Supreme Court of India Upholds Retarded Woman's Right to Refuse Abortion

Regent University law professor Scott Pryor posted on his blog Pryor Thoughts today about an Indian Supreme Court judgment barring a compulsory abortion against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year-old woman. Pryor recently returned from India where he taught law under a Fulbright Scholarship.

A Mother's Rights Vindicated

On 4 September I posted about the Indian Supreme Court judgment barring the abortion of the unborn child against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year old: http://pryorthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/buck-v-bell-india-style.html. I have since read the court’s opinion and corresponded with Bedi Tanu, the appellant's advocate who has practiced law for only six years.

Along with her senior advocate, she argued the case to the High Court in Chandigarh but lost. Nevertheless, through the efforts of friends and colleagues in Delhi, an appeal was delivered to the home of the Chief Justice of India at 9:00 pm on Friday night, only hours before the abortion was scheduled to take place the next morning.

Ms. Tanu argued the case on Monday after which a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a short written order indicating its decision in favor of life, which was followed by the lengthy written judgment the last month.

I can’t summarize the meaning of this case any better than in the words Bedi wrote to me:

Every life is very precious. We have to see the world of others from their eyes and not our eyes. This girl has her world. We are doing nothing for her. We have no right to interfere in her world. Her rape was and is a heinous offence. The offender is the rapist; the child is innocent. If the mother wants her child for any reason, we can’t question her motherhood instinct on the parameter of IQ analysis. The disabled may not express their desires so easily (though this girl expressed her's unequivocally) but that does not mean they have no wishes. Disability is more in our perception, in our bias, than in the world. Life for the disabled is difficult and now, when the law is recognizing their rights, we cannot allow our prejudice, our ignorance, our stereotyped approach, to come in the way of life of self-determination of the mentally disabled.

http://pryorthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-rights-vindicated.html#comment-form

Slippery Truth About Health Care Reforms and Elective Abortion Coverage

President Obama was gilding the lily when he declared that his healthcare reforms would not fund abortions with tax money, according to FactCheck.org. While the president's statement is technically correct, it is nevertheless true that the new system would collect non-tax "insurance" contributions from employers to fund abortion on demand.

Abortion 'explicitly' covered under ObamaCare
by Pete Chagnon
OneNewsNow

FactCheck.org says the National Right to Life Committee is correct concerning abortion provisions in ObamaCare.

According to FactCheck.org, President Barack Obama was right to a "limited extent" when he stated that his healthcare reform plan does not allow for "government-funded abortion." Although FactCheck.org states that under H.R. 3200 federal money is not used to fund abortion, under the public insurance option there is a provision for abortion coverage -- as well as provisions for government-subsidized public and private insurance plans that cover what are described as "reproductive services."

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the Washington, DC-based National Right to Life, says the president purposely neglected to tell the whole story.

"Well, President Obama really brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related components of this bill that his congressional allies have crafted and that his staff had a role in," Johnson contends.

"As the bill was amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30, it includes something called the Capps amendment which was put in by the pro-abortion side. And it explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions -- explicitly."

The Capps amendment has proposed by Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-California) as a supposed "compromise" on the abortion issue as it relates to healthcare reform. Johnson doubts Capps was trying to limit abortion funding, telling LifeNews.com that the California Democrat has never cast a pro-life vote in her 11+ years in Congress.

Johnson believes Obama, in trying to squelch discussion on abortion coverage, tried to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums -- both of which, the pro-life activist notes, are collected and spent by government agencies.

Over-the-Counter Abortifacient Wreaks Havoc on Teens' Menstrual Cycles

RU-486 has become, as predicted, a form of routine contraception. It's available "over the counter," and is wreaking havoc on young women's menstrual cycles, according to a Times of India report cited here by LifeSiteNews.com.

LifeSiteNews.com
Over-the-Counter Abortion Pills Lead to Menstrual Complications
By Patrick B. Craine

LifeSiteNews.com - Unsupervised over-the-counter use of 'emergency' contraceptive and abortive pills is leading to menstrual problems, reports The Times of India.

The paper reports that gynecologists are encountering increased incidents of menstrual problems among young women who are arbitrarily and repeatedly using these pills as regular forms of contraception.

"They check dosage on the internet, do their own calculations. Not understanding the consequences, they land up with incomplete abortions. They are scared about the uncontrollable bleeding, or not getting their periods," said Dr. Shilpi Tiwari to The Times of India. He also said that more than half of her clients are between 18 and their early 20s, all with pill-related complications.

In a 2002 Medscape interview, American 'emergency' contraception proponent
Dr. David Grimes asserted that easier access to these drugs would not result in greater reliance upon them as regular birth control.

"There are four studies which suggest that advance access to EC does not prevent use of regular birth control," he said. "When legalized abortion became available we heard the same argument, but going through an induced abortion actually encourages women to use birth control methods subsequently."

Grimes admitted the danger of such drugs to a woman's menstrual cycle. "Repeated use of EC wreaks havoc on a woman's cycle, so the resulting menstrual chaos acts as a powerful deterrent to using this method too often," he said.

Contrary to Grimes' assertions, however, popular morning-after pills are being used as casual contraception, the paper says.

"When you're with your boyfriend, you don't want to use condoms," says 21-year-old D Bina. Asked whether there are complications, she said, "At times. But you prefer sex
without a condom. ... Some put on weight, others don't feel right. But the body gets used to it."

Morning-after pills such as Plan B and I-Pill claim to be effective in preventing pregnancy for up to 72 hours; however, if fertilization has already occurred, they are abortifacient, preventing the newly-formed child from implanting in its mother's womb.

RU-486, on the other hand, known as 'chemical abortion', can be effective in killing an unborn child up to 7 weeks. According to some reports, however, this drug has a 'failure' rate of 15%, normally resulting, then, in a surgical abortion.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Abortion Pill not 'Safe' Despite Media Spin - Study Suggests Pill as
Dangerous As Surgical Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081601.html

Canadian Physicians Group Warns of Dangers of "Morning After Pill"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/may/04052005.html

Second Abortion Often Indicates Abusive, Coercive Relationship

A British medical journal reports a robust correlation between abusive relationships and multiple abortions. Should this affect the physician's duty of care to the patient, and should it be reflected in the physician's liability if he or she fails to inquire into the circumstances of the abortion? At the least, it would seem to impact the patient's consent, and if the physician is indifferent to this, it would seem to expose the physician to legal action for battery.

