Fourth Circuit Will Convene En Banc to Reconsider Panel's 2-1 Holding Against Virginia Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

The federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will meet in its entirety (en banc) to rehear arguments on Virginia's partial-birth abortion ban after a three-judge panel of the same court overturned the law by a 2-1 decision.

One of the appeal issues is that the Virginia statute, unlike its federal counterpart, does not protect abortionists who set out to perform legally permissible abortions, but perform partial-birth abortions by accident.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari after the 6th Circuit struck down a similar Michigan statute in June, 2007. If the 4th Circuit decides en banc to uphold Virginia's statute, the High Court may grant certiorari in order to resolve the conflict between the circuits.

Full court will consider Virginia ban on 'partial-birth abortion'
By LARRY O'DELL
Associated Press

RICHMOND - A full federal appeals court agreed Monday to review a panel decision striking down a Virginia law banning a type of late-term abortion.

The state attorney general's office asked for the rehearing after a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the ban unconstitutional on May 20. Oral arguments are expected in late October.

The law bans a procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth abortion." Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the panel's majority opinion that the law is unconstitutional "because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion."

An appeals court panel first struck down the statute in 2005. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the court to take another look after upholding a similar federal abortion ban last year.

"We are pleased by today's decision that the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear this case for the first time," said J. Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bob McDonnell.

Stephanie Toti, the Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer who represented abortion providers in the case, said she was surprised the full appeals court decided to rehear the case "because the legal issues involved are fairly straightforward."

Abortion opponents claim the Virginia law is broader than the federal ban. One key difference between the two laws cited by the appeals panel in its 2-1 ruling: The federal law protects doctors who set out to perform a legal abortion that by accident becomes the banned procedure, while the Virginia statute does not.

"The Virginia law is extreme in its application," Toti said. "It's basically a ban on a common method of second-trimester abortion."

Toti also noted that in June 2007, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared Michigan's law unconstitutional because it could also prohibit other abortion procedures. The Supreme Court in January refused to review the decision.

———

The case is Richmond Medical Center v. Herring.

On the Net:
The May 20 panel decision: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031821A.P.pdf

Massachusetts Abortionist Arraigned, Surrenders Passport & Medical License

A Barnstable, Massachusetts abortionist pled not guilty to manslaughter during his arraignment in a state courtroom yesterday in connection with the allegedly botched abortion death of 22-year-old Laura Hope Smith. Dr. Rapin Osathanondh was released on his own recognizance after surrendering his passport to ensure that he would not flee the country while awaiting trial.

A grand jury indicted Osathanondh after its investigation into Smith's death uncovered a lack of life-saving equipment, the failure to monitor the patient, the delay in calling 911, and an effort to cover up his negligence.

Osathanondh earlier surrendered his medical license and closed his abortion clinics in Brookline and Hyannis, where Smith died.

"This was only possible because the death was publicly exposed by pro-lifers and because Laura's mother, Eileen, was steadfastly determined to seek justice," said anti-abortion activist Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue. "It just goes to show what can happen when those fighting for justice just won't give up."

The report on conditions in Osathanondh's abortion facilities "is a must see," Newman said. "The deficiencies and negligence that led to Laura's death are not unique to this particular abortionist. These kinds of conditions exist at abortion mills across the nation. Laura's death serves as a warning to all women. When women walk into America's abortion mill, they are playing Russian Roulette with their lives."

RU486 is No Help Against Cancer, Infections, or Viruses Including HIV

Recent University of Pennsylvania research suggests that the abortifacient RU486 has no effect on natural killer (NK) cell activity. Two other (non-abortifacient) drugs in the study showed some promise, but RU486 was of no benefit.

Antidepressants May Help Body Fight Cancer, HIV

The Independent reports that new research published in Biological Psychiatry indicates some antidepressants may help they body fight HIV, cancer and other infections.

Natural killer (NK) cells are white blood cells which home in on infected or cancerous cells, releasing agents that induce apoptosis, or “cell suicide”. NK cells are especially active against viruses.

The research emerged from findings that stress and depression impair NK cell function and can accelerate the progress of HIV/ Aids. Scientists recruited depressed and non-depressed HIV-positive women and treated them with three drugs to treat stress and depression. Two, Citalopram and the “substance P antagonist” CP-96345 increased NK cell activity, while RU486 had no effect.

