§ 8305. Actions for wrongful birth and wrongful life.
(a) Wrongful birth.--There shall be no cause of action or award of damages on behalf of any person based
on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a person once conceived
would not or should not have been born. Nothing contained in this subsection shall
be construed to prohibit any cause of action or award of damages for the wrongful
death of a woman, or on account of physical injury suffered by a woman or a child,
as a result of an attempted abortion. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be
construed to provide a defense against any proceeding charging a health care practitioner
with intentional misrepresentation under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L.1109, No.261),
known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L.457,
No.112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, or any other act regulating the
professional practices of health care practitioners.
(b) Wrongful life.--There shall be no cause of action on behalf of any person based on a claim of that
person that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the person would not have
been conceived or, once conceived, would or should have been aborted.
(c) Conception.--A person shall be deemed to be conceived at the moment of fertilization.
(Apr. 13, 1988, P.L.336, No.47, eff. imd.)
1988 Amendment. Act 47 added section 8305. Section 7 of Act 47 provided that section 8305 shall not
apply to any case in which a final award of damages has been made and with regard
to which the time to take an appeal has expired without an appeal being taken. Section
8 of Act 47 provided that, except as provided in section 2 of Act 47, which added
section 8305, section 8305 shall have retroactive effect, including application to
any case pending or on appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Jenkins v. Hosp. of Med. Coll. of Pennsylvania, 585 A.2d 1091 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 32× “Such a claim, the trial court held, was barred by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305, which reads in pertinent part as follows: (a) Wrongful birth.”
Hatter v. Landsberg, 563 A.2d 146 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 8× “Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint by misconstruing and misapplying 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305, enacted March 25,1988, which abolishes causes of action for wrongful birth and wrongful life, and by not permitting them to amend their complaint.”
Ieropoli v. AC&S CORP., 842 A.2d 919 (Pa. 2004).
· cites it 2× “[14] Turning to the respective arguments the parties have presented, Appellants assert that as a general proposition, Article 1, Section 11 does not prevent the General Assembly from enacting a statute that eliminates a cause of action that exists at common law.”
Sernovitz v. Dershaw, 127 A.3d 783 (Pa. 2015).
· cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(a). . As this is an appeal from the sustaining of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, the factual background is drawn from the amended complaint and developed in a light favorable to the plaintiffs.”
Dansby v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., 623 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “WIEAND, Judge: In this action for the wrongful birth of a child, the trial court held that the action was barred by Pennsylvania’s wrongful birth statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(a), and sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the complaint.”
Konidaris v. Portnoff Law Assocs.., Ltd., 884 A.2d 348 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Four years later while the case was ongoing, the General Assembly passed a statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 8305) that precluded any cause of action for wrongful birth for any case pending or on appeal as of the statute's effective date, which included the plaintiff's case.”
Holden v. Holden, 542 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1988).
· cites it 6× “The predecessor to the current Long Arm Statute was found at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305, (Purdon Supp. 1974-75), which was repealed in 1976.”
Edmonds v. W. Pa. Hosp. Radiology Assoc., 607 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 18× “Thereafter, appellees, relying upon the statutory prohibition against causes of action premised upon a claim that a person should not have been born, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305, filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.”
Kassama v. Magat, 792 A.2d 1102 (Md. 2002).
“Code § 32-03- *138 43 (2001); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat Ann. § 8305(B) (West 2001); S.”
Butler v. Rolling Hill Hosp., 555 A.2d 205 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Appellee argues that the present action is governed by a wrongful birth and wrongful life statute, Act 1988-47, Section 2, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305, enacted April 13, 1988, (while the present appeal was pending) which explicitly bars appellant’s cause of action.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8305(B) — 1 case
Kassama v. Magat, 792 A.2d 1102 (Md. 2002).
“Code § 32-03- *138 43 (2001); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat Ann. § 8305(B) (West 2001); S.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8305(a) — 9 cases
Ieropoli v. AC&S CORP., 842 A.2d 919 (Pa. 2004).
“[14] Turning to the respective arguments the parties have presented, Appellants assert that as a general proposition, Article 1, Section 11 does not prevent the General Assembly from enacting a statute that eliminates a cause of action that exists at common law.”
Dansby v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., 623 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
“WIEAND, Judge: In this action for the wrongful birth of a child, the trial court held that the action was barred by Pennsylvania’s wrongful birth statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(a), and sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the complaint.”
Hatter v. Landsberg, 563 A.2d 146 (Pa. 1989).
“Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint by misconstruing and misapplying 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305, enacted March 25,1988, which abolishes causes of action for wrongful birth and wrongful life, and by not permitting them to amend their complaint.”
Sernovitz v. Dershaw, 127 A.3d 783 (Pa. 2015).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(a). . As this is an appeal from the sustaining of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, the factual background is drawn from the amended complaint and developed in a light favorable to the plaintiffs.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8305(b) — 2 cases
Sernovitz v. Dershaw, 127 A.3d 783 (Pa. 2015).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(a). . As this is an appeal from the sustaining of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, the factual background is drawn from the amended complaint and developed in a light favorable to the plaintiffs.”
Hatter v. Landsberg, 563 A.2d 146 (Pa. 1989).
“Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint by misconstruing and misapplying 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305, enacted March 25,1988, which abolishes causes of action for wrongful birth and wrongful life, and by not permitting them to amend their complaint.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.