By Gualberto Garcia Jones, Esq.— If this case is successful, Alabama could punish abortion clinics and pharmaceutical companies under its wrongful death law to prevent them from continuing to profit from the killing of pre-born children…
- The state has recognized the father as an interested party (the personal representative of the estate of the deceased child).
- The case is being brought against both the clinic and the pharmaceutical company and if successful, could drive abortionists out of the state for fear of being sued.
- The case is also being brought under the wrongful death law of Alabama, which clearly recognizes the pre-born child as a person from the moment of conception.
Parental rights and responsibilities of fathers
In Alabama, as in the rest of the country, both biological parents are responsible to pay child support and can face severe penalties if they refuse to take financial responsibility. Usually, child support laws are used to force fathers to accept this responsibility, so many fathers have used legal abortion to avoid it. But what happens when a father wants to care for his child and the mother wants to abort? Currently, federal courts have ruled that a woman can choose to have the child killed through abortion for any reason, including economic reasons, but give the father no say in the matter. This is precisely what happened to the plaintiff in this case, Ryan Magers.
In early 2017, Ryan Magers’ girlfriend informed him that she was pregnant and that he was the father. However, as much as he pleaded with her to keep the child, she insisted on abortion. On February 10, 2017, she proceeded to kill his child through a chemical abortion. In Ryan’s own words, he has brought this case for his child and “for the men who actually want to have their baby.”
Personhood of the pre-born child
Alabama has the strongest state-law precedents in the country when it comes to the rights of pre-born children. In a long line of cases, the Alabama Supreme Court has made clear that the pre-born child is a person and must be treated equally. In Hamilton v. Scott (2012), the Court held that the Alabama wrongful death law applied to pre-born children, not just after viability, but from conception. In the Ankrom, Hicks, and Kimbrough (2013-2014) cases, the Court held that, for purposes of the law that punishes exposing children to toxic drugs, the term “child” includes pre-born children. Just last year, in Phillips v. Alabama (2018), the Court ruled that the pre-born child is a person in the context of fetal homicide. In a concurring opinion to the majority opinion in Phillips v. Alabama, Justice Tom Parker (who is now Chief Justice) boldly called on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Wrongful death by abortion
- It recognizes that Baby Roe was a person with a claim for wrongful death by abortion.
- It recognizes that the father has the right to bring the case on behalf of his deceased pre-born child.
In most states, wrongful death lawsuits can take into consideration medical bills, lost earning capacity, and other factors, but in Alabama, wrongful death lawsuits are meant exclusively to punish the defendant for their wrongful behavior and to deter similar conduct by others. This means that, if this case is successful, Alabama law could punish abortion clinics and pharmaceutical companies under the wrongful death law to prevent them from continuing to profit from the killing of pre-born children.
As undercover videos of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of aborted baby parts showed us in 2015, the driving factor of the abortion industry is their financial bottom line. A victory in this case would mean a severe blow where it hurts the abortion industry the most—their bank account.
Gualberto Garcia Jones, Esq., is the president of Personhood Alliance and is a licensed attorney in the Commonwealth of Virginia.