Outside Its Capitol District, the Mexican Political Landscape is Generally Prolife

Over half Mexico's 32 states have enacted Constitutional amendments declaring that life begins at conception since an August 2008 pro-abortion decision by the Mexican Supreme Court, according to this Chicago Tribune article.

The grassroots are so pervasively prolife that even the secular, anticlerical Partido Revolucionario Institucional(PRI), historically antagonistic toward the Catholic Church, has supported the prolife state Constitutional amendments.

Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices have cited "emerging" foreign legal trends to justify recent decisions, including one that overturned restrictions on homosexual conduct, but I would not expect that they'll find the emerging Mexican trend nearly as seductive.

Mexican States Adopt Abortion Restrictions In Response To Legalization Of Procedure In Mexico City

In response to a Mexican Supreme Court ruling in August 2008 upholding a Mexico City law permitting abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 17 of 32 Mexican states have approved amendments to their constitutions declaring that life begins at conception and granting legal rights to fetuses, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Veracruz, which in November 2009 became the most recent state to enact an antiabortion-rights amendment, has called on the federal government to consider adding a similar amendment to the national constitution.

Many of the new laws contain exceptions allowing abortion in cases of rape or if the woman's life is in danger, and they allow judges to send women for counseling instead of jail if they are convicted of having an abortion.

Maria Luisa Sanchez, director of GIRE, a Mexican abortion-rights group, said that the measures effectively "treat women as if they are criminals," adding that abortion is "going to be more clandestine than before." Abortion-rights groups have filed legal actions in state courts to thwart the enforcement of the laws.

Abortion-rights opponents say the spate of amendments reflect a popular backlash against the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling. The Roman Catholic Church, the National Action Party of President Felipe Calderon and the center-left Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, back the amendments.

Observers say that the PRI - which lost the presidency in 2000 and has long favored women's rights and a strong separation of church and state - made a political decision to support the amendments with an eye to elections in 12 Mexican states in 2010.

According to Daniel Lund, a pollster and analyst based in Mexico City, the PRI has shifted to a more conservative stance on abortion to head off conservative rivals as state elections approach. PRI's new position has drawn anger from abortion-rights advocates who say party leaders have traded principles for a possible advantage in the next election.

Tiller's Killer Argues Necessity Defense

The first-degree murder trial of Scott Roeder for killing late-term abortionist George Tiller may yield the most robust abortion opponent's criminal defense in decades.

Almost since Roe v. Wade, these cases have ended either in a negotiated guilty plea or in a show trial, in which the judge rammed the conviction through. Even in nonviolent trespassing cases, American courts have refused to permit the accused to raise the "necessity" defense, which is routinely permitted in other criminal prosecutions.

Kansas District Judge Warren Wilbert, no friend to abortion activists in previous litigation, startled onlookers when he veered from the customary script and refused to prohibit defense attorneys from arguing that Roeder was over-charged (that the charge should have been voluntary manslaughter instead of first-degree murder), based on Roeder's perception of the necessity of killing Tiller to prevent the killing of innocent third parties (unborn children).

If defendants accused of violence against abortionists are permitted to defend themselves as vigorously as other criminal defendants, it could affect climate change in the abortion industry. Convicted assailants might not necessarily be signing on for lethal injection or life in prison, and there might be an occasional not guilty verdict.

One of the attractive features of an abortion practice is the ability to have a life away from the clinic. Nobody will call the abortionist out of his daughter's birthday party for an emergency, and his pager will not go off during his parents' 50th wedding anniversary banquet. He can be active in his Lutheran Church, as Tiller was, or in his Jewish Congregation, as New York abortionist Bart Slepian was. He can schedule a golf day, or an annual fishing trip, with autonomy. A perception of increased physical danger, however, may offset the allure of these perks of the abortionist lifestyle.

Abortion industry shareholders are therefore concerned that even-handed criminal procedure may indirectly drop the water table for providers, such that only the most deeply-rooted, ideologically-committed abortionists would stay in the business. Most agree that pro-abortion true believers make up a small fraction of the total abortion provider cadre. For broad availability, the industry will need the services of a large pool of uncommitted, opportunistic providers, at least until and unless Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are able to deliver more coercive measures to forcibly recruit collaborators to the business.

