Tuesday, March 13, 2007

I hadn't known about this: Doc sued for accepting fake ID

Doctors may be liable for patients' fake IDs
Some Texas physicians who provide abortions might be contemplating an in-office display of the "We Card Hard" sign often found in stores that sell alcohol and tobacco.

.... In what's believed to be the first lawsuit of its kind, a Texas patient who presented a fake ID and the patient's father were allowed to go forward with a civil lawsuit against a physician who gave the girl an abortion without contacting her parents.

Cherise Mosley Hughes first came into the clinic where Houston general practice physician Douglas Karpen, DO, works in the summer of 2000. She didn't have an ID, so the office staff turned her away, court records said. She later returned with an ID that said she was 18. It was not government-issued but did contain a birth date and Social Security number.

Dr. Karpen said he didn't contact Mosley Hughes' parents because he had no reason to believe the girl was younger than 18.

....

Now married and a mother of two, Mosley Hughes, along with her father, sued Dr. Karpen and the Aaron Women's Medical Center in Houston. They argued that the ID was obviously fake and that the doctor should have seen through it.


1. What's the standard for convenience store clerks carding kids trying to buy beer and cigarettes?

2. Should the standard for abortion workers be the same, higher, or lower?

13 comments:

Tlaloc said...

"Now married and a mother of two, Mosley Hughes, along with her father, sued Dr. Karpen and the Aaron Women's Medical Center in Houston. They argued that the ID was obviously fake and that the doctor should have seen through it."

Classy. The clinic should counter sue her since she was the one who actually, you know, knowingly induced them to commit a crime by lying to them.

Tlaloc said...

This is like a robber sticking up a bank with a banana and then suing the bank because he didn't actually have a gun.

Michelle Potter said...

No, tlaloc. The whole purpose of ID laws is to protect the minor. The underlying assumption is that children are not ready to make such decisions for themselves, and the onus is on the ID-checker, ie, the adult.

I don't know what the standard is for clerks selling cigarettes and alcohol, but I think it should be the same for doctors. There's a level of doing everything reasonable to make sure the ID is valid -- for clerks to do less would be silly, for doctors to do more would be very impractical.

L. said...

I wonder, what is an "obviously fake" ID?

The fake ID I had in college looked real -- it had my photo on it, and a nice legal date of birth. It enabled me to buy lots of alcohol and see many concerts -- it never failed me.

Tlaloc said...

"The whole purpose of ID laws is to protect the minor. The underlying assumption is that children are not ready to make such decisions for themselves, and the onus is on the ID-checker, ie, the adult."

I have no problem with the STATE deciding to enforce the rules. but for the M minor who chose to break the law to then sue the person they duped into unintentionally breaking the law is ridiculous.

Mosley Hughes is the criminal here, she's the one who knowingly CHOSE to break the law in exactly the same way that a minor buyng alcohol or cigarettes or pornography does. That she did so successfully gives her no right to then sue those *she* involved in her crime.

Again ridiculous. Should she be able to sue the taxi that took her to the clinic? Maybe the bank teller who let her withdraw the funds for the abortion? Maybe the pharmacist who filled her prescription for antibiotics afterwards?

Of course not. *SHE* has no standing to be suing anyone seeing as she's the criminal here.

Anonymous said...

Hello,
I found your blog as a link from Jill Stanek's blog. I am a pro-life woman and a very big fan of Jill's.

Yesterday while reading her blog, I noticed a large amount of comments on her blog from a bunch of pro-choicers, asking her what her opinion was on Muslims having abortions. Now that I have returned, I see she has shut off comments, and she has also deleted all of the comments asking her opinion on Muslims having abortions. She did not answer. I am very concerned as to why she did not answer. It worries me that Jill Stanek, someone who's words I have admired greatly, cannot say that she doesn't support Muslims having abortions. I do not have a blog, but I hope that you and others who have blogs can help convince her to preserve her reputation!

Thanks,
Mary

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, how much responsibility falls on minors versus on the adults? Your presumption seems to be that if the minor is very clever it lets the adult off the hook. Ought not adults (convenience store clerks, doctors) have some responsibility for not being bamboozled?

