Winning ACP (Abortion Cerebral Palsy law suits, Part II March 2006

      ( WALLS (Win Abortion Liability Law Suits)  #3  March 2006 )
                           Brent Rooney

     In Part I 'Alice' had an ELECTIVE surgical IA (vacuum aspiration)
before age 17,  a very preterm birth (<33 weeks' gestation) delivery
later, and a 2nd delivery under 33 weeks' gestation resulting in
'Carl' who was diagnosed with CP (Cerebral Palsy).  'Alice' sued
her abortion provider 'Doe' for causing "Carl's" CP and boosted
her odds of winning the claim by asserting that her IA was CI
(ContraIndicated), since as a CHILDLESS woman her risk of BC
(Breast Cancer) was elevated by the SIA (Surgical Induced Abortion).

Can 'Alice' win her Abortion-CP law suit before an HONEST court?
[actually, "Alice's" infant with the CP is the official plaintiff]

     The defendant doctor, 'Dr. Jack Doe', will likley mount a
very vigorous defence, since a successful CP law suit can result
in a multi-million dollar legal damage award and hurt "Dr. Doe's"
reputation as a skilled doctor.  Here are just some of the defences
'Doe' could use:

     1. "No one knows what THE true cause of CP is"
        [There is no EXCLUSIVE cause of CP, so this argument is bogus]
     2. "'Alice' had other risk factors (e.g.s. poor diet,
        poor obstetric care, substance abuse) that were
        the true cause of the infant's CP"
        [This argument could be true, but since the IA procedure
        was CONTRAINDICATED, the burden of proof is on the defence]
     3. "Preterm birth is not a cause of CP, but the reverse,
        with CP being the cause of the preterm birth"
        [PTB (Preterm Birth) is an accepted cause of CP; the burden
        of proving the reverse would be on the defence team]
     4. "There are no significant studies finding that women
        with prior IAs have a higher risk of newborn with CP"
        [No study has actually asked the question, "Does an
        IA boost CP risk in subsequent newborn?" It is also
        true that no study has ever asked the question, "Are
        chess players who are very drunk generally not as good
        as sober chess players?"  I.E. 60 significant studies
        have reported that IAs boost the risk of later premature
        births; AND premature birth is a known risk factor for
        CP.  Q.E.D.]

Let's assume, for purposes of this article, that the defence can
not demonstrate that other risk factors were the likely cause of
the CP.  What are the main factors favoring a win by 'Alice'/'Carl'?

   1. The SIA was CI (ContraIndicated) via the Breast Cancer risk
   2. The SIA (a vacuum aspiration) was an ELECTIVE (i.e. unnecessary)
      procedure, implying much higher standards of INFORMED CONSENT
   3. The PTB risk of the SIA was UNCONSENTED, since the the SIA
      consent form did not mention PTB risk [as of 2006 no forms do]
   4. 'ICE' (Incompetent CErvix) is a known risk of SIA
   5. 'Alice' has an 'ICE' (i.e. very weakened cervix)

The 'Smoking Gun': 'ICE'

     The 'door' to the womb (i.e. uterus) is termed cervix. An SIA
risks stretching and tearing muscles.  If the result of the SIA is
significant damage to the cervix, the cervix may well be 'incompetent',
meaning that in a subsequent pregnancy the cervix will open too
early, leading to a premature birth.  'ICE' stands for 'Incompetent
CErvix'.  There is no debate in the medical community that 'ICE'
is a PTB risk factor.  'ICE' is a 'double whammy' PTB risk.  One
of the functions of the cervix is to exclude 'germs' (pathogenic
microorganisms) from the uterus (i.e. womb).  'ICE' means higher
risk of an infected uterus.  INFECTION is also an accepted CP risk
factor.  So 'ICE' implies weak muscles and womb infection risk.
'ICE' is a 'SMOKING GUN' CP risk factor imparted by SIAs (Surgical
Induced Abortions).

'ICE' and consent IA forms

     In the Appendix is a copy of an IA consent form from a
San Antonio, Texas IA clinic.  It admits to 'ICE' risk but makes
no mention of PTB risk!  Many IA consent forms admit to 'ICE',
but other forms will use terms such as 'damaged cervix' or
'lacerated cervix'.  Your author is unaware of any IA consent
form that lists the PTB risk of SIAs.  An honest court will find
the omission of POSSIBLE PTB risk on the consent form as dishonest
and suggestive of medical negligence.