COUNSELORS AT THE CLINIC:
Repeat abortions linked to domestic violence
Eur/Electronic Urban Report

Abortion clinic staff should do a better job of counseling women, especially those who have had more than one procedure. That's according to a London study that discovered women who have repeat abortions are more likely to be involved in abusive relationships with their partner. The study said those findings should prompt abortion centers to do a better job of assisting women who may be pressured or coerced by a violent partner into having an abortion.

The new report, published in The Obstetrician and Gynecologist (TOG) medical journal revealed that thirty percent of women who get a second abortion say they were involved in an abusive relationship at the time, according to LifeNews.com.

"These findings highlight the need for health professionals to be aware of, and sensitive to, the possibility of violence in the lives of women seeking abortion," Jason Waugh, editor of the medical journal, told the UK-based Christian Institute in response, adding that "Our society should have zero tolerance for domestic violence."

"Given the high prevalence of violence in pregnancy, it is important to ask women seeking both maternity and abortion services about domestic violence," he said. "Knowing about domestic violence can help to ensure that women are provided with the support and information that they need."

After an abortion, partners are 75% more likely to argue about money than when having the baby, argue about the man's relatives 80% more, and there is a 99% increased risk of arguing about the woman's relatives compared to couples who give birth.

Midwestern Congressman Calls for Defunding of Planned Parenthood Federation

It is unlikely that Congressman Mike Pence's proposal to stop underwriting America's number one abortion provider with tax money will go anywhere. It's not the first time it's been proposed, and it has never passed before, even at the Republican Revolution's high tide in the mid-90's. Far more likely is that the Reid/Pelosi/Obama government will enact, by sly piecemeal amendments to budget measures and other unrelated legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act.

However, Pence's press release is worth reproducing below because it lays out the pro-lifers' case for defunding Planned Parenthood, and we may see it again if the current Democratic/RINO vice grip begins to shudder and slip. The URL for a one-page background paper provided by the Congressman's staff is provided at the bottom of this page.

PENCE SEEKS TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD
"The Time Has Come To Deny Any And All Federal Funding To Planned Parenthood"

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence gave the following speech from the floor of the U.S. House, announcing that he had filed an amendment to deny federal funding through Title X Family Planning to Planned Parenthood:

Remarks As Prepared For Delivery:

"The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X.

"Today I filed an amendment to block any funds under Title X in the Labor-HHS Appropriations Act from going to Planned Parenthood. This same amendment was supported by 189 bipartisan Members in 2007. I am confident it will be widely supported again this Congress and urge the Members of the Rules Committee to make the Pence Amendment in order.

"The Pence Amendment would simply prevent any funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood. It would not reduce the total amount of funds available for family planning. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. There are a number of federally funded clinics across the nation that offer beneficial services including patient counseling, breast cancer screenings, HIV prevention education, and many more. According to their last annual report, Title X funds helped over 4.7 million women prevent pregnancy by a variety of ethical methods such as abstinence education and birth control. There are many clinics funded by Title X that offer ethical family planning services - without providing abortions.

"Last year alone, according to Planned Parenthood's own annual report, it received nearly $350 million in revenue from government grants and contracts. This same annual report acknowledged that Planned Parenthood also performed more than 305,000 abortions - a 5.3% increase from the previous year. The nation's leading abortion provider is also currently under investigation in multiple states including Indiana, California, Alabama, and Tennessee for allegations of fraudulent use of Title X funding. Additionally, many Planned Parenthood centers have been caught violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws, and even encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state reporting laws.

"When Title X money goes to organizations that provide both abortions and family planning services, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions, it can be used to offset operational costs, freeing up money to promote and provide abortions. Again I say, the time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X. It's time to pass the Pence Amendment to keep taxpayer money out of the hands of Planned Parenthood."

SEE ONE-PAGE "BACKGROUNDER" AT:
http://www.mikepence.house.gov/images/stories/pence_amendment_one-pager.pdf

IRS Ultimatum to Nonprofit: Abandon Protests or Abandon Tax Exemption

The IRS has delivered an ultimatum to an Iowa pro-life nonprofit organization that it not picket or protest Planned Parenthood abortion sites, or lose its tax-exempt status. The Catholic lawyers' Thomas More Society has taken up the Coalition for Life of Iowa's cause, and demanded the IRS withdraw its opposition to 501(c)(3) status. This report is an excerpt from the Thomas More Society's press release.

As a Condition for 501(c)(3) Recognition, IRS Demands Assurance that the "Coalition for Life of Iowa" Not Picket or Protest Planned Parenthood Locations

The Thomas More Society demanded last week the Internal Revenue Service withdraw its opposition to 501(c)(3) status for the Coalition for Life of Iowa.

After inquiring about the "educational" nature of the Coalition for Life of Iowa's activities, the Internal Revenue Service stated that it would not grant tax exemption unless the Coalition agreed to limit its "picketing" and "protesting" of Planned Parenthood. Compliance with this request would result in a restriction of the speech of the Coalition for Life, as well as a breach its First Amendment rights.

While other similar pro-life non-profits have had little trouble attaining tax-exempt status from the IRS in the past, this unwarranted ultimatum reveals what may be a new government prejudice against pro-life organizations and the Pro-Life movement. Such demands should never arise in the IRS's decision-making process to grant tax-exempt status for any applicant non-profit organization.

The Thomas More Society has posted more about the IRS ultimatum on its website at http://www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Not Since Canaanites Gathered Around the Altars of Baal 3,000 Years Ago

In just one sentence, Calgary Herald columnist Nigel Hannaford has put abortion into historical perspective: "Abortion has been around forever of course, but not since the Canaanites gathered around the altars of Baal 3,000 years ago has anybody actually defended child sacrifice as an intrinsically good thing."

The current abortion regime really is something extraordinary, unprecedented in Western Civilization. Like it or deplore it, abortion-as-we-know-it is not just an incremental adaptation of previous practices.