The Independent article also contained the following quote from the leader of the research team, Dr. Dwight Evans of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia: “The findings show that natural killer cell function in HIV infection may be enhanced by selective serotonin re-uptake inhibition and substance P antagonism.”

It sounds promising. If additional research supports the theory it is possible more people suffering from HIV and/or cancer will also be put on an antidepressant. Many cancer patients already are because it helps with chronic pain management.

Virginia Prosecutor Absolves Catholic Charities Staffer Who Authorized Teen Refugee's Abortion

OneNewsNow reported Wednesday that a Catholic Charities staffer signed a 16-year-old girl's parental consent form obtain an abortion in Virginia. By Friday, the A.P. news wire reported that Virginia Commonwealth's Attorney (prosecutor) Michael Herring had absolved the staffer of criminal liability.

Questionable abortion involves Catholic group
by Rusty Pugh OneNewsNow

Virginia's Commonwealth Catholic Charities is under investigation for allegedly helping a 16-year-old Guatemalan immigrant obtain an abortion. Michael Herring, the Commonwealth's Attorney for Richmond, Virginia, agreed to investigate the charities involvement after American Life League (ALL) demanded action.

According to press reports, both the Diocese of Richmond and Bishop Francis DiLorenzo had prior knowledge of the abortion, which happened January 18, 2008. But diocesan statements say that Bishop DiLorenzo was erroneously told there was nothing he could do to intervene.

Four employees of Catholic Charities were fired in March for their involvement. Bishop DiLorenzo informed his fellow bishops of the abortion on April 29 and the Wanderer, a national Catholic publication, broke the story June 13.

Judie Brown of The American Life League says this investigation is an excellent first step, but wonders why details are just now being made public -- almost seven months later. She says the ALL will continue to pressure Herring to investigate the alleged criminal acts that involved the provision of contraception and an abortion to a minor.

"We can't believe the antipathy of the Commonwealth District Attorney, but we have no desire whatsoever to take the pressure off of him. It is his responsibility to defend the law and to investigate these crimes," says Brown.

While the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is investigating whether any federal crimes occurred, the Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney is investigating whether the Catholic Charities employee who signed the girl's parental consent form violated state law.

Catholic Charities staffer won't be charged in child's abortion
Associated Press

A Catholic Charities staffer in Virginia who signed a consent form allowing a 16-year-old Guatemalan foster child to get an abortion won't face prosecution.

Richmond-based Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring says there was no criminal intent because the Catholic Charities staffer and others on her team believed they had the legal authority to sign the abortion consent form. Herring said workers believed the procedure was allowed after the Office of Refugee Resettlement denied funding for the abortion, but did not direct staffers away from the procedure.

The Catholic charity cares for refugee children with support from the office. Richmond Bishop Francis DiLorenzo has apologized for lapses that led to the abortion.

California Planned Parenthood defies FDA, prescribes deadly RU-486 (a.k.a. mifeprestone) doses for home use

The University of Michigan has studied the deaths of eight women who died of bacterial infections caused by improper administration of a French abortifacient drug, in violation of FDA protocols. The Family Research Council email below suggests that the deadly abortionists operate with impunity because of Planned Parenthood's bodyguard of Congressional Democrats.

RU-486 Deaths at Planned Parenthood - A study from the University of Michigan traces the deaths of eight women who died from bacterial infection due to the improper administration of RU-486 by professional abortion providers.

Four fatalities occurred as a result of California Planned Parenthood clinics that failed to follow FDA protocol for dispensing the deadly drug. PP continues to urge patients to take one pill in the abortion regimen at home despite FDA warnings that it "should be done in a medical office to monitor women for complications."

Despite a plethora of irregularities at PP clinics, including the intentional targeting of minorities for abortion, the cover-up of underage abortions, statutory rapes and incest, the falsification of records and blatant disregard for the law, human safety, and life, Congressional Democrats push for increased taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.

Is a New Day Dawning in Abortion Litigation?

