Read Next
Pop Culture
Planned Parenthood supporter Harvey Weinstein gets 15 years for sex crimes in New York
Cassy Cooke
·Spotlight Articles
Investigative·By Carole Novielli
UNPRECEDENTED: Aborted baby's estate is awarded monetary damages in lawsuit
An unprecedented wrongful death lawsuit is the first of its kind to be settled by an aborted baby's estate against the abortion doctors associated with the preborn's child's death. The case is an important step towards the establishment of personhood and proper informed consent for the pregnant mother.
A wrongful death lawsuit in New Mexico is the first of its kind to award a settlement to the estate of an aborted baby, who was defined as a "person" under the state's Wrongful Death Act and was therefore "entitled to equal protection under the law of New Mexico and the United States."
Attorney Mike Seibel noted the inconsistencies in the state law, noting "You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law."
In Wabbington v. Boyd, a 26-week baby's estate received a $200k settlement after a complaint argued that the baby's mother was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the abortion, and therefore could not provide proper informed consent.
The complaint also asserted that the abortionists engaged in unfair trade practices, including "offering funeral services for aborted babies without any intent to transfer the aborted babies to the funeral home."
Records also indicate that no effort was made to discuss "reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment."
Seibel noted that "The abortion industry preyed on the mother's vulnerable condition for profit... failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse... [and] failed to properly consent her" before committing an abortion. They then "billed the taxpayer under Medicaid for a procedure that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars."
In the case, Wabbington v. Boyd, a "26-week-old viable fetus" was declared a person. The lawsuit was recently settled for $200,000 against late-term abortionists Curtis Wayne Boyd (doing business at that time as Southwestern Women's Options/SWO), Emily Cohen, and the late Carmen Landau.
It was another victory for medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel and his co-counsel Justin Hall, who both operate the website AbortionInjury.com.
The complaint and subsequent settlement was obtained via an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request by Live Action News.
It acknowledged the personhood of Baby Wabbington, who was tragically killed by induction abortion at 26 weeks gestation, and whose estate was awarded the $200,000 settlement.
The "final Order Appointing Personal Representative" read in part:
... Baby Wabbington was a 26 week old viable fetus and pursuant to Salazar v. St. Vincent Hospital...is a person as defined under the Wrongful Death Act and is entitled to equal protection under the law of New Mexico and the United States.
Seibel told Live Action News:
This is the first time that an abortionist has ever been sued for the wrongful death of a baby. There have been numerous cases for injuries to the mother, but in this case both the mother and the baby’s estate sued.
This case recognized the baby to have an estate, and receive compensation for wrongful death, as a 'person' under New Mexico law.
“In order to establish personhood, we must establish that the baby has rights. The more they have rights the less you can just kill them. The more rights we establish, the better our case for personhood becomes," Seibel added.
The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on September 14, 2026.
The complaint also centered around a lack of informed consent for the baby’s mother who, according to court documents, was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time she consented to the procedure in 2020.
Had the mother been properly consented, she should have been informed of state programs that would assist her during her pregnancy and despite her drug condition.
"The estate itself is going to recover... and the informed consent was the basis for that," Seibel told Life Issues Institute.
The complaint (with the name of the child's mother redacted) read in part:
Defendant, Curtis W. Boyd M.D.P.C., Carmen Landau and Emily Cohen knew or should have known of [redacted's] use of methamphetamines as she had a prior abortion where they noted her use of methamphetamines.
[Redacted] also told the counselor of her use of methamphetamines and the counselor placed that information in the notes. The counselor noted that [redacted] was anxious and avoided eye contact when she appeared for her interview.
Despite having knowledge of a substance abuse history and signs of intoxication of methamphetamine use, Defendants attempted to get informed consent from Plaintiff...[Redacted] could not legally give informed consent as she was intoxicated. Plaintiffs attempted to get [redacted] to sign a consent to treatment to terminate pregnancy. Despite having no legal capacity to consent, [redacted] signed the consent for medical treatment...
The lawsuit alleged that the abortionists failed to:
"recognize that [redacted] was not legally competent to give consent as she was intoxicated with Methamphetamine use."
"... counsel or refer [redacted] the New Mexico Children Youth and families department for all of her options as being substance affected when pregnant."
"... inform [redacted] and obtain her proper consent while sober."
Yet the providers still "[p]erformed the abortion without proper informed consent."
Seibel claimed there was...
... no documented assessment noted on the consent forms despite known meth use disorder and observed signs of anxiety and avoidance. And no evidence that the provider explored signs of ambivalence or distress.
"Published research demonstrates that stopping methamphetamine use at any time during pregnancy — including the third trimester — improves key outcomes," Seibel noted, further stating that "Established New Mexico programs specifically designed for pregnant women with substance use disorders were never offered or discussed."