Judge's Background Under Scrutiny in Trial of Man Accused of Murdering U.S. Abortion Doctor
Canadian Press Newswire

WICHITA, Kan. - The judge overseeing the trial of the man accused of gunning down a Kansas abortion doctor is a practicing Roman Catholic who once courted the endorsement of an anti-abortion group - but who has insisted the case won't be about abortion. State District Judge Warren Wilbert galvanized both sides in the U.S. abortion debate this week when he refused on the eve of Scott Roeder's murder trial to block the defence from trying to build a voluntary-manslaughter case by arguing that Roeder believed the killing of Dr. George Tiller was necessary to save unborn children. Legal experts said the judge's decision was a proper attempt to protect the defendant's rights. But the move has put Wilbert and his background under the microscope heading into one of the most sensational abortion-related cases in the U.S.

"All high-profile trials put a lot of pressure on judges because even though our courtrooms are open, generally speaking, the public doesn't have an eye on judges unless election time comes around," said Michael Kaye, director of Washburn University's Center for Excellence in Advocacy in Topeka. "So a judge in this position, any judge knowing this, is going to try to do his best to appear judicious and to rule in a way that will not get him reversed."

Wilbert, 57, is considered by many in the local legal community to be a fair judge. No one can seem to point to an instance in which he injected his religious beliefs into a case.

He is a rather low-key figure on the bench. He runs a tight courtroom, isn't given to colorful exchanges and has little tolerance for distraction. The Roeder trial _ which began with jury selection Wednesday _ is easily the biggest case to come before him.

Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the U.S., was shot to death inside his Lutheran church in Wichita last May.

In televised hearings, Wilbert has been scrupulous about keeping private his own beliefs on abortion, exhaustively citing case law when making any rulings. He angered news outlets when he closed jury selection to the media, saying the presence of reporters could inhibit prospective jurors from speaking frankly about abortion.

He has insisted the trial will not turn into a debate over abortion, warning Roeder's lawyers that he intends to keep the case as a "criminal, first-degree murder trial."

Wilbert, a Republican who earned his bachelor's and law degrees from Washburn University in Topeka, was appointed to the bench in 1995 and faced no opposition the first three times he stood election. The most recent race was a different story: Wilbert won re-election in 2008 by a mere 471 votes out of nearly 166,000 cast.

Kansans for Life's political action committee endorsed Wilbert in that race, though it did not contribute to his campaign directly. The mainstream anti-abortion group does not espouse violence, and its political arm focuses on lobbying the state Legislature.

Finance records show that Wilbert paid the group $75 in September 2008 to have his name listed in an ad in its quarterly newsletter, a 24-page booklet that included articles such as "Update on Tiller charges" and "Planned Parenthood - a Snake in the Grass!" Planned Parenthood is a leading abortion provider. The judge also spent more than $16,000 on radio spots on seven stations.

The ad in the newsletter took up most of the bottom of page 16. It said: "The Kansans for Life PAC urges you to vote for, work for and pray for the following pro-life candidates."

David Gittrich, the organization's state development director, said the group endorsed Wilbert because it believed he was no judicial activist and would not try to make new law from the bench. "The No. 1 thing is, is this a good judge?" Gittrich said.

In an election guide published by The Wichita Eagle, Wilbert described himself as a member of Wichita's St. Thomas Aquinas Church, where the married father of two was a lay minister and former president of the school board. Among Catholicism's core doctrines is a strict stand against abortion.

Beyond the ad, campaign-watchers said they could not recall anything he might have said about his position on abortion during his re-election bid.

In an email to The Associated Press, Wilbert turned down an interview request for this story, saying he could not comment because of the trial.

The judge has dealt with cases involving abortion before. Court records show a 2005 case in which he dismissed a public records lawsuit filed by Cheryl Sullenger, the senior policy adviser for anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, after she was denied copies of tapes of calls to the emergency dispatcher for ambulance runs from Tiller's clinic. Though the judge ruled against her, Sullenger said she believes Wilbert will "do his job" in the latest case. "Most everybody in the world is looking at him - he is not going to pull monkey business," Sullenger said. "I don't think he wants to be known as the judge who blew the biggest case he's ever had."

Though he advertised with Kansas for Life, campaign finance records show that Wilbert also received a $500 contribution in June 2008 from Dan Monnat, one of Tiller's lawyers. Two months before his slaying, Tiller was acquitted of misdemeanour charges he failed to get an independent second opinion for some late-term abortions as required under state law. Wilbert and Monnat had worked together before, when Wilbert faced his own legal problems. A judicial commission reprimanded him in 2006 for a personal relationship with a subordinate employee - conduct Wilbert later explained to the Wichita Bar Association consisted of riding motorcycles with courthouse employees after work. "I donated to his campaign because I thought he was a good judge and would continue to be a good judge," Monnat said.