Calgary Herald
Social conservative face shown at last
By Nigel Hannaford

Talk about stirring things up. After Finance Minister Iris Evans delivered off-the-cuff comments about family life, much combustible gas erupted from the bottom of the pond as the left jumped all over her. Yet, all she said was that going to work and letting somebody else raise your children wasn't ideal. Wow. There's subversive.

Come on. She didn't say working couples were wicked, and until quite recently a parent at home for the kids was what just about everybody did. More would do it today if they could afford it. But, the left piled on. Liberal Leader David Swann called it "outrageous," a "black eye for Alberta." The NDP said she was out of touch with reality, and much else besides. It was an Alberta example of what the left everywhere loves to do: Use walls of sound to try to shut down opinions it doesn't like. Often, these are positions that have been mainstream for centuries, if not eons. In the case of Evans, it's state-run day care that's the left's real issue with her. Socialists everywhere dream of when all little kid-dies are dropped off at the government mind-meld facility, where people who really know how to make children into good, compliant citizens, will have their way with them. (Not a new idea, by the way: Prussian academics were promoting it 130 years ago.) So, how dare Evans encourage parents who want to do the job themselves? What next? Kind words for home schoolers?

The left has made effective use of the co-ordinated yell to topple one motherhood issue after another as those of us who have lived long enough can attest. Oddly, the first to go was the one that should have been impregnable: The bond between mother and unborn child. But, somehow enough women became persuaded that it wasn't a baby they were carrying, just fetal tissue, and that their choice of convenience superseded its right to be born. Abortion has been around forever of course, but not since the Canaanites gathered around the altars of Baal 3,000 years ago has anybody actually defended child sacrifice as an intrinsically good thing.

Bizarre, but now a politician who so much as proposes limits on abortion, makes him- or herself a magnet for vile personal attacks. So did those who argued without success that thousands of years of past practice and the consensus of the world's religions suggest the institution of marriage was and should remain exclusively heterosexual. And for environmental conservatives, there's the ultimate slander - to be called Nazis. Ellen Goodman for instance, a liberal columnist who has many imitators, wrote in 2007: "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." Let's see. Tim Ball is like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Of course not. However, no less a Kyoto skeptic than Stephen Harper (who in 2002 wrote in this paper that as environmental policy, Kyoto was "a fraud") has, since becoming prime minister, been obliged to prescribe policies he once scorned. Such is the power of the left's green scream.

Conservatives need to sort through their issues. The right has a long history of blending authentic truth with some mean-spirited attitudes: Liberty for some, but not for all; condemning people instead of behaviour, drive-by misogyny and so forth. The attitudes, they need to lose. However, they should have more confidence in their truths. Evans's family ideal is well-founded and requires defence, not excuse. Within its abilities, it should be her government's objective to use tax and benefit policies so Albertan families that want to keep one parent at home for the kids, have that choice. As for Alberta's left, Evans should remember a party that hasn't formed a government for 90 years could hardly claim to understand today's realities itself: Nor could one that not one Albertan in 10 will vote for. The noise is not coming from the moral high ground. The government shows its social conservative face? About time.

Quebecois Abortionists Bristle at Proposed Canadian Health Insurance Rules

If U.S. Democrats want to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," as former President Clinton claimed, and as Democrats from Tipper Gore to Barack Obama have since confirmed, or even if they just want to publicly fund abortions under the proposed new health care systems, they might want to take note of the controversy brewing up north in Quebec.

The article Le Droit article reproduced below, to summarize for the monolingual Americans whom President Obama denounced during his Europe tour, says that Bill 34, under consideration by a Quebec parliamentary committee, would require private clinics that perform about 50 surgical procedures - including abortion - obtain permits as "specialized medical centers."

This would subject the clinics to rules regarding facilities, staff, procedures, even dress code. Without this permit, clinics will have to shut down or lose eligibility for Quebec's $350 health insurance payments.

More than a quarter of Quebec abortions are performed privately, outside hospitals. Some Canadian hospitals decline late-term abortions Some have long waiting lists and cannot schedule elective abortions promptly. Current health insurance rules permit hospitals to refer to private abortionists, including general practitioners, who threaten to stop offering abortions if Bill 34 passes.

Le Droit
L'avortement menacé dans le secteur privé
By Pascale Breton, La Presse

Exaspérés par les contraintes administratives que veut leur imposer Québec, les médecins menacent de ne plus pratiquer de nombreuses interventions dans les cliniques privées, notamment les avortements. Une décision qui aurait un impact important sur les listes d'attente.

Des ententes existent entre des hôpitaux et des cliniques privées pour y référer des femmes qui veulent subir une interruption volontaire de grossesse. Plusieurs hôpitaux sont en effet incapables de faire les avortements dans les délais requis en raison des listes d'attente élevées. D'autres ne pratiquent pas ce genre d'interventions au−delà d'un certain nombre de semaines de grossesse.

Tout risque de changer, affirme le président de la Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, le Dr. Gaétan Barrette. "C'est certain que les gynécologues−obstétriciens vont arrêter de faire ces interventions parce que ce qu'on leur impose comme lourdeur est trop grand. On impose aux cabinets privés des normes hospitalières."

Le son de cloche est similaire du côté des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec qui pratiquent le plus grand volume des avortements.

"On se retrouve avec un carcan administratif, déplore le président de la Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, le DrLouis Godin. Nous pensons qu'il y a un risque important que ça ne mette un frein à l'accessibilité, parce qu'il y a probablement des médecins qui vont arrêter d'en faire."

Le problème réside dans la teneur du projet de loi 34, à l'étude en commission parlementaire à Québec cette semaine. Dans un souci d'accessibilité aux soins et dans la foulée du jugement Chaoulli, le gouvernement veut encadrer une cinquantaine de procédures chirurgicales faites dans le privé.

A compter de l'automne, les cliniques devront être reconnues comme des cliniques médicales spécialisées. Elles devront obtenir un permis délivré par le ministre. Elles devront aussi se conformer à une série de règlements, autant en ce qui a trait aux installations, au personnel, aux procédures, jusqu'au code vestimentaire.

Si la clinique n'obtient pas de permis, elle devra cesser ses opérations ou devenir privée au sens où les médecins devront devenir non participants au Régime de l'assurance−maladie du Québec.