These included:
Milagro Program (UNM Health) which provides "prenatal care and substance abuse treatment."
G.R.A.C.E. Program (Lovelace Women’s Hospital, Albuquerque) which offers care to pregnant women "struggling with opioid addictions" or "women living with addictions during and after pregnancy."
"This omission deprived the patient of material information needed to make an informed decision," Seibel noted.
The lawsuit also accused SWO and the abortion doctors of unfair trade practices by:
(A) [Attempting] to release prospective liability for medical negligence...
(B) Attempting to persuade patients not to sue for malpractice;
(C) Disclaiming any liability for emotional distress against public policy;
(D) Attempting to prevent women and patients from suing for emotional distress;
(E) Attempting to persuade patients to release malpractice liability in contradiction with well settled law of New Mexico.
(F) Offering funeral services for aborted babies without any intent to transfer the aborted babies to the funeral home.
The complaint was clear that "Defendants knew or should have known that [redacted] was intoxicated with methamphetamines" and therefore they "breached their duty to provide inform consent."
In addition, despite the mother's request to "release the baby's remains to Riverside Funeral Home to have services," the complaint alleges that "the body was placed in a medical waste container and destroyed."
The complaint concluded that:
The acts of the Defendants were so willful, wanton, and reckless they require the imposition of punitive damages.
Seibel alleged that "Records contain no discussion of reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment."
Seibel pointed to the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)'s "Guidance on Pregnancy Options Counseling" which states that "Appropriate pregnancy options counseling addresses... access to resources that reasonably could be anticipated to be needed."
The guidance adds that "clinicians should involve patients in an unbiased discussion."
This part is particularly interesting:
... [I]f a patient has expressed understanding of a fetal condition diagnosed prenatally, understanding of the availability of management options, and a clear desire to continue the pregnancy, it would not be person-centered to continue to bring up abortion as an option at every visit if there has not been a significant change in fetal status and additional counseling is not desired by the patient.
... an episode of pregnancy options counseling can reasonably and appropriately conclude when a patient expresses ambivalence or decision deferral... Clarifying whether the patient would like more information to support them may be helpful...
Separately, ACOG writes: "All patients should be routinely asked about their use of alcohol, nicotine products, and drugs, including prescription opioids and other medications used for nonmedical reasons."
ACOG additionally writes that, "The informed consent process ideally begins before decision making so that the patient is able to make an informed choice... based on clinical information, the patient’s values, and other considerations of importance to her."
The lawsuit contended that:
At the time of her elective abortion procedure, [redacted] did not know that she was free to seek medical assistance for medical complications at any medical facility. At the time of her elective abortion procedure, [redacted] did not have the capacity to fully understand the consent agreement.
"ACOG guidelines and committee opinions require screening for substance use in pregnancy, brief intervention, counseling on options, and referral to appropriate treatment resources. Providers are expected to discuss alternatives such as stopping or reducing use while continuing pregnancy care," Seibel contended.
Perhaps Boyd and his cadre of abortionists were misled by resources like the 2026 TEACH abortion training curriculum, which appears to suggest that drug impairment does not disqualify informed consent — a seemingly ludicrous claim.
On page 31 (image below), you can read the manipulation involved in abortion counseling:
The National Abortion Federation's (NAF) 2026 Clinical Guide is clear that "The clinician must ensure that accurate information is provided about the abortion process and its alternatives, and the potential risks and benefits. The patient must have the opportunity to have any questions answered to their satisfaction prior to the abortion" (emphasis added).
Seibel emphasized that New Mexico law "makes no sense," noting, “You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law." He added:
In New Mexico, they have a law that veterinarians cannot kill dogs with digoxin without giving them painkillers first.
They do not have that for the baby.
If a baby has the right to collect for wrongful death of an abortion, it has a right to live.Every time we give the unborn baby rights we solidify personhood.
"We're talking about personhood... for the first time where a baby is actually recovering against the person who killed it," Seibel stressed in the video interview below.
Seibel told Live Action News:
The abortion industry preyed on the mother's vulnerable condition for profit.
They not only failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse, but they failed to properly consent her before ending the life of her preborn child.They then billed the taxpayer under Medicaid for a procedure that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars.
"This settlement recasts the informed consent debate to give a powerful tool to collect damages against an abortionist. In addition, it confirms the existing standard of care for women facing substance abuse disorders," Seibel claimed.
"But, most importantly, it was the first ever case where the dead aborted child, identified as a 'person' in the court record, was able to collect damages against the abortion industry," he stated.
