Really? This is the best you can do on this subject? Ugh.

These pretzels are makin' me THIRDsty!!

Not pertinent or newsworthy.

HTH.

This is fascinating. No, seriously, it is. Totally!

Nice consistent piece.

Wow - does anyone think fetus' should be able to sue their Mom's if they have Fetal alcohol syndrome.

(Fetus on the stand): But for your boozing Mom, I would not be a deformed and partially retarded mess.

Wow -- the ATL commentator who accused the Obama campaign of falsely claiming Obama didn't write anything, and who linked to a whole bunch of PDFs of pieces Obama wouldn't want to admit authoring, was right!
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/barack_obama_harvard_law_review.php#comment-623505

Except I don't see the one Obama actually wrote linked to. Is somebody going to post a PDF of it?

Why is the Obama campaign so afraid of Obama's past writings?

"does anyone think fetus' should be able to sue their Mom's if they have Fetal alcohol syndrome."

Should a fetus be able to sue a doctor for malpractice that malforms the fetus? If you answer yes to that, why should the two situations be different?

Odd that a two year association with the Harvard Law Review yields no articles and just one case comment. Harvard Law Review is more of an honorary title?

What about suing your mom for getting pregnant by a loser (<V50) and thus ruining your life before it starts?

#9 - #7 here. It was a silly question. I posted it more b/c I thought the idea of a fetus testifying on the stand about a boozing Mom hilarious.

Lighten up!

I used to write anonymous case comments about a fetus' right to sue its mother all the time in high school. It was no big deal.

- Frat stud

The Obama campaign is such a bunch of liars. How could they think we wouldn't find out about this?

How would the fetus pay the bill?

Should Fetus' be able to sue Fathers for Battery?

(Fetus on Stand): But for your super schlong pounding my fragile and developing head, I would not have brain damage, Cerebral palsy, and night terrors.

13, you totally bungled that.

15, contingency. John Edwards will take the case.

cite?

I'm looking forward to seeing this thread turn into an Obama v. McCain debate, and to read all of the dumb, thoughtless crap that the conservatives write about these candidates. That always makes for an entertaining Friday.

Dear #9:

For the same reason the campaign tried to seal Michelle Obama's senior thesis until after the Nov. election. (And I AM serious.)

“The thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" and written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, in 1985, has been the subject of much conjecture on the blogosphere and elsewhere in recent weeks, as it has been "temporarily withdrawn" from Princeton's library until after this year's presidential election in November.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thesis text:

Part I http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf

Part II http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_26-501.pdf

Part III http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_51-751.pdf

Part VI: http://dyn.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_76-981.pdf

Bottom Line:

Everyone at Princeton, students and professors included, looked at her funny because she is black. Very bitter. Huge chip on her shoulder.

i have really been hoping that the new editor will not have such a blatantly obvious political slant--or, better yet, will just report on the business of the firms, since i already have a link to drudge and a billion other hack politico news sites.

19 is a prophet! See comment 20.

(Fetus Anchoring "Meet the Press") Senator Obama, as we sit her now -- a fetus interviewing you about your qualifications for President -- do you still stand behind your case comment at the HLR?

Dear 19 and 22:

I am a Democrat living in SF-CA, , NOT a conservative. The world is not black and white.

--#20

24,

Toby Keith is supposedly a Democrat too.

#22

Cite please!!!

The real meat to this story is that Obama chose to write about a state court case rejecting a relatively zany legal principle. It's an exceedingly odd choice for a case comment. Why would he have chosen to write about such an obscure point within the hot-button field of abortion?

Fetus to 190!

Dear 25:

Yea, but I do not self describe as “White Trash with Money”, and Toby Keith has not contributed the allowed maximum ($2,300) to HRC’s campaign. In fact, according to the Fund Race 2008 database, Toby Keith has given zero to any political candidate.
An d I am a REGISTERED Democrat who voted for Democratic candidates in the California Primary.

As I said, the world is not black and white. Democrats can question Democratic candidates who try to hide things in order to conceal their true views and positions just as well as Republicans can.

21 - This is a legitimate topic for a legal blog (and not as much of a stretch as the Obama tax plan coverage).

The WSJ also has a post on it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/22/unearthed-obamas-early-view-on-the-right-of-a-fetus/

Don't be so defensive about your beloved Obama.

29 is getting defensive -- 29 = Toby Keith.

Dear 30:

I would add that ATL beat the WSJ Law Blog to the post by almost an hour.

24 - I didn't say that liberals couldn't also write dumb, thoughtless crap.

-19

103 Harv. L. Rev. 823.

This is insightful? That a fetus doesn;t have standing is more than apparent, it's not a person, it's a parasite inside of a person.

WTF? ATL sinks another nothc.

This is insightful? That a fetus doesn;t have standing is more than apparent, it's not a person, it's a parasite inside of a person.

WTF? ATL sinks another notch. You're not only not breaking news, you're pandering to your own audience!

Do better.