Mais les médecins estiment que les règles administratives sont trop nombreuses. "Les gens vont simplement arrêter de faire ces procédures parce qu'ils n'ont pas besoin de ça pour vivre", lance le Dr. Gaétan Barrette.

L'impact sur les avortements est important. En 2007, près de 5000 interruptions volontaires de grossesse ont été réalisées dans les cliniques privées et quelque 2800 dans les centres de santé des femmes. Environ 19900 interventions ont été pratiquées dans les hôpitaux et les CLSC.

A la suite d'un jugement de la Cour supérieure du Québec, le ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux rembourse par ailleurs 350$ pour chaque avortement pratiqué au privé, en plus des honoraires médicaux payés par la RAMQ.

Bien d'autres procédures faites au privé risquent d'être aussi abandonnées. Une décision qui aurait même un impact sur le projet de loi sur la procréation assistée. En campagne électorale, les libéraux s'étaient engagés à payer des frais de traitements de fertilité aux couples qui veulent avoir un enfant.

"Il est strictement impossible de faire de la fécondation in vitro dans le public au Québec. Il n'existe aucune ressource", souligne le DrBarrette.

En commission parlementaire, le ministre de la Santé, Yves Bolduc, a expliqué qu'il voulait s'assurer de la sécurité entourant chacune des procédures.
"Dans les cliniques médicales spécialisées, ce sont des actes chirurgicaux qui sont pratiqués. C'est le pendant d'un bloc opératoire à l'hôpital. [...] Le fait d'avoir un agrément, un permis spécial est tout à fait indiqué."

En fin de journée hier, le ministre Bolduc a par ailleurs indiqué que les centres de santé des femmes, des organismes à but non lucratifs où se pratiquent notamment des interruptions volontaires de grossesse, ne seront pas soumis aux règles les contraignant à devenir des cliniques médicales spécialisées.

7th Circuit Lifts Injunction Against Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit yesterday dissolved a federal injuntion against enforcement of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act, thus entitling Illinois parents, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, to notification before their minor daughters obtain an abortion.

The broader, perhaps nationwide significance of the decision may be the legal strategy devised by Thomas More Society counsel Paul Linton to lift federal injunctions, which have frustrated numerous attempts to legislate on culture war issues, including abortion and homosexuality, nationwide. Legal limbo, accordingly, may be a shrinking component of the Leftist arsenal in the future.

The Thomas More Society issued this announcement yesterday.

Chicago, IL -- Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dissolved the federal injunction against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act. As a direct result of the court's decision (Zbaraz v. Hartigan), Illinois parents will be entitled, for the first time since Roe v. Wade was decided, to notification before their minor daughters are taken for abortions. The decision is the culmination of four years work by the Thomas More Society, particularly TMS Special Counsel Paul Linton, who devised the legal strategy which ultimately led to the lifting of the injunction.

"This is an incredible victory for Illinois parents and their children," said Peter Breen, Executive Director and Legal Counsel of the Thomas More Society. "Parental involvement laws enjoy overwhelming public support. These laws promote the integrity of the family and ensure that parents are consulted so that their children are not forced into an abortion decision. A wealth of social science data indicates that parental involvement laws lead to lower pregnancy rates, out-of-wedlock births and abortions."

The Parental Notice Act has been in legal limbo for more than ten years because of the Illinois Supreme Court's refusal to issue the rules necessary to make the Act effective. Since the passage of the Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois minors have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.

Following Linton's legal strategy, representatives of pro-life organizations met with DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett in the spring of 2005 to ask him to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt the rules required by the 1995 Act. Birkett agreed and filed his petition in June 2006.

On September 7, 2006, the Thomas More Society, representing a range of interested organizations, filed a supplemental petition with the state supreme court. Less than two weeks later, the Illinois Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Bob Thomas, unanimously adopted Supreme Court Rule 303A.

After various delays, Attorney General Lisa Madigan returned to federal court in March 2007 and petitioned Judge David Coar to lift the permanent injunction which had been issued eleven years earlier. After Judge Coar denied the petition, the Thomas More Society intervened in the case on behalf of State's Attorneys Stu Umholtz (Republican, Tazewell County) and Ed Deters (Democrat, Effingham County) to press an appeal against the injunction.

Canada Wrestles With Human Dignity of Child: Does It Depend on Context?

Canadians are wrestling with the ambiguous situational ethics of abortion and infanticide, but have not achieved any clarity as yet.

Mom asks charge of hiding baby's body be dropped
Teens found human remains in March 2007
The Sault Star
by Maria Calabrese

Canada has never come up with a definition of "fetus" or "child," and that is exposing a North Bay mother to a public trial based on evidence that doesn't exist, her lawyer argued Tuesday.

Even the highly charged Henry Morgentaler case that brought abortion rights to the Supreme Court of Canada more than 20 years ago failed to define when the rights of a pregnant woman stop and the rights of the fetus begin, said defence counsel Erin Lainevool.

"We do not put people on trial for doing things we cannot understand, that we frown upon, or that upset us, simply because we want answers," Lainevool told court.

"Public outcry, shock, sadness or the need for answers are not the purview of the criminal justice system unless there is also evidence."

She is representing Tabatha Etches, a 27-year-old North Bay woman linked by DNA to the decomposing remains of an eight-pound, four-ounce baby boy. Two teens found the remains wrapped in a towel in a garbage bag near a walking trail in a wooded area near Laurentian public school March 30, 2007.

A judge acquitted her of infanticide and showing indignity to a human being or human remains, mainly because there is no cause of death or proof the child was born alive.

In Canada, a fetus has no rights and is not legally considered a human being.

That same judge ordered Etches to stand trial for failing to get help with childbirth -- which carries a maximum jail sentence of five years -- and concealing the body of a child -- with a sentence of up to two years imprisonment.

Lainevool asked a higher court to review that ruling, saying the judge overstepped his role by allowing a weak case to go to trial.

Superior Court Justice Paul Rivard will give his decision at a later date whether to acquit Etches on the remaining charges.

While the defence argues the charge of concealing a child's body exposes women to prosecution if they miscarry at home without medical intervention, the Crown says there is other evidence in this case that merits the charges going to trial.

That evidence is currently protected by a publication ban.

Crown attorney Paul Condon refers to the Canadian Labour Code that uses the terms "child" and "fetus" interchangeably, although the defence said that's a different context involving the protection of pregnant women and nursing mothers exposed to hazardous workplaces.