Again, what's the standard for a convenience store clerk, and should the standard for abortion staff be higher, lower, or the same?

GrannyGrump said...

Mary, you'll have to take that up with Jill. She should have an email address on her blog someplace.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, how much responsibility falls on minors versus on the adults? Your presumption seems to be that if the minor is very clever it lets the adult off the hook."

No that's not what I'm trying to say. I think it's fine for the *state* to come after the clinic if they have enough proof to warrant a charge against them. What I don't get is why the former teen has any standing whatsoever to sue. She made a conscious choice, they were unwitting victims of her duplicity and then *she* sues *them*?

That's insane. They should be suing her for involving them in a crime without their knowledge.



"Ought not adults (convenience store clerks, doctors) have some responsibility for not being bamboozled?"

To a reasonable degree, sure, but that responsibility is to the state, not to the bamboozeler.



"Again, what's the standard for a convenience store clerk, and should the standard for abortion staff be higher, lower, or the same?"

It should be the same. And I'd strongly object to some person suing a store that sold them liquor when they entered and used a false ID. It just makes no sense.

Ask yourself who was harmed here. And whose action it was that did the harm. (leaving aside the fetus issue)

JacqueFromTexas said...

Ask yourself who was harmed here. And whose action it was that did the harm. (leaving aside the fetus issue)

Who was harmed (leaving the dead baby out of this): Mosley-Hughes and her father. Certainly not the clinic that took her money and aborted her child.

Look at this as statutory rape: Who is the victim? The child. Even if the child willingly consents to sex, even goes so far as to dupe the statutory rapist into thinking he/she is old enough, that adult is nonetheless a rapist. Should the adult be able to sue the child for turning him/her into a rapist? No. The onus is on the adult. Period.

The clinic (like the adult wanting sex) has the responsibility to ensure that they are following the law. Not the child. Because of the rapist/clinic's failure to exercise caution or due diligence, the child (Mosley-Hughes) and her father were denied a son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter. Like sex, there are physical and emotional consequences to abortion. Hence the necessity of a legal age of consent.

GrannyGrump said...

I think it's fine for the *state* to come after the clinic if they have enough proof to warrant a charge against them.

Ah! I see. You believe it needs to be purely a criminal/administrative matter, not a civil matter. Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

Though I wonder -- ought not the family to be able to sue if a clerk accepts a bogus ID and sells booze to a kid who goes out and drives drunk and wraps himself around a tree? (I am not firm on this myself, just pondering.)

Tlaloc said...

"Who was harmed (leaving the dead baby out of this): Mosley-Hughes and her father. Certainly not the clinic that took her money and aborted her child."

No, the clinic was harmed by being induced to commit a crime without their knowledge. Mosley-hughes was the perpetrator, not the victim. She chose to walk into that clinic and lie about who she really was. In doing so she opened them up to various liabilities. She *caused* the harm.



"Look at this as statutory rape: Who is the victim? The child. Even if the child willingly consents to sex, even goes so far as to dupe the statutory rapist into thinking he/she is old enough, that adult is nonetheless a rapist. Should the adult be able to sue the child for turning him/her into a rapist? No. The onus is on the adult. Period."

But the clinic in this case had no reasonable knowledge that the girl was a minor. Are you advocating that if a girl tells a guy she's 18 and they sleep together she should later be able to sue him because she was only 17 and lied about it? Of course not. She's the one choosing to cause the crime to occur.



"The clinic (like the adult wanting sex) has the responsibility to ensure that they are following the law. Not the child."

They are not required to be mind readers. If a minor possesses an illegal ID what exactly are they supposed to do?

Again you are willing to apply an absurd level of difficulty on abortion providers simply because you don;t like them.

Tlaloc said...

"Though I wonder -- ought not the family to be able to sue if a clerk accepts a bogus ID and sells booze to a kid who goes out and drives drunk and wraps himself around a tree? (I am not firm on this myself, just pondering.)"

I'd say it's no different than if they should be able to sue if an adult bought liquor at the store and went out and caused an accident. Personally I'd say no, not unless the person came into the store obviously already inebriated so that the store had cause to believe that selling to them was likely top cause an immenent danger. Otherwise the store simply has no way of knowing if the alcohol is going to be used responsibly.