Fund Race 2008 data base (who has given how much to which candidate:

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/index.php

(Fetus interviewing #35) As a fetus, asking you a direct question, do you #35, still believe that I am a parasite?

Talking Fetus' = Comedy GOLD!

abajournal scoops ATL - Anita Cannibal - porn star for Wicked is a 1L.

20. You're an idiot. What would Obama be "hiding" with this case note? And why does it matter what his wife wrote 20 freaking years ago?

This is why I hate my country and I hate democracy. Morons vote based on moronic criterion. And those morons end up affecting my life because legislatures in turn pass moronic legislation, which is then signed into law by our moronic president. McCain and Obama are worlds apart on policy. On most major issues of the day, they disagree. Why not vote for the candidate who has policies you agree with most instead of trying to decide who to vote for based on what one of their spouses wrote 20 years ago? Really, I don’t care which one you vote for but at least vote on reasons that are not moronic. Please.

Oh, morons in my high school used to vote for president based on moronic reasons all the time, it was no big deal.

Dear 19/33:

What you said was: “I'm looking forward to…read[intg] all of the dumb, thoughtless crap that the CONSERVATIVES write about these candidates.”

News flash: Anything and everything that questions your chosen candidate is not necessarily “dumb, thoughtless crap”.

Here is another one for you. After Obama left the Illinois State legislature, he shit canned all of his official papers—odd for a man with presidential ambitions.

Unless he wanted to stealth his way into the White House.

Hint: there is a pattern. Legal scholar with no published writings. Former legislator with no archived papers. Wife’s bitter thesis withdrawn until after the election.

Dear 32:

I would add that Volokh beat ATL by an hour and a half.

Kill joy.

38 - Look Who's Talking and subsequent sequels.

...Inside of Kirstie Alley's vagina, a talking fetus is distinctly NOT funny.

So let me get this right: fetal rights are the only topic that Obama is unprepared to discuss and that he calls "above my pay grade" (all while campaigning for the world's highest pay grade), but fetal rights are also the only topic that he took the time to research and comment on for HLR? Yeah, that makes sense.

Co-sign 40.

41, you probably didn't do very well on your LSAT. To say "I'm looking forward to reading all of the dumb, thoughtless crap that the conservatives write about these candidates" does not imply that conservatives are the only ones that write dumb, thoughtless crap. You can still be a liberal and write dumb, thoughtless crap, like you just did (twice).

Dear 40:

If it does not matter, then why did the Obama campaign instruct Princeton University Library to withdraw the thesis from public view until just after the November presidential election?

Obviously, the professionals thought it would matter, and they are right because it does matter.

The country is just getting to know the Obama's. Past writings provide insight.

Many (like me) find that glimpse into Michelle Obama's thought process unflattering and unattractive. (I would add that if Michelle Obama wants to bear racial animus toward whites that is her right.)

Some, like me, think that Obama destroying his state legislative papers and being close to the vest about past writings is a red flag. As is not being forthcoming about what legal papers he has written and where they are located.

Hey, where are McCain's past writings? Oh that's right, he's a fuggin idiot so he hasn't written anything.

My dear #49:

Not so fast. In addition to the considerable body of legislation McCain authored in a long and distingushed legislative career:

Writings by McCain
Books

. Faith of My Fathers by John McCain, (Random House, August 1999) ISBN 0-375-50191-6 (later made into the 2005 television film Faith of My Fathers)

• Worth the Fighting For by John McCain, (Random House, September 2002) ISBN 0-375-50542-3
• Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life by John McCain, (Random House, April 2004) ISBN 1-4000-6030-3

• Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember by John McCain, Mark Salter (Random House, October 2005) ISBN 1-4000-6412-0

• Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them by John McCain, Mark Salter (Hachette, August 2007) ISBN 978-0-446-58040-3
Articles and forewords

• "How the POW's Fought Back", by John S. McCain III, Lieut. Commander, U.S. Navy, U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 (reprinted for web under different title in 2008). Reprinted in Reporting Vietnam, Part Two: American Journalism 1969–1975 (The Library of America, 1998) ISBN 1-883-01159-0

• "The Code of Conduct and the Vietnam Prisoners of War", by John S. McCain, Commander USN, National War College, 1974-04-08

• Foreword by John McCain to A Code to Keep: The True Story of America's Longest-Held Civilian POW in Vietnam by Ernest C. Brace (St. Martin's Press, 1988) ISBN 0-709-03560-8

• Speeches of John McCain, 1988–2000

• Foreword by John McCain to Glory Denied: The Saga of Jim Thompson, America's Longest-held Prisoner by Tom Philpott (W. W. Norton, 2001) ISBN 0-393-02012-6
• Foreword by John McCain to The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam (Random House, 2001 edition) ISBN 1-588-36098-9
• Foreword by John S. McCain to Unfinished Business: Afghanistan, the Middle East and Beyond – Defusing the Dangers That Threaten America's Security by Harlan Ullman (Citadel Press, June 2002) ISBN 0-8065-2431-6
• Foreword by John McCain and Max Cleland to Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming by Jonathan Shay (Scribner, November 2002) ISBN 0-7432-1156-1
• Foreword by John McCain to Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts by the Editors of Popular Mechanics (Hearst, August 2006) ISBN 1-588-16635-X
• Introduction by John McCain to Pearl Harbor, the Day of Infamy, an Illustrated History by Dan van der Vat (Black Walnut Books, 2007) ISBN 1-897-33028-6
• "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom: Securing America's Future" by John McCain Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007

