msnbc: Army to court martial 'birther' officer

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Yes, it is.

Hawaii produced a COLB. This is a legal document - acceptable as evidence in any court of law and with the State Department.

What is sealed?

Do you just cut and paste stuff from other sites and claim it as your own? Because your own understanding of your posts is remarkably limited.

[Ken]

First, let me start by saying that the theories upon which Obama supposedly has been invalidated have changed many, many times. This is like the 7th different theory, and it is just as wrong as the others.

That may be the case, but Berg's is the only one I've even remotely subscribed to because their is a factual basis for his assertion.

In any case, this is simply a false rumor. No minor American Citizen loses his or her American citizenship merely by the fact that his or her mother has married a foreigner and he has been adoped by that new parent. Period. It has never been the law.

Berg quite literally does not know how to read a statute. He quotes only half the statute.

"( No former citizen of the United States, expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents shall be obliged to comply with the requirements of the immigration laws, if he has not not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents, and if he has come or shall come to the United States before reaching the age of twenty-five years."

Obama returned to the US with his mom at the age of ten. None of this crap applies to him. Berg is a moron.

The part "b" of the statute was mistakenly noted by Berg on the blog and has been corrected in part 2 of his Indonesian Citizen evidence. Here is a link to his latest evidence against Soetoro....

http://obamacrimes.com/?p=423

School records, Divorce Decree, and 1955 Hawaii laws....

Not true. Rumor made up by birthers. Non Indonesian citizens may go to school in Indonesia, same as non-citizens go to school in the USA.

Is there proof of this during the military state when Soetoro attended school there? Otherwise it is conspriracy theory made up by the "lemmings". The law I have seen said that it is for Indonesian "Citizens". Not every child as you assert. In addition, his Indonesian Student Card indicates he is an Indonesian Citizen. Not made up in the least...completely factual.

Not true. Rumor made up by birthers. It was never illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan.

I have not been able to verify this either way. I believe that travel was never restricted by the US but there was a 6 year period from 79-85 where Bhuto did not allow americans to enter....can't verify it though so I will give you this...

Entirely made up speculation, based on the earlier false information Beg has already peddled.

It is sound speculation if you read his assertions in the part 3 link that I provided.

My expert opinion is that Phillip Berg, the guy who runs that website, is certifiably insane, and if you take his word for anything than you are going to run straight down the rabbit hole. Every single thing he says in there is completely made up, from top to bottom.

He made up all of the documented evidence that I previously listed? All of the documents are authentic.

Nor is Obama or anyone else avoiding him. They are flat out laughing at him. It's a different thing.

I disagree.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I couldn't prove i was a citizen if my birth certificate and paper announcing my birth in Montgomery MD was denied as being real.

So you're saying that you're an undocumented worker?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Hawaii produced a COLB. This is a legal document - acceptable as evidence in any court of law and with the State Department.

What is sealed?

Do you just cut and paste stuff from other sites and claim it as your own? Because your own understanding of your posts is remarkably limited.

What is the point to your pointless post? Do you just post to try and argue points that are not in question? His records are sealed. Live with it.

[artmonkforHOF]

Well what took so long?

[Predicto]

That may be the case, but Berg's is the only one I've even remotely subscribed to because their is a factual basis for his assertion.

No there isn't. You appear unable to distinguish between "fact" and "something someone on the internet said."

The part "b" of the statute was mistakenly noted by Berg on the blog and has been corrected in part 2 of his Indonesian Citizen evidence. Here is a link to his latest evidence against Soetoro....

http://obamacrimes.com/?p=423

School records, Divorce Decree, and 1955 Hawaii laws....

It is a jumble of nonsense. Try and find an example of ONE American citizen child, ever, who lost their American citizenship while a child because their mother remarried a foreigner. It does not work that way.

Berg creates a mountain of nonsense based on his clueless interpretation of what he imagines Indonesian law to be - but Indonesian law is completely irrelevant. Indonesia cannot tell the United States who is or is not a United States Citizen.

A child who is a United States Citizen CANNOT renounce his or her citizenship until they are an adult, and considered intellectually capable of doing so, and do so either by actively renouncing it as an adult, or by refusing to return to the USA past their 25th birthday. Their parents alone cannot deprive them of their citizenship. It is personal to them.

Period.

From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by --

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ....

Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, section 349 (a).

A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.

Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355.

Anyone with the reading and critical thinking skills of a baboon can see that Berg is just throwing stuff against the wall hoping that something will stick.

Is there proof of this during the military state when Soetoro attended school there? Otherwise it is conspriracy theory made up by the "lemmings". The law I have seen said that it is for Indonesian "Citizens". Not every child as you assert. In addition, his Indonesian Student Card indicates he is an Indonesian Citizen. Not made up in the least...completely factual.

Completely made up. Indonesia has literally millions of Chinese workers and shopkeepers and their families. They are not citizens. Their children go to school.

Berg is confusing a positive passage in the Indonesian Constitution with a negative law that does not exist.