Seibel encourages women who may have a similar case to contact AbortionInjury.com.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Cassy Cooke
·
Investigative
Carole Novielli
·
Investigative
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Investigative
Cassy Cooke
·
Investigative
Bridget Sielicki
·
Investigative
Nancy Flanders
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·
Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Investigative
Carole Novielli
·
Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Investigative·By Carole Novielli
UNPRECEDENTED: Aborted baby's estate is awarded monetary damages in lawsuit
An unprecedented wrongful death lawsuit is the first of its kind to be settled by an aborted baby's estate against the abortion doctors associated with the preborn's child's death. The case is an important step towards the establishment of personhood and proper informed consent for the pregnant mother.
A wrongful death lawsuit in New Mexico is the first of its kind to award a settlement to the estate of an aborted baby, who was defined as a "person" under the state's Wrongful Death Act and was therefore "entitled to equal protection under the law of New Mexico and the United States."
Attorney Mike Seibel noted the inconsistencies in the state law, noting "You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law."
In Wabbington v. Boyd, a 26-week baby's estate received a $200k settlement after a complaint argued that the baby's mother was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the abortion, and therefore could not provide proper informed consent.
The complaint also asserted that the abortionists engaged in unfair trade practices, including "offering funeral services for aborted babies without any intent to transfer the aborted babies to the funeral home."
Records also indicate that no effort was made to discuss "reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment."
Seibel noted that "The abortion industry preyed on the mother's vulnerable condition for profit... failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse... [and] failed to properly consent her" before committing an abortion. They then "billed the taxpayer under Medicaid for a procedure that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars."
In the case, Wabbington v. Boyd, a "26-week-old viable fetus" was declared a person. The lawsuit was recently settled for $200,000 against late-term abortionists Curtis Wayne Boyd (doing business at that time as Southwestern Women's Options/SWO), Emily Cohen, and the late Carmen Landau.
It was another victory for medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel and his co-counsel Justin Hall, who both operate the website AbortionInjury.com.
The complaint and subsequent settlement was obtained via an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request by Live Action News.
It acknowledged the personhood of Baby Wabbington, who was tragically killed by induction abortion at 26 weeks gestation, and whose estate was awarded the $200,000 settlement.
The "final Order Appointing Personal Representative" read in part:
... Baby Wabbington was a 26 week old viable fetus and pursuant to Salazar v. St. Vincent Hospital...is a person as defined under the Wrongful Death Act and is entitled to equal protection under the law of New Mexico and the United States.
Seibel told Live Action News:
This is the first time that an abortionist has ever been sued for the wrongful death of a baby. There have been numerous cases for injuries to the mother, but in this case both the mother and the baby’s estate sued.
This case recognized the baby to have an estate, and receive compensation for wrongful death, as a 'person' under New Mexico law.
“In order to establish personhood, we must establish that the baby has rights. The more they have rights the less you can just kill them. The more rights we establish, the better our case for personhood becomes," Seibel added.
The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on September 14, 2026.
The complaint also centered around a lack of informed consent for the baby’s mother who, according to court documents, was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time she consented to the procedure in 2020.
Had the mother been properly consented, she should have been informed of state programs that would assist her during her pregnancy and despite her drug condition.
"The estate itself is going to recover... and the informed consent was the basis for that," Seibel told Life Issues Institute.
The complaint (with the name of the child's mother redacted) read in part:
Defendant, Curtis W. Boyd M.D.P.C., Carmen Landau and Emily Cohen knew or should have known of [redacted's] use of methamphetamines as she had a prior abortion where they noted her use of methamphetamines.
[Redacted] also told the counselor of her use of methamphetamines and the counselor placed that information in the notes. The counselor noted that [redacted] was anxious and avoided eye contact when she appeared for her interview.
Despite having knowledge of a substance abuse history and signs of intoxication of methamphetamine use, Defendants attempted to get informed consent from Plaintiff...[Redacted] could not legally give informed consent as she was intoxicated. Plaintiffs attempted to get [redacted] to sign a consent to treatment to terminate pregnancy. Despite having no legal capacity to consent, [redacted] signed the consent for medical treatment...
The lawsuit alleged that the abortionists failed to:
"recognize that [redacted] was not legally competent to give consent as she was intoxicated with Methamphetamine use."
"... counsel or refer [redacted] the New Mexico Children Youth and families department for all of her options as being substance affected when pregnant."
"... inform [redacted] and obtain her proper consent while sober."
Yet the providers still "[p]erformed the abortion without proper informed consent."
Seibel claimed there was...
... no documented assessment noted on the consent forms despite known meth use disorder and observed signs of anxiety and avoidance. And no evidence that the provider explored signs of ambivalence or distress.
"Published research demonstrates that stopping methamphetamine use at any time during pregnancy — including the third trimester — improves key outcomes," Seibel noted, further stating that "Established New Mexico programs specifically designed for pregnant women with substance use disorders were never offered or discussed."