PDF of Obama case comment via:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/08/barack-obamas-h.html

LOL to #50!! Yeah, I'm sure he "wrote" a word of any legislation. Let's see something that McCain has written that actually reflects some academic or intellectual capability. His P.O.W. experiences are obviously something that he would have been crazy not to write about. But seriously, let's see something that shows that McCain actually has a half decent brain under that combover.

50 = McCain

No, I am not John McCain. But he has my vote at this point.

--50

"No, I am not John McCain" Really?

HTH.

48, you're still a moron who is going to use moron-like criterion to determine who you should vote for. It does not surprise me you wanted Hillary to be president.

20: "the campaign tried to seal Michelle Obama's senior thesis until after the Nov. election. (And I AM serious.)"

You're serious alright, seriously retarded. You have no proof that "the campaign" was sealing the thesis, yet you purport that as if it's a fact. Besides, her thesis wasn't "very bitter." Heck, it wasn't even bitter. Given the state of affairs when she wrote the thesis, however, I'd expect it to be bitter. The fact that it wasn't, IMHO, says volumes about the type of person Michelle Obama was and likely still is.

48: "Why did the Obama campaign instruct Princeton University Library to withdraw the thesis from public view until just after the November presidential election?

This is another fiction. Keep it up you right-wing hacks.

20: "the campaign tried to seal Michelle Obama's senior thesis until after the Nov. election. (And I AM serious.)"

You're serious alright, seriously retarded. You have no proof that "the campaign" was sealing the thesis, yet you purport that as if it's a fact. Besides, her thesis wasn't "very bitter." Heck, it wasn't even bitter. Given the state of affairs when she wrote the thesis, however, I'd expect it to be bitter. The fact that it wasn't, IMHO, says volumes about the type of person Michelle Obama was and likely still is.

48: "Why did the Obama campaign instruct Princeton University Library to withdraw the thesis from public view until just after the November presidential election?

This is another fiction. Keep it up you right-wing hacks.

ah - the messiaBama internet cranks are alive and well

Of course the DaliBama is against suing the mother on behalf of the baby - he's against giving them life-saving treatment all together

BHO-left-NARAL for Pres

BHO-left-of-NARAL for Pres

BHO-left-of-NARAL for Pres

Does the case comment say anything about his VP choice??? I'm sick of waiting.

59 - 61, YOU're calling someone a crank?

Since we're on the subject, why hasn't McSame released his military records???

I'm a pilot and though this is by no means the reason why I refuse to vote for McSame, I can't fathom how someone could crash their plane THREE times in non-combat operations. If you think this was anywhere near the norm, think again. McSame was labelled a REVERSE-ace by his colleagues. I suppose that's the result one would expect from a person who graduated 6th to last from the bottom of his class. So low that, but for his father and grandfather's clout, but for pure nepotism, he never would have been allowed to fly in the Navy.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that McSame can't remember the difference between a Shia and a Sunni? Is it any wonder that he doesn't know how to use a computer? Does it seem at all odd that he can't COUNT how many homes he owns (I don't care how many he has; I care that he doesn't know the number)? The answer, simply, is no. The guy is a dunce and I'm sick and tired of dunces in the WH. We've seen what dunces do!

--- News Flash ---

I just received a text message and it appears a decision has been made. Senator Obama has selected FETUS as his running mate. It is still too early to tell whether Fetus could be the first Female VP.

63 - i seem to be calling you one.

"don't care how many he has; I care that he doesn't know the number"

64 - hey obama tard - ask the messiah how many states he's visited?

Thank you 59, 60, 61, 66, 67. Priceless.

- 19

64 -

Dear pilot T-Bag, they call them blind trusts - required by law. Had McCain answered the question incorrectly, you'd be here screaming that McCain is hiding the number of properties he owns.

Better Questions would be:

Messia, How is it that your property was purchased in part by a felon? How is it that you brother lives in a hut, bigger than 1 of your spare bedrooms?

57/58 -- And the Obama campaign had nothing to with denying media access to the UIC library's files on the Annenberg Project. Right.

TORT LAW - PRENATAL INJURIES - SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES. - STALLMAN v. YOUNGQUIST, 125 ILL. 2d 267, 531 N.E.2d 355 (1988).

