is a continuation of
"(b) A cause of action for civil damages against a person who has purposely violated this subchapter may be maintained by:"
Together, the two mean that if the person who had the abortion was a minor, the parents may sue the doctor.
I have no idea what's happening in this thread. People are following an utterly rabid interpretation of the law, and then assuming the lawmaker are idiots based on their strange interpretation.
This is a somewhat odd law, but it's by no means diabolical.
|
@bolded: Now think what happens if the father of a minor raped said minor so is also the father of the unborn child.
|
The father would go to jail, then loose the power to consent over the kid, then the mother can do wha ever she wants. You fail to realise, that just because the father has a say in it, dosent mean he will by default win the case, or even have a case. More often than not, the court will still side with the mother.
