Just a Blog of Protoplasm

Abortion Industry Assesses Legislative Landscape After Midtern Elections

2011-01-15T14:43:00.005-06:00

This web news site represents the abortion industry, which apparently fears that the 2011 midtern elections could be game-changing.

Anti-Abortion State Legislators Rise in Power
by Sharon Johnson
WeNews senior correspondent

State legislatures look poised for what pro-choice activists grimly call a banner year in bills to limit abortion rights.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Pro-choice advocates are bracing for a tough year in state lawmaking.

"Thanks to the gains by conservatives in the Nov. 6 election, 2011 will be a banner year for anti-choice legislation in the states," predicted Donna Crane, policy director of the Washington-based NARAL Pro-Choice America, the political watchdog of the pro-choice movement for more than 30 years.

Only 34 of the more than 600 anti-abortion bills proposed by state lawmakers in 2010 were approved last year. But that number is set to soar, says Crane, because 15 states now have anti-choice legislatures and governors versus 10 in 2010--and anti-choice politicians made gains throughout the country.

"Other states have experienced significant increases in the number of conservatives who are in key positions in legislatures where they can roll back pro-choice laws that have been on the books for 30 years," she said.

The implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--the landmark health care overhaul that President Obama signed in March--became a battleground for abortion financing last year and has intensified the desire of anti-choice legislators to introduce bills that will make it more difficult for women to finance the procedure at the state level.

By mid-July, when most state legislatures had adjourned for the year, five states had already passed laws prohibiting abortion coverage in the health insurance plans offered by the new state exchanges, which will begin operating in 2014.

"A deluge of similar bills will be introduced when legislatures reconvene this month," Crane said. "Although 1 out of 3 American women has had an abortion by the age of 45, conservatives will argue that abortion coverage is not an essential part of women's health care and should be excluded. If approved, these bans will have a profound impact on low-income, unemployed and other financially vulnerable women."

Push for Counseling Requirements
The November midterm election has also invigorated the movement to impose burdensome counseling requirements. Eighteen states have enacted such laws. More are expected to do so in 2011 because courts have upheld state laws requiring parental notification or consent and sometimes both.

Counseling on the negative psychological effects of abortion--a matter of clinical controversy--is mandated in Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

In five states--Alaska, Kansas, Mississippi, Texas and West Virginia--state counseling materials claim a link between breast cancer and abortion, which researchers have discredited. [Note from Just a Blog of Protoplasm: the link has not been discredited, and may provide grounds for future tobacco-style litigation.]

"Ten states now require laws that make ultrasound images available to women during counseling, which is especially disturbing to women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest," said Jordan Goldberg, state advocacy counsel for the U.S. legal program of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based legal advocacy group that litigated more than 20 choice-related cases in nine states in 2010.

Arizona, which has been a leader in introducing these measures, requires both adult women and minors to come to an abortion clinic twice before the procedure. It also requires physicians to tell patients that state services are available to provide financial help, although there are no such funds.

"Until 2007, state legislatures that wanted to impose restrictions like these faced uphill fights in the courts," said Goldberg. "But the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart made it easier, because the court held that the government had a legitimate and substantial interest in protecting fetal life. As a result, laws that chip away at a woman's fundamental right to control her body and make decisions to end unwanted pregnancies have become increasingly common."

More'Viability' Debate Continues
Anti-choice groups are also looking to the states to impose a new standard of so-called viability, or the point at which fetuses can survive outside the womb.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision banned abortion after the fetus could survive outside the womb, typically about 22 weeks after fertilization. The Supreme Court decision has allowed exceptions to save a woman's life as well as to protect her mental or physical health.

But now anti-choice legislators in Montana are proposing a state constitutional amendment that says life begins when an egg is fertilized. Although a similar effort failed in the 2009 legislature and backers were unable to put the measure on the ballot in November, chances of passage in the state are now considered much higher. Republicans, who traditionally support anti-choice legislation, now have a majority in both the Montana Senate and House, the first time the GOP has controlled both state chambers in eight years.

The midterm election returns are also expected to increase attacks by anti-choice organizations outside the legislature and courthouse.

Most Pro-life House Ever?

2011-01-06T00:15:00.007-06:00

Christianity Today's Alicia Cohn reports that prolifers will be busy on Capitol Hill and in the state legislatures in 2011.