The Indonesian constitution says,: "All citizens have the right to life, liberty and an education blah blah blah."

From this, Berg INFERS that "Indonesian Law says no one who is not a citizen may attend school in Indonesia." That kind of legal reasoning has a name. It is called "bad lawyering."

Reading and falling for such an analysis on an internet website also has a name. It is called "gullibility."

I have not been able to verify this either way. I believe that travel was never restricted by the US but there was a 6 year period from 79-85 where Bhuto did not allow americans to enter....can't verify it though so I will give you this...

You cannot verify it as true because it is false. There was a travel advisory, nothing more.

It is sound speculation if you read his assertions in the part 3 link that I provided.

He made up all of the documented evidence that I previously listed? All of the documents are authentic.

You really are a gullible fellow. What documents might you be referring to. I have looked at the website, and none of the "documents" there have any significance to this argument. In other words, what is the point of waving around "documents" if they don't MEAN what you claim that they mean?

Essentially, Ken, when you say "the law I have seen says..." what you really mean is "something someone on the internet claims is something that I now accept as true even though I don't understand it."

I've got to go back to work for the time being, but I will be happy to demolish anything else you might like to raise on this issue.

[Bliz]

I've got to go back to work for the time being, but I will be happy to demolish anything else you might like to raise on this issue.

:ols:

Damn Ken, you got served!!!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

His records are sealed. Live with it.

What specifically is sealed?

You can't name it, can you?

[ABQCOWBOY]

What specifically is sealed?

You can't name it' date=' can you?[/quote']

* His kindergarten records

* His Punahou school records

* His Occidental College records

* His Columbia University records

* His Columbia thesis

* His Harvard Law School records

* His Harvard Law Review articles

* His Scholarly articles from the University of Chicago

* His Passport

* His medical records

* His files from when he was an Illinois state senator

* His Illinois State Bar Association records

* His record of Birth (Birth Certificate)

Is there really any point at all to your posts?

Seriously, if I had a problem with his status as a citizen, it would be very clear. I don't but that doesn't change the simple statement that his records are sealed. I'm not a birther. His records are sealed, get over it already.

[Bliz]

* His kindergarten records

* His Punahou school records

* His Occidental College records

* His Columbia University records

* His Columbia thesis

* His Harvard Law School records

* His Harvard Law Review articles

* His Scholarly articles from the University of Chicago

* His Passport

* His medical records

* His files from when he was an Illinois state senator

* His Illinois State Bar Association records

* His record of Birth (Birth Certificate)

Is there really any point at all to your posts?

Seriously, if I had a problem with his status as a citizen, it would be very clear. I don't but that doesn't change the simple statement that his records are sealed. I'm not a birther. His records are sealed, get over it already.

I've said it twice already. I'll say it one more time.

Sealed to who?

To you? Yeah.

To Hillary Clinton's or the GOP's top "opposition researchers"? bahahahahahahaha. Hell no they''re not "sealed".

FYI harvard law review articles can't be sealed, because for it to be an "article" it must be published. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

And why shouldn't some of those things be sealed? Should his full medical records be available to every ABQCOWBOY in this country?

[greenspandan]

what a completely absurd discussion.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I've said it twice already. I'll say it one more time.

Sealed to who?

To you? Yeah.

To Hillary Clinton's of the GOP's top "opposition researchers"? bahahahahahahaha. Hell no they''re not "sealed".

FYI harvard law review articles can't be sealed, because for it to be an "article" it must be published. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

And why shouldn't some of those things be sealed? Should his full medical records be available to every ABQCOWBOY in this country?

Produce the articles if it makes you feel better. I don't care one way or the other. I have no beef with the issue.

And you guys call me thick. Wow.

[ABQCOWBOY]

what a completely absurd discussion.

This is probably the most intelligent point in the entire thread. Your right. I'm an idiot for continuing on with this.

Thank you for finally making that point clear to me.

[Predicto]

* His kindergarten records

* His Punahou school records

* His Occidental College records

* His Columbia University records

* His Columbia thesis

* His Harvard Law School records

* His Harvard Law Review articles

* His Scholarly articles from the University of Chicago

* His Passport

* His medical records

* His files from when he was an Illinois state senator

* His Illinois State Bar Association records

* His record of Birth (Birth Certificate)

Is there really any point at all to your posts?

Seriously, if I had a problem with his status as a citizen, it would be very clear. I don't but that doesn't change the simple statement that his records are sealed. I'm not a birther. His records are sealed, get over it already.

I know where you cut and pasted that from.

Anyhow, every single one of those things (except the obviously false ones) are things that are "sealed" for every single one of us. Whose kindergarten or Elementary School or medical records or Passport have you EVER seen, other than your own families?

I no longer have a copy of my college thesis (I wrote one. It was a comparison of the democracies that are dominated by one party (Japan, Mexico, India) and the different ways they remain in control). That document no longer exists.