Copyright 1990 by the Harvard Law Review Association

Although the issue of a fetus' right to life has received most prominent attention in the abortion debate, a number of states have extended protection to the unborn in other contexts, through both criminal statutes and common law tort doctrines. Indeed, some commentators have urged states to expand the conception of “fetal rights” to permit a fetus to sue its mother in tort for prenatal injuries resulting from the mother's actions during pregnancy. [FN1] In Stallman v. Youngquist, [FN2] the Supreme Court of Illinois rejected such an expansion. The court concluded that a pregnant woman's interest in privacy and bodily integrity, as well as the difficulty in establishing a consistent or just standard of “reasonable” prenatal care, militated against recognizing a fetus' right to sue its mother for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries. Although the court in Stallman dealt exclusively with the fetus' capacity to sue its mother for her negligent behavior during pregnancy, the case raises the broader policy and constitutional considerations that argue against using civil liability to control the behavior of pregnant women.

Bari Stallman was five months pregnant in 1981 when her automobile collided with another car driven by Clarence Youngquist. Her subsequently born daughter, Lindsay Stallman, filed suit against both her mother and Youngquist, and alleged that their negligent driving resulted in serious prenatal injuries that became apparent at birth. [FN3]

*824 The trial court dismissed Lindsay's complaint against her mother after finding that the Illinois parent-child tort immunity doctrine applied to negligence suits between a mother and her fetus. [FN4] Holding that Lindsay should have the opportunity to show that her mother's actions fell outside the ambit of parental tort immunity doctrine, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed. [FN5] On remand, the trial court concluded that the parental tort immunity doctrine did apply to the facts of the case, and granted the mother's motion for summary judgment. [FN6] Once again, the court of appeals reversed. The court partially, abrogated the parental tort immunity doctrine to hold that a fetus, like any minor child, may recover damages in a suit brought against its mother for injuries resulting from the mother's negligence. [FN7]

The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed. Writing for the court, Judge Cunningham found it unnecessary to address the issue of parental tort immunity in ruling that a fetus has no cause of action against its mother for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries. [FN8] In reaching its decision, the court distinguished such suits from precedents that allow fetal suits for harms arising from third-party negligence. [FN9] First, the court pointed out that such causes of action would establish “a legal duty, as opposed to a moral duty, to effectuate the best prenatal environment possible,” [FN10] and would render a mother potentially liable for any act or omission. [FN11] Not only would the creation of such a duty make mother and fetus “legal adversaries from the moment of conception until birth”; [FN12] it would also require the mother “to guarantee” the health of that potential adversary. [FN13]

Second, the court stated that, whereas holding a third party liable for prenatal injuries to a fetus “does not interfere with the defendant's *825 right to control his or her own life,” imposing such liability on a mother “subjects to State scrutiny all the decisions a woman must make” during pregnancy, and “infringes on her right to privacy and bodily autonomy.” [FN14] Third, the absence of any clear, objective standard of due care during pregnancy would create the danger that “prejudicial and stereotypical beliefs about the reproductive abilities of women” [FN15] might skew jury determinations of liability. Finally, noting that “pregnancy does not come only to those women who have within their means all that is necessary to effectuate the best possible prenatal environment,” [FN16] the court suggested that disparities in wealth, education, and access to health services would further prevent the fair application of any legal standard of prenatal care. [FN17]

The Stallman court acknowledged the Illinois legislature's power to establish a mother's legal duty to her fetus, but emphasized the need for “thorough investigation, study and debate” [FN18] prior to such legislative enactment. Even in that case, the court argued, the best way to achieve the laudable public policy of ensuring healthy newborns “is not ... through after-the-fact civil liability in tort for individual mothers, but rather through before-the-fact education of all women and families about prenatal development.” [FN19]

Stallman represents a thoughtful approach to an increasingly heated area of legal controversy. [FN20] The case highlights the unsuitability*826 of fetal-maternal tort suits as vehicles for promoting fetal health; it also indicates the dangers such causes of action present to women's autonomy, and the need for a constitutional framework to constrain future attempts to expand “fetal rights.”

The issues raised in Stallman suggest the difficulties of importing principles applied in fetal-third party suits into the unique realm of the mother-fetus relationship. Suits by a fetus against third parties provide an additional deterrent to unwanted intrusions on a woman's bodily integrity. [FN21] In contrast, fetal-maternal tort suits would have a negligible deterrent effect on most pregnant women, who already have a powerful interest in bearing a healthy child. [FN22] Fetal-maternal suits may satisfy a fetus' immediate compensation interests where the mother carries liability insurance. However, insurers are likely to pass on the costs of maternal liability through higher premiums or restrictive provisions for all women of child-bearing age, and the burdens of compensating injured fetuses may thereby fall disproportionately on women as a group. [FN23]

The difficulties of administering fetal-maternal tort suits, and the dangers such liability presents to the constitutional rights of women, outweigh any putative compensation and deterrence benefits that such suits might bring. In the context of the care of unemancipated children, two factors have made courts extremely reluctant to impose affirmative caretaking obligations on parents. [FN24] First, courts have *827 recognized the profound difficulties in setting consistent standards of “reasonable” parental care that can be applied fairly across a broad spectrum of the population. [FN25] As the Stallman court rightly observed, fetal-maternal tort suits promise far greater problems of standard setting, given the tremendous range of pregnant women's activities that may have a substantial impact on fetal development. [FN26] Courts have also found that the imposition of affirmative duties on parents of minor children may encroach upon the parents' constitutionally protected privacy and child-rearing interests. [FN27] The physical connectedness between mother and fetus suggests that fetal-maternal tort suits affect even more fundamental interests of bodily integrity and privacy, and should thus be subject to even greater constitutional scrutiny.