The Crown also refers to the federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act which defines a fetus as a human organism beginning on its 57th day after creation and ending at birth. It does not define "child."

Court heard Ontario's Vital Statistics Act only offers a definition of birth as a live fetus from the mother.

The problem is Canada's Criminal Code is based on English law drawn up centuries before Canada was even a country, Lainevool said.

"We've adopted legislation and simply incorporated it into our system. But the society that existed at that time is very different than the society that exists today in terms of women's rights, in terms of health, in terms of technology, in terms of abortion," she said.

Self-Congratulation Abounds in Canadian Pro-Life Group's Launch of Brand

It remains to be seen whether Signal Hill will ever bear a resemblance to William Wilberforce's dogged antislavery campaign. For now, it certainly doesn't lack self-esteem, to judge by Terry O'Neill's fawning panegyric in the National Post.

It's not off to a good start mining lessons from Wilberforce, who was a 50-year finger nail across the blackboard of amoral British Mercantilism. If Manning and O'Neill think Wilberforce won abolition of British slavery by putting "service before sermons," they are quite mistaken. Wilberforce was confrontational, and he fought on even when his cause was utterly forsaken by his peers.

National Post
A wise new strategy for pro-lifers
By Terry O'Neill

A long-standing legal and moral issue - the mere mention of which causes newscasters both here and in the U.S. to lower their voices an octave - suddenly squeezed its way into the news earlier this month, thanks to some interesting developments on both sides of the border. But perhaps the most significant Canadian event of all involving the issue - abortion - passed with not a single word of notice in the mainstream media. That's a pity, because it involved a prominent former national political leader emerging from his Calgary redoubt to embrace and endorse a new strategy to reinvigorate the pro-life movement.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Preston Manning, the newly emerged champion of a B.C.-based group called Signal Hill. The fast-growing organization intends to help Canada reconsider its acceptance of abortion. Signal Hill's strategy is to put aside impassioned political and moral arguments in favour of service, education and compassion. You might say the group is aiming, not for Canadians' minds, but for their hearts. And Manning couldn't be more pleased.

This past month has seen some fairly significant abortion-related events. A Gallup poll in the U.S. found that, for the first time since the company started asking the question, the majority of Americans considered themselves pro-life.

The news came at the same time as controversy was building over Notre Dame's awarding of an honorary degree to President Barack Obama; protesters said a Catholic university should not be honouring a pro-abortion President. Subsequently, anti-abortion hecklers interrupted Obama's keynote address at the Catholic institution.

Naturally enough, things weren't quite so dramatic in Canada. There was a smattering of stories about the 40th anniversary of the legalization of abortion in Canada, and also some coverage of the national March for Life in Ottawa on May 14. Some of the smaller provincial marches received coverage as well.

If anything, the fact that abortion is still in the news is a repudiation of Jean Chretien's remark of nine years ago: "We have social peace with that [abortion] at this moment."

The dismissive declaration helped slam the door shut on mainstream public discussion about the issue in the years that followed - except, of course, for the odd headhunting journalist trying to trip up a conservative candidate. Nevertheless, anti-abortion diehards have been determined to show there actually is no social peace over the country's lack of a law regulating abortion.

To prove their point, they've staged the aforementioned marches, and Life Canada, for example, has released annual polls showing that most Canadians actually want some restrictions on abortion. More confrontationally, the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform has helped set up graphic displays at universities, likening abortion to genocide.

Pro-lifers in B.C., on the other hand, decided to adopt a different approach. Building on the success of their compassionate Focus on Life television campaign, they made some creative changes last June. They adopted a new name, Signal Hill, and featured a woman-and family-friendly look to their Web site and printed material.

It all goes along with a new educational and service-oriented approach to help women make informed choices when they are in a crisis pregnancy. The Signal Hill moniker was chosen as a way of telling Canadians that the group intended to take the high ground in the abortion debate and that it aimed to separate truth from falsehood. (Full disclosure: I sit on the board of Signal Hill.) Response in the Canadian pro-life community (yes, there is a widespread and active - although somewhat aged - one) has been largely positive. Indeed, some groups in other provinces have requested permission to adopt the Signal Hill brand.

Enter Manning. Back when he led the Reform Party of Canada, Manning always worked hard to keep the hot potato of abortion (opposition to which is closely linked with Christian groups) from landing in his party's hands.

Today, with his Manning Centre for Building Democracy sponsoring such offerings as a "faith-politics interface program," Manning is freer to speak his mind on such big questions. But it doesn't mean that he's in favour of using religious or moral arguments in the public square.

Rather, in a speech on May 11 to more than 600 Signal Hill supporters, Manning repeatedly stressed that pro-life advocates had to be "wise like serpents, gracious as doves." And he drew a direct parallel between the struggle to end abortion and the fight to end slavery in the British Empire.

That latter engagement lasted more than half a century, he pointed out. At first, it was led by Quakers, who advanced well-meaning, high-minded and morally indignant arguments against slavery. They got nowhere. And it was only when a new group, led by the likes of William Wilberforce, adopted a new strategy of drawing attention to the suffering associated with slavery that progress was eventually made.

The lessons are clear, Manning said. Put service before sermons. Broaden one's base. Ensure that your tactics are wise and gracious. And do not let zeal for the cause override your long-term plan. In all respects, he said, Signal Hill appears to be following this path.

Naturally enough, Signal Hill's leadership and supporters are encouraged by Manning's imprimatur. They can only hope their own wise and gracious approach to one of this nation's most vexing issues will prove to be as successful as Wilberforce's.

- Terry O'Neill is a Vancouver writer and editor, and co-host of RoadkillRadio.com.

(c) 2009 The National Post Company.

President's Loyalty to Abortion Lobby May Deprive Underserved of Modern Medicine

President Obama's decision to rescind medical professionals'' right of conscience to refuse to participate in abortions, or refer for abortions, may have an impact on healthcare availability to underserved populations. Dr. Kim Shaftner's article here from Catholic Online International News explores some of the specifics.