Bill Saunders has posted an optimistic proposition on the Family Research Council's blog: that "a new day is dawning" in abortion litigation. For decades, abortion negligence and abortion battery plaintiffs have come up against what Constitutional litigator Jay Sekulow calls "the abortion distortion" - a recurring bias in favor of the abortionist at every stage of the proceedings.

It is testimony to the low expectations of anti-abortion activists that Saunders is so elated at the procedural ruling in the South Dakota case that divests a federal district judge there of authority to indefinitely postpone enforcement of a properly enacted state law that requires full disclosure by the abortionist, informed consent by the woman. The Family Research Council was not a party to the lawsuit, but filed an amicus curiae brief.

I would have thought that "a new day dawning" would entail leveling the playing field in malpractice, negligence and battery actions against abortionists, not just upholding modest, unburdensome state regulation of the abortion industry. Here is the text of Saunders' post on the Family Research Council's blog.

A new day is dawning in abortion litigation

Remember Gonzales v. Carhart? That's the Supreme Court decision from last year that upheld the Congressional ban on partial birth abortion. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and lawyers tied themselves up in knots trying to interpret it. Most agree it was a narrow victory for the pro-life cause, but it was a victory. That can be seen in last Friday's decision by the 8th Circuit to allow a South Dakota abortion law to go into effect, a case in which FRC filed a friend of the court brief.

Prior to Gonzales v. Carhart, such laws were routinely struck down before they ever came into binding, legal force. Kennedy specifically noted, however, that this approach (another of the distortions abortion causes to the law) would no longer be followed. If someone wanted to challenge a law as it was applied to them, they could, and the court would decide whether specific provisions of that law, rather than the entire law, violated the Constitution. The 8th Circuit applied that logic to a challenge to South Dakota's law, and allowed the law to go into effect.

The law merely provides that women seeking an abortion should be given complete information about the risks involved, etc, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry wanted to stop it at any cost, as usual, regardless of the fact women deserve to receive such information. However, the 8th Circuit rejected their old "business as ususal" approach to litigation concerning abortion and replaced it with some common sense.

A new day is dawning in abortion litigation.

En banc, 8th Circuit says new South Dakota disclosure law is enforceable

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier's injunction against enforcing a South Dakota abortion-related full disclosure law has been overturned, according an Associated Press wire story, clearing the way for implementation pending a determination by the same (overruled) judge as to the constitutional merits of the state law.

Court overturns injunction on S.D. abortion law
By CHET BROKAW

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled that South Dakota can begin enforcing a law requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life.

The 7-4 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis sends the case back to U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier of Rapid City for proceedings that will result in a decision on whether the law passed by the 2005 South Dakota Legislature is constitutional.

Schreier had temporarily prevented the law from taking effect while she decides the case. She had ruled that opponents had a fair chance of succeeding in their claim that the law violates doctors' free-speech rights by forcing them to tell women things the doctors might not believe.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit had agreed with Schreier, but the full court threw out her order. It said Friday that Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, has not provided enough evidence that it is likely to prevail.

"The bottom line is if the state Legislature orders a professional to tell the truth, that's not a violation of the First Amendment," said South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the law in court.

Mimi Liu, a lawyer for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said such rulings generally take about three weeks to take effect. Long said it could take less time.

The 2005 law would make doctors tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

Planned Parenthood has failed to show that the information to be given to women seeking abortions is untruthful, misleading or irrelevant to the woman's decision, the appeals court majority said. Taking into account definitions in the law, the information required to be given is biological in nature, so Planned Parenthood has not shown the information is ideological, the decision said.

Harold Cassidy, a lawyer representing two pregnancy counseling centers that support the abortion law, hailed the ruling.

"We think it's a big victory for the woman obviously to be given accurate information in order to make a decision not only for the child, but also for herself," Cassidy said.

Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, said the law would force doctors to read ideological language to women seeking abortions.

"They are imposing compelled speech on doctors. It is not about providing information to women. It is about intruding in the doctor-patient relationship. It is unprecedented and extremely outrageous," Stoesz said.

Planned Parenthood's lawsuit contends the law not only violates doctors' free-speech rights, but also is an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion.

South Dakota voters in 2006 rejected a ballot measure to ban nearly all abortions. A measure on this year's ballot also would ban abortions but would allow exceptions in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's life and health.