Unfortunately, the constitutional framework for analyzing future cases or legislation remains unclear. Most proponents and critics of the creation of a fetus' right to sue its mother agree that the approach taken in the Supreme Court's abortion decisions - balancing a woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy against the state's interest in protecting the fetus - provides a starting point for analyzing the constitutionality of fetal-maternal tort suits. [FN28] Commentators also agree that courts should weigh these interests differently in cases where a woman has decided to carry her pregnancy to term, and that the issue of fetal-maternal tort suits therefore demands a separate doctrinal framework. For example, fetal-maternal tort suits might entail far more intrusive scrutiny of a woman's behavior than the scrutiny involved in the discrete regulation of the abortion decision. [FN29] On the other hand, the state may also have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born. [FN30]

*828 Without the benefit of a clear constitutional pronouncement on these issues, the Stallman court rightly concluded that, at least in cases arising out of maternal negligence, women's interests in autonomy and privacy outweigh the dubious policy benefits of fetal-maternal tort suits. However, the more difficult cases - those involving maternal activities that might be considered intentional or reckless infliction of prenatal injuries on the fetus - remain to be decided. [FN31] As these cases arise, states should avoid adopting constitutionally dubious laws in pursuit of ill-conceived strategies to promote fetal health. Expanded access to prenatal education and health care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born into lives of pain and despair.

[FN1] See, e.g., Robertson, Procreative Liberty and the Control of Conception, Pregnancy and Childbirth, 69 Va. L. Rev. 405, 438 (1983); Note, Maternal Tort Liability for Prenatal Injuries, 22 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 747 (1988); see also Beal, “Can I Sue Mommy?” An Analysis of a Woman's Tort Liability for Prenatal Injuries to Her Child Born Alive, 21 San Diego L. Rev. 325 (1984) (analyzing the extension of third-party liability for infliction of prenatal injuries, as well as the parent-child tort immunity doctrine, to fetal-maternal tort suits). One state court has already ruled that a fetus has the right to sue its mother for the negligent infliction of prenatal injury. See Grodin v. Grodin, 102 Mich. App. 396, 301 N.W.2d 869 (1981). Other writers prefer to discuss fetal protection in terms of state policy interests, rather than the concept of “fetal rights.” See, e.g., Note, Maternal Substance Abuse: The Need To Provide Legal Protection for the Fetus, 60 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1209. 1223 (1987) [hereinafter Note, Fetal Protection] (“When a woman has chosen not to obtain an abortion, the state should be able to assert its right to prohibit conduct likely to result in injury in utero.”). For criticism of the “fetal rights” concept, based on the dangers such a conceptualization poses to the constitutional rights of women, see Johnsen, The Creation of Fetal Rights: Conflicts with Women's Constitutional Rights to Liberty, Privacy, and Equal Protection, 95 Yale L.J. 599 (1986); and Note, Maternal Rights and Fetal Wrongs: The Case Against the Criminalization of “Fetal Abuse”, 101 Harv. L. RevV. 994 (1988) [hereinafter Note, Maternal Rights].

[FN2] 125 Ill. 2d 267, 531 N.E.2d 355 (1988).

[FN3] See Stallman v. Youngquist, 129 Ill. App. 3d 859, 473 N.E.2d 400 (1984). The plaintiff brought suit by her father and next friend, Mark Stallman. See id. Because the plaintiff sought to recover damages from Mrs. Stallman's automobile insurance policy, Mrs. Stallman's insurer controlled her trial defense.

[FN4] See id. at 860, 473 N.E.2d at 401.

[FN5] See id. at 864-65, 473 N.E.2d at 403-04.

[FN6] See Stallman v. Youngquist, 152 Ill. App. 3d 683, 685, 504 N.E.2d 920, 922 (1987).

[FN7] See id. at 691-94, 504 N.E.2d at 925-27.

[FN8] See 531 N.E.2d at 355.

[FN9] See id. at 357-58 (citing Amann v. Faidy, 415 Ill. 422, 114 N.E.2d 412 (1953), which recognized a cause of action under Illinois' wrongful death statute for the death of an infant, who, while in a viable condition, sustained prenatal injuries due to the negligence of a third party; Chrisafogeorgis v. Brandenberg, 55 Ill. 2d 368, 304 N.E.2d 88 (1973), which permitted a wrongful death action on behalf of a stillborn fetus for injuries suffered in utero as a result of third party negligence; and Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital, 67 Ill. 2d 348, 367 N.E.2d 1250 (1977), which held that a fetus subsequently born alive may sue for prenatal injuries arising out of an allegedly negligent blood transfusion to the mother eight years prior to conception).