Pro-life Efforts to Watch in 2011

by Alicia Cohn
Christianity Today

Although November’s mid-term elections halved the number of pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, there are hopeful signs for pro-life legislation in the New Year.

January will mark the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House ever,” according to a statement released by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the bi-partisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has stated that “he wants to be the most pro-life Speaker ever” and Americans United for Life chose Boehner for an award.

The House will likely tackle the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 5939) in the upcoming legislative session. Introduced by Smith and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) in July, Smith said the bill is designed to protect conscience clauses in health care nation-wide. Protecting existing conscience rights remains a high priority in 2011. The Alliance Defense Fund says that the Obama administration “wants to dismantle” a rule passed by the Bush administration in 2008 that prohibited recipients of federal money from discriminating against healthcare professionals refusing to participate in procedures, such as abortion, for reasons of conscience.

Prohibiting the use of federal money to support abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, will also appear on the legislative agenda. The Title 10 Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (HR 614), co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), would prohibit all federal assistance to organizations performing abortions during the period of assistance. Pence said that the act would close the loopholes in the Hyde Amendment, which allows federally-funded organizations to perform abortions if such procedures are separately funded. In June,the Government Accountability Office found that over $1 billion in taxpayer money went to pro-abortion organizations in the past 8 years.

Various states are also expected to tackle pro-life issues in 2011. According to an unreleased NARAL Pro-Choice America analysispreviewed to Politico, the number of anti-abortion governors rose from 21 to 29 in the November election, and the number of states with governments where the governor and the majority legislature are both considered anti-abortion increased from 10 to 15.

In states ranging from Iowa to Tennessee, where anti-abortion legislation has often stalled in committee, anticipation is building that a change in leadership could change the prospects for pro-life legislation as well. Kansas provides one example, where current Democratic Governor Mark Parkinson vetoed a measure preventing the re-establishment of a late-term abortion clinic in the state (following the death of George Tiller and the subsequent closure of his clinic in Wichita). However, Parkinson’s replacement, Governor-elect Republican Sam Brownback, told supporters he would sign any pro-life bill that made it to his desk.

Following Nebraska’s lead — the state passed a late-term abortion ban this year based on the concept of fetal pain — pro-life organizations expect more states to challenge abortion laws by proposing restrictions related to fetus age. Several states, including Kansas, New Jersey, and South Carolina, considered bans on post-viability abortion (abortion past the age a fetus is considered able to live outside the womb) in 2010, according to Americans United for Life. Typically, the “post-viability” age is considered to be between 21 to 28 weeks (Roe v. Wade established viability as “about” 28 weeks); Nebraska’s ban sets the restriction back to 20 weeks. “[F]rom our perspective, if we aren't bucking up against Roe, we're not doing our job,” said Nebraska Right to Life Executive Director Julie Schmit-Albin. "So we did our job in Nebraska and now it's time for the other states to do their job."

Other possible state legislation proposing abortion restrictions will likely include laws requiring an ultrasound to be shown to the patient prior to an abortion--such as the one passed by Oklahoma this year--and measures responding to this year’s federal health care reform that would ban insurance coverage of abortion at the state level.

Dangerous Caregivers Not on List

2010-02-17T22:40:00.004-06:00

A federal database fully available to hospitals March 1 is missing disciplinary records from states.

About 23 or 24 years ago, when I was a newspaper reporter, I covered the prosecution of a psychiatrist who drugged and raped six male criminal defendants who were entrusted to him by the presiding judge of the Superior Court.

He was a highly respected community member, and when I first heard the accusations, I scoffed. I thought that the prisoners and habitual criminals were trying to besmirch a fine man.

But prosecutor Tom Lannen, bless his soul, hewed to his duty despite community antagonism toward his (criminal) witnesses, and in the end it was clear that the doctor was guilty as charged. The jury found him guilty.

This was not the biggest shock. The most shocking revelations came in a thick presentencing report from the probation officer, reporting that the doctor had been accused and then released in his native Kentucky, Montana, California and Hawaii in turn before he arrived in our community. He was involved in a homosexual slave ring. He was profoundly evil. In each state, he surrendered his state medical license in return for the government dropping or preventing criminal charges against him. Then he packed up and moved on to the next opportunity.

