Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Guide to a New Arrival, 55 Ala. Law. 84, 88 (1994). Today, “most courts [ ] recognize the distinction between causing [a birth defect] and causing the parents to lose the option to terminate the pregnancy, [and] the latter causation standard is widely accepted in jurisdictions recognizing wrongful birth actions.” Gold, supra, at 1013 (citing Robak, supra, 658 F.2d at 477; Keel, supra, 624 So.2d at 1027). The appropriate proximate cause question, therefore, is not whether the doctor’s negligence caused the fetal defect; the congenital harm suffered by the child is expressly not compensable. Rather, the determination to be made is whether the doctors’ inadequate disclosure deprived the parents of their deeply personal right to decide for themselves whether to 2d 232, 237 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Smith, supra, 513 A.2d at 347 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding woman who alleged she was terminated for having an abortion stated a prima facie case for discrimination (B) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (C) holding that plaintiff satisfies causation by showing that in absence of defendants negligence she would have obtained abortion (D) holding that plaintiff must establish that had she learned of impairment during her pregnancy she would have terminated pregnancy (E) holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired
Output (English): holding woman who alleged she was terminated for having an abortion stated a prima facie case for discrimination