[FN10] Id. at 359.

[FN11] See id.

[FN12] Id.

[FN13] See id.

[FN14] Id. at 360.

[FN15] Id.

[FN16] Id.

[FN17] See id.

[FN18] Id. at 361

[FN19] Id.

[FN20] Although only one other jurisdiction thus far has explicitly considered the issue of a fetus' right to sue for prenatal injuries resulting from its mother's negligence during pregnancy, see Grodin v. Grodin, 102 Mich. App. 396, 301 N.W.2d 869 (1981), almost all United States courts agree that a fetus, subsequently born alive, may bring suits against a third party. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 55, at 368 (5th ed. 1984). In addition, a majority of states now include fetuses who die in utero as “persons” under wrongful death statutes, see id. at 370 & n.32, and several have extended homicide laws to cover the intentional destruction of a fetus by a third party. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 187 (West Supp. 1986). Courts have generally imposed criminal or tort liability on third persons by analogy to the right of action possessed by minor children. See, e.g., Smith v. Brennan, 31 N.J. 353, 364, 157 A.2d 497, 503 (1960); Evans v. Olson, 550 P.2d 924, 927 (Okla. 1976). Such “fetal rights” have already served to justify the introduction of evidence of “prenatal abuse” in proceedings to take custody of newborn children from mothers, see In re Baby X, 97 Mich. App. 111, 293 N.W.2d 736 (1980); court orders compelling a woman to undergo cesarean delivery when a vaginal delivery threatened the survival of a thirty-nine-week-old fetus, see Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hosp. Auth., 247 Ga. 86, 274 S.E.2d 457 (1981) (per curiam); and prosecutions under state child abuse statutes, see People v. Stewart, No. M508197, slip op. (San Diego County Mun. Ct. Feb. 26, 1987). The issue of prenatal “abuse” has become increasingly urgent in light of the growing number of babies born addicted to substances abused by their mothers during pregnancy. See, e.g., Lewin, When Courts Take Charge of the Unborn, N.Y. Times, Jan. 9, 1989, at A1, col. 1.

[FN21] See Johnsen, supra note 1, at 611.

[FN22] See Note, Maternal Rights, supra note 1, at 1011. The interest in bearing a healthy child would generally serve as an insufficient deterrent only when the woman is either unaware of the impact her behavior has on her child, or because (as in the case of a drug-addicted mother) she is unable to control her behavior. As the Stallman court suggested, the solution to the first problem is prenatal education; the solution to the latter problem involves an expansion of drug-treatment facilities for pregnant women, which currently remain in notoriously short supply. See, e.g., Sachs, Here Come the Pregnancy Police, Time, May 22, 1989, at 104 (reporting that only five full-time drug-treatment programs accept pregnant women in California, each with waiting lists of up to six months). In either of these circumstances, imposing civil liability on mothers may be as likely to deter the carrying of pregnancies to term as to deter maternal negligence during pregnancy, and in some circumstances liability may only discourage prenatal examinations. See Note, Maternal Rights, supra note 1, at 1011, nn. 94-95.

[FN23] Although the increase in automobile and homeowner's insurance has provided part of the justification for dismantling parental tort immunity doctrine, “[t]he mere presence of insurance without additional justification has never before been the basis for recognizing a cause of action.” Beal, supra note 1, at 340. Policymakers interested in spreading the costs of accidents resulting in prenatal injuries can, and should, accomplish such goals through social insurance schemes that will not target women as a class or infringe on their daily activities.

[FN24] Only California and Minnesota utilize a “reasonable parent” standard under which a parent may be held liable to his or her child for failure to perform a broad range of parental duties. See, e.g., Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal. 3d 914, 479 P.2d 648, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2881 (1971) (holding that a father who instructed his child to get out of their stalled vehicle on a busy highway was liable for failing to meet an “ordinarily reasonable and prudent parent” standard); Anderson v. Stream, 295 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. 1980) (adopting a “reasonable parent” standard for the failure to supervise the child adequately after the child was struck by a car driven by a third party). A few other states have recognized a limited duty to supervise, see, e.g., Petersen v. City of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 484, 462 P.2d 1007 (1969), but most states have allowed child custody and child abuse statutes to define minimal standards of parenting. See, e.g., Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35, 324 N.E.2d 338, 364 N.Y.S.2d 859 (1974).

[FN25] See, e.g., Pedigo v. Rowley, 101 Idaho 201, 205, 610 P.2d 560, 564 (1980).

[FN26] See Johnsen, supra note 1, at 606-07 (citing evidence that “failing to eat properly, using prescription, nonprescription and illegal drugs, smoking, drinking alcohol, expos[ure] ... to infectious disease or to workplace hazards, engaging in immoderate exercise or sexual intercourse, residing at high altitudes for prolonged periods, or using a general anesthetic or drugs to induce rapid labor during delivery” all may have deleterious effects on fetal development (footnotes omitted)).