Dictates of Conscience - or Dictated Conscience?
President Obama has directed the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind the conscience clause.
By Kim Shaftner MD
American Center for Law and Justice (www.aclj.org/)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (ACLJ) - President Barack Obama has directed the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind the "conscience clause" which protects health-care personnel from pressure to perform or participate in procedures they regard as violations of their personal moral and ethical beliefs.

This action would rescind a 2008 Executive Order which sought to protect those who conscientiously hold to life-affirming principles of medical practice.

Mandating professional compliance is a heavy-handed, despotic approach and hardly reflects Obama's self-described "moderate" approach to abortion policy.

Physicians in our country have been typically granted the most autonomy among members of the healthcare team, and abortion advocates have continuously trumpeted their insistence that government refrain from interference in the physician-patient relationship.

Yet in this circumstance the mantra has been changed to suit the agenda: as noted by the Bioethics Defense Fund's Nikolas Nikas, "the 'right to choose' has become the 'right to coerce.'" Private citizens have a privilege against undue governmental influence on their ability to obtain abortions—not a right to demand one.

Mandated compliance generates tremendous disincentives for those already in practice, and those who are considering healthcare professions. Enactment of this Executive Order will have the effect of pushing moral refusers out of medicine. The field is likely to be deprived of some of the best and brightest candidates, those who will not make the demanding sacrifices of medical training, only to become puppets of the government. Many of those who currently practice in underserved and poverty-stricken areas do so because of their Biblical and ethical commitments. This Executive Order could drive them out of practice, generating huge gaps in medical services.

President Obama has clearly abandoned his stated goal of uniting Americans. There are alternatives to his plan, however, which could affect a compromise without sacrificing patient care. One solution would grant authority to state medical and licensing boards to determine which physicians are willing to perform certain services, allowing others to opt out. Patients and doctors could be matched, based upon shared values and beliefs.

The fact is that there’s not much time before President Obama acts on this important issue. We’re in the middle of a 30-day public comment period. A growing number of Americans – including medical professionals who don’t want to violate their conscience by engaging in abortion-producing procedures – are expressing their concern and opposition to President Obama’s desire to rescind the “conscience clause” protection.

The question: will he really listen?

-----

Kim Shaftner, MD is a Fellow at the American Center for Law and Justice. Dr. Shaftner practiced medicine for 24 years and is finishing his last semester at Regent University School of Law.

HHS Nominee is Good News for Post-Viability and Teen Abortion Markets

The abortion industry can probably look forward to a mutually beneficial relationship with the Obama administration if the Senate confirms Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Sebelius will oversee an annual budget of $821 billion.

Sebelius vetoed bills in 2003 and 2005 that would have mandated the safety of abortion centers in Kansas, which were allegedly operating under medically dangerous conditions. In 2008 she vetoed a measure to enforce the state's parental notice law.

More recently, she vetoed a bill that would have required those doing late-term abortions to provide an explicit medical reason.

A nominal Catholic, she also vetoed another bill that would have required those doing post-viability abortions (that is, abortions after the point when the child is developed enough to breathe on its own outside the womb) to report the diagnosis that led to the abortion.

According to the Family Research Council, Gov. Sebelius received significant political donations from a late-term abortionist and used the Governor's Mansion to entertain both this man and the nation's leading partial-birth abortionist. Post-viability abortionists are expected to provide robust financial support for President Obama's 2012 reelection bid.

Abortion opponents have denounced the appointment as "divisive."

Unlicensed California Abortionist Sentenced to 3 Years, 4 Months in Prison

Scofflaw abortion freelancer Bertha Bugarin was sentenced to prison in a California court earlier this week for doing abortions without a license, but an Operation Rescue spokesperson complained that the sentence was too lenient. Cheryl Sullenger vowed that her anti-abortion group will continue to monitor illegal abortionists and seek their prosecution, according to this article in LifeSiteNews.com.

LifeSiteNews.com - February 2, 2009
California Abortionist Sentenced to Over 3 Years in Prison

LOS ANGELES (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bertha Bugarin was sentenced in a Los Angeles court on Friday to only 3 years, 4 months in prison for committing illegal abortions without a medical license. Prosecutors had asked for five years. Bertha appeared in court sobbing, where she requested leniency from the judge. Her 22-year old daughter, Evangelina Bernal, also cried as she read a prepared statement extolling the virtues of her mother.

"In sentencing Bugarin, Judge Sam Ohta has forgotten that Bugarin's victims were given no such mercy. Many of the women were cruelly given abortions without anesthesia or pain medication," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger.

"Bugarin preyed on vulnerable Hispanic neighborhoods. She hoped to earn the maximum amount of profit by providing the shoddiest care, hoping the illegal status of many in those neighborhoods would prevent them from reporting what one journalist described as her 'shop of horrors.' Her victims will have to live with
the trauma and injury Bugarin inflicted on them for the rest of their lives. Bugarin is a cold-hearted predator whose only remorse is that she got caught."

Bugarin has a long history of disregard for the law and the safety of women who came to her abortion business that once operated 11 abortion facilities. At least six of Bugarin's abortionists have lost their medical licenses, due to negligence and fraud.

One of her abortionists, Laurence Reich, was a twice-convicted sex offender who molested and raped his abortion patients. Reich surrendered his license in 2006, but continued to work as an abortionist for Bugarin until his arrest in February, 2008.

Even after her arrest in a Los Angeles Police raid on four of her remaining six clinics, Bugarin continued to operate in San Diego County until her arrest there. Bugarin pled guilty to 9 felony counts in San Diego County and is scheduled for sentencing there on Friday, February 6.

"We are very thankful that Bugarin's clinics are now closed and that she is on her way to jail where she belongs," said Sullenger. "This sends a message to abortionists around the nation who have the attitude that they are above the law: We are watching you, and we will not stop working to enforce the laws until you, like Ms. Bugarin, are brought to justice."

Miami won't prosecute infanticide case, but Thomas More Society will sue

The Thomas More Society is invoking civil remedies on behalf of an infant allegedly murdered by Miami abortion entrepreneur Belkis Gonzalez in connection with a business conspiracy among 13 defendants. Miami law enforcement officials have declined to initiate criminal proceedings, and have withheld evidence that the Society hopes to introduce at trial.

The LifeSiteNews.com website posted this report Friday.

