Latest news with #EmmaVernon
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Lawsuit filed against Kansas law nullifying end-of-life choices for pregnant women
Three women and two physicians are suing to block a Kansas law that invalidates a pregnant woman's advance medical directive about end-of-life treatment. The plaintiffs — one of whom is currently pregnant — are challenging the constitutionality of a clause in the state's Natural Death Act that denies pregnant women the option to make advance directives to accept or refuse healthcare if they become incapacitated or terminally ill. Patient plaintiffs Emma Vernon, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton and physician plaintiffs Michele Bennett and Lynley Holman filed the lawsuit on Thursday. It argues that the clause violates the right to personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment and freedom of speech by ignoring the end-of-life decisions of pregnant women. Cdc Removes Covid Vaccine Recommendation For Healthy Children, Pregnant Mothers Vernon, the pregnant plaintiff, wrote an advance healthcare directive stating that, if pregnant and diagnosed with a terminal condition, she would only like to receive life-sustaining treatment if "there is a reasonable medical certainty" that her child would reach full term and be born "with a meaningful prospect of sustained life and without significant conditions that would substantially impair its quality of life." The lawsuit says her directive has not been "given the same deference the law affords to others who complete directives because of the Pregnancy Exclusion, and therefore she does not benefit from the same level of certainty that the directive otherwise provides." Read On The Fox News App All states have laws allowing people to write advance directives on the medical care they would like to receive if they become unable to make their own health decisions. Nine states, including Kansas, have clauses to invalidate a pregnant woman's advance directive. The physicians who joined the lawsuit said the law requires them to provide pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than other patients and opens them up to civil and criminal lawsuits as well as professional penalties. The lawsuit says the doctors "are deeply committed to the foundational medical principle that patients have a fundamental right to determine what treatment they receive, and that providing treatment without a patient's informed consent violates both medical ethics and the law." New Mom Furious At Husband For Choosing Friends And Barbecue Over Her And Their Newborn "Yet Kansas law compels them to disregard their patients' clearly expressed end-of-life decisions, forcing them to provide their pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than any of their other patients receive," it continues. "It demands this diminished care without offering any clarity on what end-of-life treatment they are required to provide—leaving them to guess at what the law expects while exposing them to civil, criminal, and professional consequences for getting it wrong." The defendants in the lawsuit are Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, Kansas State Board of Healing Arts President Richard Bradbury and Douglas County District Attorney Dakota article source: Lawsuit filed against Kansas law nullifying end-of-life choices for pregnant women
Fox News
4 days ago
- Health
- Fox News
Lawsuit filed against Kansas law nullifying end-of-life choices for pregnant women
Three women and two physicians are suing to block a Kansas law that invalidates a pregnant woman's advance medical directive about end-of-life treatment. The plaintiffs — one of whom is currently pregnant — are challenging the constitutionality of a clause in the state's Natural Death Act that denies pregnant women the option to make advance directives to accept or refuse healthcare if they become incapacitated or terminally ill. Patient plaintiffs Emma Vernon, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton and physician plaintiffs Michele Bennett and Lynley Holman filed the lawsuit on Thursday. It argues that the clause violates the right to personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment and freedom of speech by ignoring the end-of-life decisions of pregnant women. Vernon, the pregnant plaintiff, wrote an advance healthcare directive stating that, if pregnant and diagnosed with a terminal condition, she would only like to receive life-sustaining treatment if "there is a reasonable medical certainty" that her child would reach full term and be born "with a meaningful prospect of sustained life and without significant conditions that would substantially impair its quality of life." The lawsuit says her directive has not been "given the same deference the law affords to others who complete directives because of the Pregnancy Exclusion, and therefore she does not benefit from the same level of certainty that the directive otherwise provides." All states have laws allowing people to write advance directives on the medical care they would like to receive if they become unable to make their own health decisions. Nine states have clauses to invalidate a pregnant woman's advance directive. The physicians who joined the lawsuit said the law requires them to provide pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than other patients and opens them up to civil and criminal lawsuits as well as professional penalties. The lawsuit says the doctors "are deeply committed to the foundational medical principle that patients have a fundamental right to determine what treatment they receive, and that providing treatment without a patient's informed consent violates both medical ethics and the law." "Yet Kansas law compels them to disregard their patients' clearly expressed end-of-life decisions, forcing them to provide their pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than any of their other patients receive," it continues. "It demands this diminished care without offering any clarity on what end-of-life treatment they are required to provide—leaving them to guess at what the law expects while exposing them to civil, criminal, and professional consequences for getting it wrong." The defendants in the lawsuit are Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, Kansas State Board of Healing Arts President Richard Bradbury and Douglas County District Attorney Dakota Loomis.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansas law nullifying end-of-life wishes during pregnancy challenged in court