I remember writing a sidebar on national developments to make physician discipline more transparent, so that employers and patients could take reasonable precautions to avoid hiring depraved or incompetent medical professionals. Soon, we were assured, it wouldn't be possible to scam the system like our court-appointed psychiatrist had.

Stories like this Los Angeles Times investigatory piece, on a compromised federal database of physician discipline actions, don't inspire confidence that much has changed during the intervening generation. In this case, it's the diligence of the government to oversee physician discipline that's in question. But neither have doctors themselves made significant progress toward holding their colleagues accountable.

This is yet another contraindication of "tort reform," which immunizes the medical profession from large judgments in civil trials. If incompetent or lawless doctors can prevent peers, regulators and the judiciary system from holding them accountable, what remains for the doctors' victims but a stark choice between "self-help" and acquiescence?

When Caregivers Stray: Times/ProPublica Investigation
By Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein

More than two decades ago, Congress set out to stop dangerous or incompetent caregivers from crossing state lines and landing in trouble again.

It ordered up a national database allowing hospitals to check for disciplinary actions taken anywhere in the country against nurses, pharmacists, psychologists and other licensed health professionals.

On March 1 -- 22 years later -- the federal government finally plans to let hospitals use it. But the long-awaited repository is missing serious disciplinary actions against what are probably thousands of health providers, according to an investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica in collaboration with the Los Angeles Times.

Some of the missing cases involve providers who have harmed patients -- a nurse, for instance, whose license was pulled after she injected a patient with painkillers in a drugstore parking lot and improperly prescribed methadone to an addict who later died of an overdose.

The omissions took federal health officials by surprise. Only last month, a spokesman for the agency that oversees the database told reporters that "no data is missing." Another official said the agency had been "constantly" checking its data against state licensing board websites.

But Friday, the head of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) acknowledged that records were missing. She said her agency had launched a "full and complete" review to determine what is wrong and how to fix it.

"We take this very seriously," administrator Mary Wakefield said.

The new information will still go online as planned -- but with a warning that it is incomplete, she said.

Wakefield and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter Friday to the nation's governors asking for their immediate help fixing gaps in the database. It was a matter of "protecting the safety of patients across this country," they wrote.

This summer, the letter said, the federal government will begin publicly listing any state agencies that do not report properly. Wakefield's agency also plans to hold training sessions for state officials and conduct audits to help ensure compliance.

The government for two decades has kept a database of disciplinary actions against doctors and dentists. In 1999, state boards were required to begin filing reports on all other health professionals whose licenses were revoked or restricted.

Yet many states have filed sporadically, if at all. They've faced no penalties.

Reporters compared the total number of disciplinary actions that various states reported to the federal government -- detailed on the HRSA website -- to the states' own records, some of which were posted online. The discrepancies were glaring.

The federal government's site does not include a single report of discipline against any of the thousands of psychiatric technicians or occupational therapists in California.

Yet the website for the California board overseeing psychiatric technicians cites 84 who received severe sanctions in the last two years alone. Among them are two who surrendered their licenses after failing to help a woman who was choking to death on a paper towel and a third convicted of possessing child pornography.

Similarly, the occupational therapy board lists 40 disciplinary actions over five years.

Leaders of both state boards acknowledged that they hadn't been reporting disciplinary cases to the federal government but said they intended to do so in the future.

Judging from the federal numbers, no pharmacist has been disciplined in South Dakota or New Hampshire, and only one each in Alabama, Delaware, Ohio and Tennessee. But a search of those states' websites showed hundreds of sanctions.

Reporters found at least nine states that appear to have submitted incomplete records on registered nurses.

Indiana didn't report hundreds of disciplinary actions in 2004 and 2005 -- including the nearly 100 nurses who were indefinitely barred from caring for patients. In one case, a nurse had put a knife to a co-worker's throat.

It's difficult to quantify how much data is missing. In each state, multiple boards oversee various health practitioners. Each has different rules and methods for meting out discipline. Some don't make the information public, and others said they didn't know the number of actions they'd taken.

Troubled professionals can have licenses in multiple states, so checking with just one state's board might not turn up disciplinary actions elsewhere. Moreover, state regulators can be slow to share information with one another, and some professionals hide past sanctions.

Several directors of state licensing agencies said they had assumed that their cases were being reported to the federal government.