The key to victory: Expert Witnesses

     For 'Carl' to win his ACP case, he will need expert witnesses.
But before his lawyer 'Larry' takes "Carl's" case, he will want
to see if 'Carl' has a reasonable chance of winning.  'Larry' should
talk to recognized PTB and CP experts.  Some of these experts may
have 'hidden agendas' (pro-life, pro-choice, etc).  Some suggested
questions for 'Larry' to ask PTB and CP experts:

     1. [holding a copy of "Carl's" consent form in his hand]
        Is "Incompetent Cervix" a risk factor for PTB?
     2. [holding a copy of "Carl's" consent form in his hand]
        Is "Incompetent Cervix" a risk factor for CP?
     3. Is an interuterine infection a risk factor for CP?
     4. Is scar tissue (i.e adhessions) in the uterus a risk
        factor for PTB
     5. Can you cite any fundamental flaws in the APB (Ab. Preterm
        Birth) summary by Rooney and Calhoun in their 2003
        published summary article?
        ( URL: )
        [If he has not already read it, ask him to and email you
        his/her evaluation of that summary analysis]
     6. How would he/she DEFEND against such a law suit?
     7. What are the best counters to the defense that he/she suggested?

There are many more questions that could be asked. Feel free
to email tough questions to me: Brent Rooney  .

Who says that SIAs boost PTB risk?

Here is a short list:

Dr. Emile Papiernik (world's most respected PTB expert)
Prof. Barbara Luke  (her 1995 book is the 'Bible' on preemie prevention)
Judith Lumley (PhD) (pioneer PTB researcher; openly hostile to pro-lifers)
Dr. Philip Steer    (Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of
                     Obstetrics and Gynaecology & who is 'pro-choice')

Dr. Philip Steer on 16 Jan. 2006 admitted that the evidence for APB was
"overwhelming".  I agree.


Brent Rooney
Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
Vancouver, Canada

Appendix:  San Antonio, Texas   consent form



 To the patient: you have the right, as a patient, to be informed
about your conditions & the recommended surgical, medical or
diagnostic procedure to be used so that you may make the
decision whether to undergo the procedure after knowing the
risks & hazards involved.  This disclosure is not meant to scare
or alarm you; it is simply an effort to make you better informed
so you may give or withhold your consent to the procedure.  I
voluntarily request Dr. Dave Kittren &/or Dr. Marco Lopez as my
physician(s), & such other health care providers as deemed
necessary, to treat my condition which has been explained to me
as PREGNANCY.  I have been informed, understand & have considered
my other alternatives such as continuing the pregnancy and
keeping the baby or continuing the pregnancy and choosing adoption.
I also understand that the following surgical, medical &/or
diagnostic procedures are planned for me & I voluntarily consent &
authorize these procedures: TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY or SUCTION
CURRETAGE or ABORTION. I understand that my physician may discover
other or different conditions which require additional or different
procedures than those planned.  I authorize my physician(s), the
clinic, the staff, and other such health care providers as deemed
necessary to perform such other procedures which are advisable in
their professional judgment.  I consent to the use of blood or blood
products as deemed necessary.  I understand no warranty or guarantee
has been made to me as to result of care.  Just as there may be
risks & hazards in continuing my present condition without treatment,
there are also risks & hazards related to the performance of the
medications, surgical, medical &/or diagnostic procedures such as: the
potential for infection; blood clots in veins, heart, brain or lungs;
hemorrhage; allergic reactions & even death.  I also realize that the
following risks & hazards may occur in connection with this particular

     (a) Bleeding with the possibility of requiring further surgery
         &/or hysterectomy to control;
     (b) Perforation (hole in) uterus &/or damage to the bladder,
         bowel, blood vessel;
     (c) Abdominal incision & operation to correct the injury;
     (d) Infection of female organs: uterus, tubes, ovaries;
     (e) Sterility or being incapable of bearing children;
     (f) Incompetent cervix;
     (g) Failure to remove all products of the conception;
     (h) Continuation of the pregnancy;
     (i) Depression or "the blues";
     (j) Post abortion stress syndrome;
     (k) Possible increased lifetime risk of breast cancer.

I understand that anesthesia involves additional risks & hazards
but I request the use of anesthetics for the relief & protection
from pain during both the planned & additional procedures.  I
realize the anesthesia may have to be changed possibly without
explanation to me. I understand that certain complications may
result from the use of any anesthesia, including respiratory
problems, drug reaction, paralysis, brain damage, or even death.
I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about my condition,
alternative forms of anesthesia & treatment, risks of nontreatment,
the procedure to be used, & information to give this informed



 Signature                  Date              Time

 Witness                               Date

 [ end of consent form, such a form was used on 30
   October 2001 at:

 [in San Antonio, Texas, USA] ]