Court Opinion

ID: 9543516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:46:04.459457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:30.838195
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLER specially concurs as to Parts I and II and joins in Part III of the decision: I concur in the decision of the court. As the main opinion demonstrates, the minor’s “wrongful life” action seeking special damages must fail because he cannot establish a legally cognizable injury. I agree with the decision that the minor’s parents here suffered a legally cognizable injury and therefore should be allowed to pursue their “wrongful birth” action to recover the extraordinary expenses associated with their child’s ailment, but that the parents’ separate claim for damages for the negligent infliction of emotional distress is insufficient under Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 546. Because the parties’ contentions in this appeal are adequately answered under those principles of tort law, I do not believe that it is necessary, or even helpful, to introduce the abortion controversy into the proceedings here. I therefore see no reason to rely on the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, pars. 81 — 21 through 81 — 35) or to attempt to discover a “pro-life” character to any of the prior decisions of this court in deciding the issues here. For these reasons, I do not join in that portion of the opinion that looks to the Abortion Law as a source of public policy in this case, nor do I join in attempting to categorize any of the prior decisions of this court as “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” An analysis of the opinion demonstrates that neither inquiry is necessary to a resolution of the issues presented here.