Sean Gorman, the director of Indiana's nursing board, learned from reporters that hundreds of his state's actions against nurses had not been. That prompted Indiana to audit compliance by all of the state's health boards.

In Ohio, William T. Winsley, executive director of the pharmacy board, said he had no idea that only one of his state's pharmacist cases had been reported. At his board's November 2009 meeting alone, it pulled the licenses of five, including one who ran an Internet pill mill that dispensed nearly 1.5 million drug doses without valid prescriptions.

The database has had a long and fitful history.

In 1986, amid concerns that doctors were racking up malpractice accusations and then moving freely to other states, Congress called for a central repository of disciplinary actions against them. The next year, lawmakers expanded the requirement to include all healthcare workers.

The idea was to create a one-stop clearinghouse that hospitals and other eligible employers could check. The National Practitioner Data Bank was up and running quickly on doctors and dentists, but a series of logistical, technological and financial hurdles delayed its expansion. Some 280,000 nurses and other practitioners are to be added March 1.

Federal officials predict that the new information will be searched more than 123,000 times annually by health employers and others. The database is not open to the public.

Hospital industry officials said they welcomed the database but emphasized that it's just one tool for screening potential hires, along with criminal checks, drug tests and reference calls.

With an incomplete database, however, employers could be given "a false sense of security that somebody who may be really dangerous isn't, because their name isn't there," said Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group.

The federal government has had plenty of time to make it right, said Wolfe, whose Washington-based group advocates for patient safety. "It's really just embarrassing."

tracy.weber@ propublica.org

charles.ornstein@ propublica.org

Ornstein and Weber are senior reporters at ProPublica in New York. Their previous stories about gaps in nursing oversight can be found at latimes.com/nurses and propublica.org/nurses.

Don't Mess With Texas Doctors: Veteran Nurse Fired, Prosecuted for Reporting Alleged Surgeon Misconduct to Regulators

2010-02-09T15:46:00.013-06:00

The State of Texas has brought criminal charges against a nurse who reported a surgeon's alleged misconduct to state regulators, according to this New York Times article. Win or lose, the prosecution will almost certainly chill the enthusiasm of any Texas abortion clinic personnel who are tempted to claim the $10,000 reward recently offered by Operation Rescue.

NEW YORK TIMES
Nurse to Stand Trial for Reporting Doctor
By KEVIN SACK

KERMIT, Tex. — It occurred to Anne Mitchell as she was writing the letter that she might lose her job, which is why she chose not to sign it. But it was beyond her conception that she would be indicted and threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor at her rural hospital was practicing bad medicine.

When she was fingerprinted and photographed at the jail here last June, it felt as if she had entered a parallel universe, albeit one situated in this barren scrap of West Texas oil patch.

“It was surreal,” said Mrs. Mitchell, 52, the wife of an oil field mechanic and mother of a teenage son. “I said how can this be? You can’t go to prison for doing the right thing.”

But in what may be an unprecedented prosecution, Mrs. Mitchell is scheduled to stand trial in state court on Monday for “misuse of official information,” a third-degree felony in Texas.

The prosecutor said he would show that Mrs. Mitchell had a history of making “inflammatory” statements about Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. and intended to damage his reputation when she reported him last April to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors.

Mrs. Mitchell counters that as an administrative nurse, she had a professional obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures — including a failed skin graft that Dr. Arafiles performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges. He also sutured a rubber tip to a patient’s crushed finger for protection, an unconventional remedy that was later flagged as inappropriate by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Charges against a second nurse, Vickilyn Galle, who helped Mrs. Mitchell write the letter, were dismissed at the prosecutor’s discretion last week.

The case has been infused with the small-town politics of this wind-whipped city of 5,200 in the heart of the Permian Basin, 10 miles from the New Mexico border. The seeming conflicts of interest are as abundant as the cattle grazing among the pump jacks and mesquite.

When the medical board notified Dr. Arafiles of the anonymous complaint, he protested to his friend, the Winkler County sheriff, that he was being harassed. The sheriff, an admiring patient who credits the doctor with saving him after a heart attack, obtained a search warrant to seize the two nurses’ work computers and found the letter.

Both sides acknowledge that the case has polarized the community, and the judge has moved the trial to a neighboring county.

The state and national nurses associations have called the prosecution an outrage and raised $40,000 for the defense. Legal experts argue that in a civil context, Mrs. Mitchell would seem to be protected by Texas whistle-blower laws.