[FN27] Several Supreme Court cases have recognized constitutional limits on permissible state intervention into family relationships. See generally Developments in the Law - The Constitution and the Family, 93 Harv. L. RevV. 1156, 1351-57 (1980) (discussing the constitutional foundations of parents' rights to control the upbringing of their children).

[FN28] See Johnsen, supra note 1, at 614-25; Note, Maternal Rights, supra note 1, at 995-1009; Note, Fetal Protection, supra note 1, at 1219-34.

[FN29] See Note, Maternal Rights, supra note 1, at 997.

[FN30] See, e.g., Note, Fetal Protection, supra note 1, at 1223. Because a fetus may be most vulnerable to a mother's negligent acts during the early months of pregnancy, see Note, Maternal Rights, supra note 1, at 998, the state's interest in regulating the mother may be most compelling at the same time that fetal-maternal tort liability is most intrusive. See Beal, supra note 1, at 364-65 (noting that, due to the uncertainty surrounding the diagnosis of pregnancy, “[a] standard which assumes a woman knows when she has conceived may result in the imposition of a duty on a woman to use care in the treatment of her body long before conception actually occurs”). In the abortion context, courts have generally considered the state's regulatory interest compelling only in the second or third trimester. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). But see Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 109 S.Ct. 3040, 3057 (1989) (plurality opinion) (suggesting that “the State's interest in protecting potential human life” may extend to the point of conception).

[FN31] Discussion surrounding the implications of “fetal abuse” liability distinguishes those fetal injuries that arise out of the use of illegal drugs, injuries that arise out of maternal activities that are legal but subject to state regulation and are known to have a direct negative effect on fetal development (for example, tobacco consumption, alcohol consumption, or the use of prescription drugs), and injuries that arise out of traditionally unregulated activities that have an indirect or indeterminate effect on fetal well being (for example, exercise and nutritional intake). See, e.g., Note, Maternal Rights, supra note 1, at 1006-07. Even some observers who on policy grounds object to criminal or tort liability for fetal abuse agree that laws penalizing pregnant women who engage in activities of the first category would pass constitutional muster if narrowly drawn. See id. Conversely, some advocates of expanding fetal rights seem hesitant to permit tort suits for a mother's negligent infliction of prenatal injuries. See, e.g., Note, Fetal Protection, supra note 1, at 1237. But see Robertson, supra note 1, at 442 (arguing that the interest in protecting the unborn child justifies limiting a mother's freedom through fetal-maternal tort suits for negligent prenatal care).

103 HVLR 823

END OF DOCUMENT

@67 Harvard Law Review President vs. 6th to Last of U.S. Naval Academy (aka Dunce).

See this thing we're typing on. McSame doesn't know how to use the freakin thing!

:"@67 Harvard Law Review President vs. 6th to Last of U.S. Naval Academy (aka Dunce).

See this thing we're typing on. McSame doesn't know how to use the freakin thing! "

and this is your criteria for deciding who to vote for when picking the President of the United States???

Wow - maybe BHO was right yesterday when he said that China was better than the US. With dip-shits like you voting, there certainly exists the possibility.

69 watches too many McCain ads.

Fetus thinks 69s Mom drank too much booze while 69 was still a fetus.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Enough said.

Dear 69, or McSamebot,

No, id be saying he's a Fing hypocrite for calling Obama an elitist, since he's the one with all these "blind trusts" that are, according to you, needed to purchase all of the properties he (really she) owns.

As for your "better question" tread carefully. Recall the savings and loans scandal. Oh how quickly we forget.

At least Obama didn't leave his wife, let alone leave her for money. That's the better question you should be asking yourself. Why would such a stand up guy do something so horrible. "Oh my dear wife, you used to be beautiful but now that you were just in a horrible accident and don't look like the piece of ass you used to, I can't be with you anymore. Instead, I'll go screw this other hottie whose got more money, on the side, then ditch you later on." She waited for him while he was a POW! Nice guy.

49 = dumbest comment in at least a month.

45 = stone cold winner.

@73

You're either an idiot or a disingenuous prick. Care to pick?

At what point did I say that McSame not being able to type of on a computer is the criteria on which I will base my decision? Answer: Never. You assumed that, and you know what the say: Assumptions make an ass out of you and...well not me because I didn't make the assumption.

I do believe that makes you the dipshit. Thanks for playing though.

deep breath ...

77 - um - Congressional rules require the trusts to keep her properties (yes - she's own's them) separated from his assets. I'm sure the Messia learned of this during his oh-so-short 130+day stint in the senate.

McCain was cleared of all wrong doing as per Bill Bennett, who was in charge of the investigation on behalf of the dems.

She owns a beer distributor - I'd leave even a hot wife.

Obama couldn't leave his wife - she'd kill him.

81 = Toby Keith

Commenting standards are in the crapper here at ATL.

At least learn to spell "messiah". C'mon.

Better yet, drop the silly nicknames altogether. They aren't clever at all, and there's no better indicator that a comment will have no substantive merit. (That goes for "McSame" as well).