The only reason we saw Bush and Gore's college transcripts was because someone got ahold of them and leaked them - they were not released voluntarily. Did you ever see Ronald Reagan or George Bush Senior or Bill Clinton's college or grad school transcripts? Nope, neither did I.

Obama's bar records are not sealed in any way, nor are his "scholarly articles."

All files of a state senator are sealed, of course.

In short - your list is a joke.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I know where you cut and pasted that from.

Anyhow, every single one of those things (except the obviously false ones) are things that are "sealed" for every single one of us. Whose kindergarten or Elementary School or medical records or Passport have you EVER seen, other than your own families?

I no longer have a copy of my college thesis (I wrote one. It was a comparison of the democracies that are dominated by one party (Japan, Mexico, India) and the different ways they remain in control). That document no longer exists.

The only reason we saw Bush and Gore's college transcripts was because someone got ahold of them and leaked them - they were not released voluntarily. Did you ever see Ronald Reagan or George Bush Senior or Bill Clinton's college or grad school transcripts? Nope, neither did I.

Obama's bar records are not sealed in any way, nor are his "scholarly articles."

All files of a state senator are sealed, of course.

In short - your list is a joke.

Good to see somebody has picked up the torch.

[The Evil Genius]

psst...Obama never wrote a thesis at Columbia. It wasn't a requirement at the time. He did write a long seminar paper - but it wasn't a thesis.

But hey - I am sure that non-existent thesis is under wraps somehwere.

*puts tinfoil hat back on and walks away - damn you MLB satellites*

[zoony]

There are some ****ing morons out there. Scares me sometimes

[Dan T.]

ES should put Predicto on a retainer to knock down these idiot conspiracy theories.

[JimboDaMan]

ES should put Predicto on a retainer to knock down these idiot conspiracy theories.

Dave Barry once wrote a column about seagulls at the beach. About how you take your lunch out of a cooler and passing seagulls think, "Hey, a sandwich!" and come toward you. So you kick sand at them and they fly 20 feet away, land, then turn around and - with absolutely no memory of the past 10 seconds - think "Hey, a sandwich!" and come after you again. This cycle repeats potentially forever, because the seagulls will never remember and the sandwich is always brand new to them.

Something about this thread reminds me of the blind, stupid repetition by the seagulls.

[Bliz]

Produce the articles if it makes you feel better. I don't care one way or the other. I have no beef with the issue.

And you guys call me thick. Wow.

Being a birther apologist is only marginally better than being a birther. But since you asked so nicely, here is Obama's "sealed" article from the Harvard Law Review.

Don't ask how I got it. The Feds might be monitoring :paranoid:

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. REV. 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. REV. 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 Harv. L. Rev. 823

END OF DOCUMENT

[mistertim]

Being a birther apologist is only marginally better than being a birther. But since you asked so nicely, here is Obama's "sealed" article from the Harvard Law Review.

Don't ask how I got it. The Feds might be monitoring :paranoid:

HOW DID YOU UNSEAL THAT? You must be part of the Illuminati!

[AsburySkinsFan]

ES should put Predicto on a retainer to knock down these idiot conspiracy theories.

I don't think we have that much money between all of us.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

* His kindergarten records

* His Punahou school records

* His Occidental College records

* His Columbia University records

* His Columbia thesis

* His Harvard Law School records

* His Harvard Law Review articles

* His Scholarly articles from the University of Chicago

* His Passport

* His medical records

* His files from when he was an Illinois state senator

* His Illinois State Bar Association records

* His record of Birth (Birth Certificate)

Is there really any point at all to your posts?

Seriously, if I had a problem with his status as a citizen, it would be very clear. I don't but that doesn't change the simple statement that his records are sealed. I'm not a birther. His records are sealed, get over it already.

You should cite Free Republic when you quote them. Or WND. These things go around the Internet so fast it is difficult to say where they start. How would I go about getting YOUR medical records if I wanted them?

Out of that list, I believe you could get my senior thesis if you are a student and desperate for a poorly researched discussion on the influence of Sylvia Plath on post-modern feminist poetry.

The rest you could not get.

[Seabee1973]

There are some ****ing morons out there. Scares me sometimes

Leave the Obama voters out of this

[JMS]

psst...Obama never wrote a thesis at Columbia. It wasn't a requirement at the time. He did write a long seminar paper - but it wasn't a thesis.

His campaign would not release his transcripts, and it says it does not have a copy of his thesis, which dealt with Soviet nuclear disarmament and which has drawn intense interest.

http://www.extremeskins.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7454746

As far as has been determined, Barack Obama did not produce a formal thesis for his degree at Columbia University; the closest match is a paper he wrote during his senior year for an honors seminar in American Foreign Policy.

http://www.extremeskins.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7454746

The paper in question, whether you call it a thesis as some are, or not is not sealed. After 30 years nobody has a copy of it... not the school, not the teacher, and not Obama.

Columbia University has said it did not retain a copy of that paper, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt has said that Barack himself does not have a copy, and the professor to whom the paper was submitted has said that he no longer has a copy in his possession either: