Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center

Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (N.D. Fla. 1999), is a case in the United States regarding reproductive rights. In particular, the case explored the limits of a woman's right to choose her medical treatment in light of fetal rights at the end of pregnancy.

Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Full case namePemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center, Inc.
DecidedOctober 13, 1999
Docket nos.4:98-cv-00161
Citation(s)66 F. Supp. 2d 1247
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingRobert Lewis Hinkle

Pemberton had a previous c-section (vertical incision), and with her second child attempted to have a VBAC (vaginal birth after c-section). However, since she could not find any doctor to assist her in this endeavor, she labored at home, with a midwife.

When a doctor she had approached about a related issue at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center found out, he and the hospital sued to force her to get a c-section.

The court held that the rights of the fetus at or near birth outweighed the rights of Pemberton to determine her own medical care. She was physically forced to stop laboring, and taken to the hospital, where a c-section was performed.

Her suit against the hospital was dismissed. The court held that a cesarean section at the end of a full-term pregnancy was here deemed to be medically necessary by doctors to avoid a substantial risk that the fetus would die during delivery due to uterine rupture, a risk of 4-6% according to the hospital's doctors and 2% according to Pemberton's doctors. Furthermore, the court held that a state's interest in preserving the life of an unborn child outweighed the mother's constitutional interest of bodily integrity. The court held that Roe v. Wade was not applicable, because bearing an unwanted child is a greater intrusion on the mother's constitutional interests than undergoing a cesarean section to deliver a child that the mother affirmatively desires to deliver. The court further distinguished In re A.C. by stating that it left open the possibility that a non-consenting patient's interest would yield to a more compelling countervailing interest in an "extremely rare and truly exceptional case." The court then held this case to be such.

Later case involving Tallahassee

In March 2009, Samantha Burton through her pro bono attorney, David H. Abrams, filed an appeal of a Leon County Circuit Court order forcing her to remain in Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and to submit to any medical care deemed necessary for the health of her fetus. The ACLU and the ACLU of Florida filed a friend-of-the-court brief against the state of Florida (Burton vs. Florida) opposing the Court's decision to force a pregnant woman to remain hospitalized at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital against her will and prohibiting her from getting a second opinion.[1] State Attorney, Willie Meggs, who appointed counsel for Tallahassee Memorial Hospital as a special prosecutor to represent the State at the trial court level justified the intervention by stating: " "When it involves an unborn child we become the representative of the child when nobody else will represent it."[2]

See also

References
  1. "Burton v. State of Florida - ACLU Amicus Brief". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 24 May 2019.
  2. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-01-21. Retrieved 2010-01-27.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.