Washburn University's Kaye dismissed as "hyperbole" warnings that allowing Roeder to build a manslaughter case will lead to open season on abortion doctors. Kaye said he doubts Roeder's lawyers will actually be able to pull together such a defence. "Lawyers when they try a case are concerned first and foremost with defending somebody - no matter how unattractive and controversial - within the bounds of the law," Kaye said, "and they expect the judge to recognize that, and he has."

National Cancer Institute Dismissive of Abortion's Cancer Rate Although Double the Cancer Caused by Second-Hand Smoke

It's all well and good for shrill ideological bloggers to declare that somebody who takes a serious interest in a 40 percent increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion must be "anti-choice, anti-women and anti-health." But if recent research findings hold up, such rhetoric will be a poor strategy for abortion providers.

If they don't disclose the increased cancer risk to women who are deciding whether to buy abortions from them, they may be explaining why not to exasperated trial juries. With research indicating an increased risk approximately double that of second-hand smoke, abortionists' insurers are almost certainly concerned about the prospect of tobacco-sized negligence or battery awards to cancer-stricken young women and their survivors.

Lorne Gunter's article in (Canada's) National Post is a nuanced, sensible analysis of the recent cancer controversy.

What Scientists Don't Tell You About Abortion

By Lorne Gunter, National Post

For the past month or so, the pro-life community has been buzzing. It would appear that at long last one of the leading breast-cancer researchers in the world, Louise Brinton, chief of the hormonal and reproductive epidemiology branch of the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), has admitted a link between abortion and a higher risk of breast cancer among women.

Dr. Brinton's admission - if you can call it that - is not exactly straightforward. She is one of the co-authors of a study of 1,600 Seattle women that seems to show a 40% greater chance of a woman developing breast cancer if she has had an abortion. Still, even such an indirect concession by Dr. Brinton would be remarkable. In 2003, Dr. Brinton chaired a conference on the ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link for the NCI and invited "over 100 of the world's leading experts" to attend.

To that point, worldwide, 29 of 38 studies in the previous 40 years had shown a slightly elevated risk for breast cancer among women who had prematurely terminated a pregnancy - somewhere between 30% and 100% greater risk, right in the range of the new Seattle study. Interestingly, though, none of the authors of the raised-risk studies was invited to the NCI conference, nor were any of their findings discussed. Yet at the end of the conference, it was declared to be "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

Frankly, the whole event reminded me of a United Nations conference on global warming: Invite only those scientists who agree with the preconceived conclusions of the gathering's organizers. Ignore (or even suppress) any research that tends to disprove their theories. And in the end, declare that the "science is settled" because all the world's "experts" have said so. So while Dr. Brinton has only signed off on the conclusions of a single Seattle study - she has made no public admission of a change of thinking - the fact she chose to associate herself with a study showing an ABC link is important.

But is the risk the study shows truly significant? Not really. Most epidemiologists don't worry too much until the elevated risk for any single factor reaches 200%, and they only worry then if the level is repeated in study after study. For instance, smokers are 1,400% more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, even non-smokers who inhale a lot of secondhand smoke. The increased risk of contracting cancer from smoking is clear.

Dr. Brinton and the other Seattle researchers controlled for women's ages, their family history of breast cancer, lactation history and how long they had taken birth control pills. They even sorted out those subjects who had never been pregnant from those who had so theirs would be an apples-to-apples study. Only women who had been pregnant were surveyed. Then the cancer rates of those who had not ended their pregnancies were compared with those who had.

As several defenders of the "well-established" view on ABC have pointed out, the Seattle study did not correct for income or obesity or any of a handful of other factors that similar health studies have accounted for. Therefore, they argue, the elevated risk seen in this latest study might well just be statistical static. And it might be.

But why then the rush to denounce anyone who so much as asks questions about the conventional view on the subject? (Again, a parallel between the ABC debate and the global warming debate.) One blogger wrote that anyone supporting the Seattle research was "anti-choice, anti-women and anti-health." The answer, of course, is that even cancer research is now politicized. For more than a decade there have been several reputable scientists convinced of a small ABC risk. But they have been unable to get heard over the din of name-calling and character assassination that the pro-choice side has thrown up to prevent any claw-back of abortion rights.

There is plenty of hypocrisy in this, too. Second-hand smoke increases non-smokers' risk of lung cancer by less then 20%, even with prolonged, heavy exposure. That's about half the apparent increased risk of developing breast cancer from having an abortion. Yet governments have passed all sorts of laws shielding the public from secondhand smoke at work, the arena, the mall and the stadium. This is pure bias. Politicians and cause pleaders favour abortion and oppose smoking, so they admit risks only as it suits their agendas.