These included:
Milagro Program (UNM Health) which provides "prenatal care and substance abuse treatment."
G.R.A.C.E. Program (Lovelace Women’s Hospital, Albuquerque) which offers care to pregnant women "struggling with opioid addictions" or "women living with addictions during and after pregnancy."
"This omission deprived the patient of material information needed to make an informed decision," Seibel noted.
The lawsuit also accused SWO and the abortion doctors of unfair trade practices by:
(A) [Attempting] to release prospective liability for medical negligence...
(B) Attempting to persuade patients not to sue for malpractice;
(C) Disclaiming any liability for emotional distress against public policy;
(D) Attempting to prevent women and patients from suing for emotional distress;
(E) Attempting to persuade patients to release malpractice liability in contradiction with well settled law of New Mexico.
(F) Offering funeral services for aborted babies without any intent to transfer the aborted babies to the funeral home.
The complaint was clear that "Defendants knew or should have known that [redacted] was intoxicated with methamphetamines" and therefore they "breached their duty to provide inform consent."
In addition, despite the mother's request to "release the baby's remains to Riverside Funeral Home to have services," the complaint alleges that "the body was placed in a medical waste container and destroyed."
The complaint concluded that:
The acts of the Defendants were so willful, wanton, and reckless they require the imposition of punitive damages.
Seibel alleged that "Records contain no discussion of reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment."
Seibel pointed to the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)'s "Guidance on Pregnancy Options Counseling" which states that "Appropriate pregnancy options counseling addresses... access to resources that reasonably could be anticipated to be needed."
The guidance adds that "clinicians should involve patients in an unbiased discussion."
This part is particularly interesting:
... [I]f a patient has expressed understanding of a fetal condition diagnosed prenatally, understanding of the availability of management options, and a clear desire to continue the pregnancy, it would not be person-centered to continue to bring up abortion as an option at every visit if there has not been a significant change in fetal status and additional counseling is not desired by the patient.
... an episode of pregnancy options counseling can reasonably and appropriately conclude when a patient expresses ambivalence or decision deferral... Clarifying whether the patient would like more information to support them may be helpful...
Separately, ACOG writes: "All patients should be routinely asked about their use of alcohol, nicotine products, and drugs, including prescription opioids and other medications used for nonmedical reasons."
ACOG additionally writes that, "The informed consent process ideally begins before decision making so that the patient is able to make an informed choice... based on clinical information, the patient’s values, and other considerations of importance to her."
The lawsuit contended that:
At the time of her elective abortion procedure, [redacted] did not know that she was free to seek medical assistance for medical complications at any medical facility. At the time of her elective abortion procedure, [redacted] did not have the capacity to fully understand the consent agreement.
"ACOG guidelines and committee opinions require screening for substance use in pregnancy, brief intervention, counseling on options, and referral to appropriate treatment resources. Providers are expected to discuss alternatives such as stopping or reducing use while continuing pregnancy care," Seibel contended.
Perhaps Boyd and his cadre of abortionists were misled by resources like the 2026 TEACH abortion training curriculum, which appears to suggest that drug impairment does not disqualify informed consent — a seemingly ludicrous claim.
On page 31 (image below), you can read the manipulation involved in abortion counseling:
The National Abortion Federation's (NAF) 2026 Clinical Guide is clear that "The clinician must ensure that accurate information is provided about the abortion process and its alternatives, and the potential risks and benefits. The patient must have the opportunity to have any questions answered to their satisfaction prior to the abortion" (emphasis added).
Seibel emphasized that New Mexico law "makes no sense," noting, “You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law." He added:
In New Mexico, they have a law that veterinarians cannot kill dogs with digoxin without giving them painkillers first.
They do not have that for the baby.
If a baby has the right to collect for wrongful death of an abortion, it has a right to live.Every time we give the unborn baby rights we solidify personhood.
"We're talking about personhood... for the first time where a baby is actually recovering against the person who killed it," Seibel stressed in the video interview below.
Seibel told Live Action News:
The abortion industry preyed on the mother's vulnerable condition for profit.
They not only failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse, but they failed to properly consent her before ending the life of her preborn child.They then billed the taxpayer under Medicaid for a procedure that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars.
"This settlement recasts the informed consent debate to give a powerful tool to collect damages against an abortionist. In addition, it confirms the existing standard of care for women facing substance abuse disorders," Seibel claimed.
"But, most importantly, it was the first ever case where the dead aborted child, identified as a 'person' in the court record, was able to collect damages against the abortion industry," he stated.
Seibel encourages women who may have a similar case to contact AbortionInjury.com.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Cassy Cooke
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Investigative
Sheena Rodriguez
·Investigative
Cassy Cooke
·Investigative
Bridget Sielicki
·Investigative
Nancy Flanders
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·