Bill O’Reilly had on his December 12 program a girl – still a girl – who underwent an abortion in Kansas when she was fourteen years old. She described all the terrible results of that on national television – depression, suicidal thoughts, promiscuity, eating disorders and more – because the doctor did not explain that burning her unborn child to death with saline and then having her dispose of her baby as if she was defecating might cause her permanent harm.
This doctor did not tell this girl, impregnated at age thirteen and enticed into prenatal infanticide at age fourteen, about all of the medical risks of her actions. He did not inform her that the psychiatric costs might be the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. He rather recommended that she do the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, with the further prescription that she do so until the day she died. Or perhaps he did the medical equivalent of recommending that she take a large dose of crack cocaine and become hopelessly addicted to the grave (because murdering one’s babies is irrevocable in terms of psychiatric trauma.)
Is malpractice involving abortion constitutionally protected? If it is, then many of the arguments used by abortionists and their groupies vanish: Why could not an abortionist perform his crime with a coat hanger in a back alley, as long as he has a medical degree? Every other type of physician or medical service provider gets sued for real or imagined errors in judgment. This doctor did not make an error in judgment. His Nazified eugenics factory does not appear to even pretend to exercise judgment for patients, but rather implement part of a master plan of social engineering.
What would happen, I would, if the young lady who bravely appeared with O’Reilly sued him? Would the good people of Kansas find his icy indifference to the welfare of his young patients “cute”? Would they be enchanted that this Kansan Mengele not only murdered an unborn baby but scarred a fourteen year old girl for life?
It would be an interesting test case. Two or three Supreme Court justices with a crush on nihilism would predictably defend any legalized murder, but the whole question of malpractice would raise another issue. The Left thrives on credentials, which they – amazingly! – seem always to control. So the hapless and noble physicians who get sued for prescribing aspirin over the phone are put in one camp, because they are actually trying to do good, while all the other credentialed nobility demands when accused of abuse of privilege what members of the House of Lords did: to be tried by “God and my peers!” So, a member of the House of Lords accused of murder could escape the jury system of commoners, and have his trial in the House of Lords.
Thankfully, our Constitution specifically denied titles of nobility to any American, so credentialed Leftists would have to stand with the riff-raff in any suit for malpractice. And what, exactly, is malpractice? It is when experts – especially experts who use their credentials and position to gain some special prerogatives from government – perform the tasks for which they have these special privileges incompetently (or worse than incompetently.)
What other professionals who, like the Kansan abortionist, have special powers granted them by the state denied to us plebeians, but who ruin lives with impunity – is there a way that we can bring them to justice? Why not expand the definition of professional malpractice to include them? Those who call themselves “journalists” and demand special protections should be held to the same standards of malpractice as other professionals. So when Dan Rather uses forged military records to try to influence a presidential election, he should be subject to lawsuits by his “clients” – those who watch CBS Evening News – for malpractice. When journalists must treat the public like a doctor treats a patient, then much good will follow. They will have to be honest and honorable.
What about expanding that definition of malpractice even farther to include those “doctors” (PhD doctors) who teach our children in universities? The malpractice of professors causes destructive delusions that last decades, sometimes whole lifetimes. Should not mad doctors like Ward Churchill be held accountable for their malpractice? The left loves to sue for malpractice. Perhaps it is just the wrong people who are being sued. Sue the doctors of the left, and the left will stop loving litigation.
Bruce Walker has been a published author in print and in electronic media since 1990. He is a regular contributor to WebCommentary, Conservative Truth, American Daily, Enter Stage Right, Intellectual Conservative, NewsByUs and Men’s News Daily. His first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie by Outskirts Press was published in January 2006.