@81. You just lost the argument. I would just add that just as McCain has been cleared of any wrong doing, so has Obama. Or are we not innocent until proven guilty (much less indicted) anymore in this country. I of course knew the S and L argument was a weak one, but then again, I never hung my hat on it like you did with respect to Rescko via you "better question.". Again, thanks for playing you morally corrupt bastard (no wonder you're a Republican).

I get a tingle up my leg every time my phone beeps or vibrates with a text message.

Fetus gets a tingle up its neural tube every time it's cell phone beeps or vibrates with a text message.

Hey 78, McCain IS an idiot. This is not in dispute. If he took an IQ test today, he would get a low score. He might even be dumber than Dubya.

McCain has demonstrated no intellectual achievement in his life, and his political career has been based the fact that he's a war hero (which he never would have been but for Daddy and Grandpa's status). He fails to demonstrate any grasp of the nuances or complexities of political issues, and instead makes statements like "I look into his eyes and I see his evil soul," which are better suited for comic books and pulpits.

Given that the job of President is kinda hard, don't you want someone with a strong intellect doing it?

Hey Obamabots, I have yet to see any of you refute 45's observation of the liar this shows BHO to be -

"So let me get this right: fetal rights are the only topic that Obama is unprepared to discuss and that he calls "above my pay grade" (all while campaigning for the world's highest pay grade), but fetal rights are also the only topic that he took the time to research and comment on for HLR? Yeah, that makes sense."

88 = Pastor John Hagee

89 = Obama troll trying to change the subject

88, Obama isn't a "liar." You are talking about two different questions. It's one thing to say that a fetus should have rights (or legal rights for that matter). It's another thing to say that a fetus should have to right to actually sue its mother. They are two different questions. You can say "I don't think that a fetus should be able to sue its mother, but as to whether it should have other legal rights, I just don't know."

90 = Pastor Hagee McCain troll who can't understand the difference between a case comment (Pastor Hagee, you weren't on a Law Review so stop trying to discuss things academic) and a complicated biological process such as development and when that fetal development becomes life. Go back to the pulpit and preach to your ignorant populous.

Oh, I should also mention that 45's characterization of the two different questions as the same is the kind of scumbaggy move that you see from the McCain campaign every day.

45 = Karl Rove

actually, 91, the "beyond my pay grade" line indicated that he wasn't sufficiently well-versed on the topic to pass judgment on what rights fetuses should have. (the only other possible reading of that comment is that it's not possible for him to come to a conclusion on such matters - but if that's what he meant it speaks even more poorly of his ability to be a leader, doesn't it?) what we see now is that he studied and wrote about (one particular angle of) that exact topic while at Harvard - if that doesn't qualify him to make at least some conclusions on the topic (which he certainly did make in writing the note), i don't know what does. it's this disconnect that illustrates his deceitfulness.

How come Michelle Obama gave her husband's campaign a niggardly $399.00?

Hedging her bets?

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=obama+&fname=&search=Search

Dear 85:

You need to remove the phone from your front pocket and/or switch from vibrate mode.

95, if I'm reading his article correctly, he's writing about a single right: the right for fetuses to be able to sue their mothers in tort for pre-natal injuries. The question that he was asked for at the church was a lot broader than that topic. So just because he is well versed in the topic of whether fetuses should be able to sue their mothers in tort for pre-natal injuries does mean that he necessarily well versed in the topic of whether a fetus has legal rights generally.

But let's not be naive here, the question that Obama was asked last week had everything to do with his stance on abortion. I agree that he absolutely dodged the question - and as an Obama supporter, I can't believe that he didn't have a better answer for a question that there was a 100% chance that he'd be asked, but to look at his law review comment and say that it shows that his question dodge makes him a "liar" is extremely disingenuous.

#96 FTW!

96 - that's racist X2 - not only did you use a word that sounds a bit like a racist word, but you questioned the motives of an Obama. Your comments could have only been made worse if you opined that Michelle was throwing her money into a black hole.

Dear 95:

Right on, as far as the comment goes, but why has the Obama campaign been so cagy about the Chicago senator's past legal writings and where to find them.

Could it possibly be that a self-professed constitutional scholar has no body of writings to consult, except for an obscure anonymously published comment on an obscure case implicating fetal rights?

For the same reason Barack side stepped the question regarding abortion, his handlers have been equally cagy regarding the Obamas' political past in general.

98 -

of course the question last week had to do with abortion, but it's also naive to think that the reason Obama chose his seemingly obscure comment topic was anything other than its broader implications for reproductive rights. remember that Obama opposed the born-alive bill in IL (which, on the federal level, passed the Senate 98-0) because he viewed it as implicitly undermining Roe. the bottom line is that he clearly has strong views on reproductive issues that he has thought through extensively. i'm sorry, but his retort of "beyond my pay grade" when asked to address such views was much more than a "dodge"... whether you want to call it a lie or not, it was definitely an attempt to deceive the audience regarding his views.

-95

Maybe he does have strong views on reproductive rights that he has thought through extensively, but th