A Kansas state law that revokes a person's decisions about end-of-life care if they are pregnant is now being challenged in court. Three women, one of whom is currently pregnant, and two doctors filed a lawsuit in Kansas over a clause in the state's Natural Death Act that denies people who are pregnant with the ability to accept or refuse health care if they become incapacitated or terminally ill. The plaintiffs argue that the clause violates their rights to liberty and personal autonomy and infringes their right to privacy. Emma Vernon, the plaintiff who is currently pregnant, wrote an advance health care directive outlining the care she would like to receive if she is diagnosed with a terminal condition. Vernon said she would like to only accept life-sustaining treatment if 'there is a reasonable medical certainty' that her child would reach full term and be born 'with a meaningful prospect of sustained life' and without health conditions that would 'impair its quality of life,' according to the lawsuit. But her directive has not been 'given the same deference the law affords to others who complete directives because of the Pregnancy Exclusion,' the lawsuit argues. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach's (R) office did not immediately return a request for comment from The Hill about the lawsuit. All states have laws that give people the right to craft advance directives on the health care they would like to receive if they become unable to make their own health decisions. And many of those laws have caveats excluding pregnant people, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the lawsuit's filing. Kansas is one of nine states with a law that invalidates an advanced directive of a pregnant patient regardless of if the fetus can survive, according to Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit organization that advocates for end-of-life care. The doctors who joined the lawsuit filed Thursday say the law forces them to provide pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than other patients and opens them up to civil and criminal lawsuits and professional penalties. Compassion & Choices, along with the abortion and reproductive rights lawyer group If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice and the law firm Irigonegaray & Revenaugh, filed the lawsuit on behalf of all five plaintiffs. End-of-life care laws have come under scrutiny recently amid reports of a brain-dead pregnant woman in Georgia whose family says doctors are keeping on life support until her baby can be delivered to abide by the state's abortion ban. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Kansas law disregarding end-of-life wishes during pregnancy challenged in court
A Kansas state law that revokes a person's decisions about end-of-life care if they are pregnant is now being challenged in court. Three women, one of whom is currently pregnant, and two doctors filed a lawsuit in Kansas over a clause in the state's Natural Death Act that denies people who are pregnant with the ability to accept or refuse health care if they become incapacitated or terminally ill. The plaintiffs argue that the clause violates their rights to liberty and personal autonomy and infringes their right to privacy. Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here Emma Vernon, the plaintiff who is currently pregnant, wrote an advance health care directive outlining the care she would like to receive if she is diagnosed with a terminal condition. Vernon said she would like to only accept life-sustaining treatment if 'there is a reasonable medical certainty' that her child would reach full term and be born 'with a meaningful prospect of sustained life' and without health conditions that would 'impair its quality of life,' according to the lawsuit. But her directive has not been 'given the same deference the law affords to others who complete directives because of the Pregnancy Exclusion,' the lawsuit argues. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach's (R) office did not immediately return a request for comment from The Hill about the lawsuit. All states have laws that give people the right to craft advance directives on the health care they would like to receive if they become unable to make their own health decisions. And many of those laws have caveats excluding pregnant people, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the lawsuit's filing. Kansas is one of nine states with a law that invalidates an advanced directive of a pregnant patient regardless of if the fetus can survive, according to Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit organization that advocates for end-of-life care. The doctors who joined the lawsuit filed Thursday say the law forces them to provide pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than other patients and opens them up to civil and criminal lawsuits and professional penalties. Compassion & Choices, along with the abortion and reproductive rights lawyer group If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice and the law firm Irigonegaray & Revenaugh, filed the lawsuit on behalf of all five plaintiffs. End-of-life care laws have come under scrutiny recently amid reports of a brain-dead pregnant woman in Georgia whose family says doctors are keeping on life support until her baby can be delivered to abide by the state's abortion ban.