LifeSiteNews.com - January 30, 2009
Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive at Abortion Clinic then Killed and Hidden from Police

MIAMI, FL (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Tuesday, January 27, 2009, suit was filed by the Thomas More Society in Miami on behalf of Shanice Denise Osbourne, an infant girl who was allegedly murdered in July, 2006.


The case claims that Shanice was born alive and then murdered by abortion clinic owner, Belkis Gonzalez. Thirteen defendants (including Gonzalez, abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique and their conglomerate of four South Florida abortion clinics) have been sued for unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, botched abortions, evasive tactics, false medical records and the killing, hiding and disposing of the baby.

Shanice’s mother, Sycloria Williams, learned she was pregnant early in July of 2006 when she went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain and bleeding. She decided to abort the baby, and visited the Miramar Woman Center in Miramar, Fla., where she was referred to abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique. Dr. Renelique inserted laminaria sticks to dilate the cervix and prescribed additional medication to be taken that night in preparation for the procedure the next morning at a Hialeah clinic.

Williams arrived at the Hialeah clinic on the morning of July 20, 2006, feeling ill and in severe pain from the medication the night before. Despite the fact that the doctor nor any other licensed health practitioners were present, the abortion center’s receptionist gave Williams Cytotec, which induces labor and also dilates the cervix. Williams, however, began to feel even worse with nausea and cramping. According to testimony, the staff had her sit in the clinic’s recovery room area where she waited for hours in severe and increasing abdominal pain without medical staff available.

At one point, unable to remain seated, Williams braced herself with the arms of the recliner chair she was sitting on. As she lifted herself, her water broke and she delivered a live baby girl onto the seat of the recliner. The baby writhed and gasped for air, still connected to Williams by the umbilical cord.

Immobilized by shock, Williams watched Gonzalez run into the room, cut the umbilical cord with a pair of orange-handled shears, stuff the baby into a red biohazard bag and throw the bag into a garbage can. Shortly thereafter, the doctor arrived at the clinic and sedated Williams. The doctor’s medical records failed to indicate that Williams had delivered a live baby that was killed by the clinic.

Anonymous callers notified police at least three times about the live birth and murder, and when police executed a search warrant on July 22, 2006, they found medical records but couldn’t locate the baby’s remains. Six days later, another anonymous caller told police the baby’s body had been hidden on the roof. Police responded but didn’t find the baby’s body on the roof. After another anonymous tip police got another search warrant and found the decomposing baby in a cardboard box in a closet at the clinic. DNA linked the baby’s remains to Williams.

The Miami-Dade County medical examiner performed an autopsy which showed that the baby’s lungs had been filled with air before her killing, proving it was a live birth. But the examiner blamed the death on “extreme prematurity,” ignoring eyewitness testimony that the baby had been murdered.

The Thomas More Society took an interest in the case when a local law school professor was quoted in The Miami Herald to the effect that if the baby wasn’t “viable,” then it “couldn’t be a case of homicide.”

“That opinion is dead wrong,” says Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “A disabled or dying patient may not be ‘viable’ in the sense of being able to live very long or without help, but if you kill them, it’s murder. This was a case of infanticide, and we’re not going to let it go ignored or unpunished.”

The Thomas More Society tried to secure a second autopsy but prosecutors wouldn’t release the baby’s body, or take any action to begin criminal proceedings. An investigator and expert pathologist were retained by the Society, and the expert concluded – after examination of the autopsy slides and investigation of all the facts – that the acts and omissions of the abortionist and clinic staff were causative factors in Shanice’s untimely death.

The state attorneys’ office has had this matter “under investigation” for more than two years with regard to filing what the Thomas More society says should be a clear case of criminal murder, or at least manslaughter.

“This case will trumpet to the world that abortion clinics are places of barbarism where mothers as well as their babies are at serious risk,” said Brejcha. “Moreover, this case should put some sharp teeth into the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. As we struggle to end the scourge of legal abortion in this country, we must hold the line against infanticide!”

Abortion Industry Files Suit Against Conscience Protection Regulations

Excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

A lot has changed in the medical industry since ancient Greek physicians vowed to do no intentional harm. Here is Jason Ramsey's post on Top News about lawsuits filed Thursday against the regulations, which would protect the "right of conscience" of medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions or to dispense abortifacient drugs, scheduled to take effect today.

Seven states and two abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the U. S. government to invalidate a federal regulation that would protect health care workers who refuse to perform abortions or other medical procedures because of religious or moral reasons.

Attorneys general of the seven states of Connecticut, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island filed lawsuits on behalf of the states to the rule set by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut and American Civil Liberties Union, which was acting on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, filed separate lawsuits in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. In a statement Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said, "We filed this lawsuit today on behalf of the millions of women whose health care has been put in jeopardy by the Bush administration's parting shot at women's health."

This regulation was set last month and would allow the federal government to withhold federal funds for state and local governments, health plans and health care facilities that do not follow existing federal laws that ban discrimination against doctors and other health workers who refuse to participate in procedures such as sterilizations or abortions or to make referrals for such procedures.

In a statement issued at the time, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said, "Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience."

Those who oppose the rule say it is an attempt to deny legal abortion and contraception to women. In a joint statement Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut said, "The midnight regulation, issued by the outgoing Bush administration, poses a serious threat to women's health care by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services."

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said, "On its way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking legal time bomb set to explode literally the day of the inaugural and blow apart vital constitutional rights and women's health care. Women's health may be endangered -- needlessly and unlawfully -- if this rule is allowed to stand." Blumenthal added that the regulation encouraged individuals to "deny virtually all forms of contraception's, even emergency contraception to rape victims."

In an e-mail department spokeswoman Rebecca Ayers said, "We have not had an opportunity to review the lawsuits and we will respond to the court on any pending litigation. The department followed appropriate procedures to put the regulation in place and the regulation is fully supported by law."

HHS and Illinois Supreme Court Affirm Pro-life Medical Professionals' Right of Conscience: Will Obama Counter?

Life Advocacy reported two victories for pro-life medical professionals, including pharmacists, just before Christmas. President-elect Obama has promised pro-abortion constituents that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, reversing much of the reform that pro-lifers ground out since President Clinton left office in 1993.

Obama may keep his campaign promise, but if he does, it may be at the expense of his honeymoon. Pro-lifers are unlikely to accord him the deference traditional at the outset of a new presidency if he confronts them in this way.

Conscience Rule Finalized

THE LONG-AWAITED 'CONSCIENCE RULE' WAS PUBLISHED in Friday's Federal Register and is set to take effect Jan. 20 at 12:01 a.m. - as it happens, the very day of the Presidential inauguration of one who is expected by his abortion industry backers to cancel it.

The new President will not have the power on his own, however, to repeal the statutory medical provider conscience provisions the rule is intended to implement. "Federal protection of provider conscience rights dates back to the 1970s," notes a news release from the Dept. of Health & Human Services announcing the new regulation. "The [Church] Amendments protect health care providers and other individuals from discrimination by recipients of HHS funds on the basis, among other things, of their refusal, due to religious belief or moral conviction, to perform or participate in any lawful health service or research activity." Such "service[s]" and activities would certainly include committing abortion or aiding medical experiments in which embryonic boys and girls are sacrificed.

More recently the statutory law has prohibited, by a 1996 law sponsored by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), "federal, state or local governments from discriminating against individual and institutional health care providers (including participants in medical training programs)," notes the release, "who refused to, among other things, receive training in abortions; require or provide such training; perform abortions; or provide referrals for, or make arrangements for, such training or abortions."

The department's chief, Secretary Mike Leavitt, initiated the Medical Provider Conscience Regulation in response to an attempt by ACOG (the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists) to force all ob/gyns either to commit or at least refer for abortion and even, if unwilling to commit such child killings, to locate their offices in proximity to abortionists.

"The new regulation will increase awareness of and compliance with [the] laws" enacted "over the past three decades," notes the release, "to safeguard the freedom of healthcare providers to practice according to their conscience.

"'Doctors and other healthcare providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,'" Secy. Leavitt said in the release. "'This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.'"

It also serves, notes David Stevens MD, CEO of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Assn. in a CMA news release, "'to protect patients who want access to conscientious and compassionate care from Life-affirming physicians. These objective standards have for millennia formed the foundation,'" Dr. Stevens said in the CMA release, "'of patient care and protection, and this regulation ensures that physicians and others won't be run out of the profession for upholding those standards.'"

Care Net pregnancy centers network president Melinda Delahoyde joined in praise of the new regulation, noting in a Care Net news release: "'Care Net and its national network of pregnancy centers rely on the availability of healthcare providers who have the right to conscientiously object to abortion. These healthcare providers - RNs, nurse practitioners and physicians - provide critical free services at pregnancy centers to those facing unplanned pregnancies and other health concerns. Without these new conscience protections,'" said Ms. Delahoyde in the Care Net release, "'fewer healthcare providers would be available to serve this at-risk population in our nation's pregnancy centers.'"

Care Net's national medical consultant Dr. Sandy Christiansen also weighed in, quoted in the Care Net release declaring, "'These new regulations send a message to both current and aspiring healthcare providers that their personal code of ethics, their conscience and their adherence to the Hippocratic Oath matter and will be protected.' When Dr. Christiansen was an intern," notes the Care Net release, "she was denied operating room privileges by her chief resident, who explained it was because she was not 'working hard doing the abortions' like others and thus would not get that 'perk.' Later, as a chief resident," the Care Net release adds, "she was humiliated by the attending physician in front of her team of residents, interns and students when she would not [commit] an abortion on a patient whose baby was diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. . Not once," notes Care Net, "were Dr. Christiansen's faith-based convictions validated in these experiences nor was she informed of her rights according to existing law to protect against this kind of discrimination."

The HHS release quotes the department's Assistant Secretary of Health, Admiral Joxel Garcia MD: "'Many healthcare providers routinely face pressure to change their medical practice - often in direct opposition to their personal convictions. During my practice as an ob/gyn, I witnessed this firsthand. Healthcare providers shouldn't have to check their consciences at the hospital door,'" he said, adding that while Congress has "'enacted several laws to that end, . too many are unaware these protections exist.'"

Now they know. Will they truly advocate the repeal of actual choice?

We can be thankful that Secy. Leavitt has followed through and promulgated the regulation before leaving office. Regardless of what the new President does with it, the Medical Provider Conscience Protection regulation is a fine legacy for a pro-life public servant and its underlying legislation is worth fighting to maintain.

Conscience Right Respected

IF ILLINOIS LEGISLATORS ARE LOOKING FOR INCIDENTS wherein Rod Blagojevich (D), has abused his power as governor, they need look no further than his 2005 "emergency rule" ordering Illinois pharmacists who conscientiously object to the "morning-after pill" to stock and dispense the megadose abortifacient or face state sanctions, including loss of license.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled last week that "pharmacists may now defend their right of conscience" against the rule, reports Richard Baker, Chicago attorney from the firm of Mauck & Baker, which had filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Illinois and American Pharmacists Associations in a case brought by two pharmacists challenging the rule.

Pharmacists Luke VanderBleek and Glen Kosirog "claimed in a nine-count complaint," reports Mr. Baker in his news release celebrating the vital ruling, "that the governor's dictate and the administrative rule that followed were violations of their statutorily and constitutionally protected rights to conscience and free exercise of religion.

"'No pharmacist should ever be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood,' said [Mr.] Baker" in the release. "'This decision is good news in light of the many legislative initiatives [in various states] to override the conscience of those, like [the two complainants], who seek to follow the dictates of conscience in practicing their profession. We would all do well to pay more attention to our consciences,'" said Mr. Baker, adding, "'the governor included.'"

Though the high court ruling did not overturn the rule itself, it did clear the way for the complainants to pursue their litigation challenging its constitutionality; a lower court had earlier dismissed the suit on grounds of standing, ripeness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. That dismissal was upheld by an appellate panel on a split decision but further appealed to the state supreme court, which last Thursday ordered the trial court - in Illinois, the "circuit court" - to hear the complaint.

Mr. Baker said he was "'pleased with the result and hope[d] that the circuit court, on remand, will vindicate the fundamental right of pharmacists in Illinois to follow their conscience in their vocation.'"

Contact Information

Business Office:
2004 E. Sherwood Rd.
Arlington Heights, Il 60004 Toll Free: (888) 344-LIFE
briefing@lifeadvocacy.com
www.lifeadvocacy.com