“To me, this is completely over the top,” said Louis A. Clark, president of the Government Accountability Project, a group that promotes the defense of whistle-blowers. “It seems really, really unique.”

Until they were fired without explanation on June 1, Mrs. Mitchell and Mrs. Galle had worked a combined 47 years at Winkler County Memorial Hospital here, most recently as its compliance and quality improvement officers.

The nurses, who are highly regarded even by the administrator who dismissed them, said the case had stained their reputations and drained their savings. With felony charges pending, neither has been able to find work. They said they could feel heads turn when they walked into local lunch spots like El Joey’s Mexican restaurant.

“It has derailed our careers, and we’re probably not going to be able to get them back on track again,” said Mrs. Galle, 54, a grandmother who is depicted around town as the soft-spoken Thelma to Mrs. Mitchell’s straight-shooting Louise. “We’re just in disbelief that you could be arrested for doing something you had been told your whole career was an obligation.”

It was not long after the public hospital hired Dr. Arafiles in 2008 that the nurses said they began to worry. They sounded internal alarms but felt they were not being heeded by administrators.

Frustrated and fearing for patients, they directed the medical board to six cases “of concern” that were identified by file numbers but not by patient names. The letter also mentioned that Dr. Arafiles was sending e-mail messages to patients about an herbal supplement he sold on the side.

Mrs. Mitchell typed the letter and mailed it with a separate complaint signed by a third nurse, who wrote that she had resigned because of similar concerns about Dr. Arafiles. That nurse was not charged.

To convict Mrs. Mitchell, the prosecution must prove that she used her position to disseminate confidential information for a “nongovernmental purpose” with intent to harm Dr. Arafiles.

Mari E. Robinson, executive director of the Texas Medical Board, has warned in a blistering letter to prosecutors that the case will have “a significant chilling effect” on the reporting of malpractice.

The nurses’ lawyers, John H. Cook IV and Brian Carney, have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court charging the county, hospital, sheriff, doctor and prosecutor with vindictive prosecution and denial of the nurses’ First Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, the sheriff, Robert L. Roberts Jr., and the prosecutor, Scott M. Tidwell, express confidence in their case.

“The only side of the story that the town has heard is that these are sisters of mercy, missionaries of peace,” said Mr. Tidwell, who is trying the case because the district attorney is in poor health. “The town has not heard the whole story.”

Dr. Arafiles, 47, who attended medical school in his native Philippines and trained in Baltimore and Buffalo, said his lawyer had advised him not to talk. “I’ve been brutalized and abused,” he said. “I’m the victim in this case, and that is all I can say.”

Several Texas laws would seem to enshrine a nurse’s right, and perhaps duty, to report a physician when he or she believes that patients are at risk. Lawyers on both sides agree that the case will hinge on whether a jury believes that Mrs. Mitchell reported in good faith. In civil whistle-blower cases, the Supreme Court of Texas has held that good faith requires only a reasonable belief that the conduct being reported is illegal.

The hospital administrator, Stan Wiley, said in an interview that Dr. Arafiles had been reprimanded on several occasions for improprieties in writing prescriptions and performing surgery and had agreed to make changes. Mr. Wiley, who said it was difficult to recruit physicians to remote West Texas, said he knew when he hired Dr. Arafiles that he had a restriction on his license stemming from his supervision of a weight-loss clinic.

In a surprise inspection last September, state investigators found several violations by Dr. Arafiles and concluded that the hospital had discriminated against the nurses by firing them for “reporting in good faith.”

But Sheriff Roberts, who has held the post for 18 years, said the state would show that the complaint had been filed in vengeance. “If it’s made to destroy somebody’s reputation or forcing them to leave town,” he said, “then I don’t believe it is good faith.”

Sheriff Roberts called Dr. Arafiles “the most sincerely caring person I have ever met.”

Mr. Wiley said he believed that the nurses had acted in bad faith because they went to the state despite his internal efforts to discipline Dr. Arafiles. But, he said, “I don’t believe they did it on a personal vendetta.”

Mrs. Mitchell said all she saw at the hospital was delay.

“The medical staff needed to make a decision on him,” she said. “You don’t get a second chance to save somebody’s life.”

State Supreme Court Strikes Down Legislated Limits on Jury Awards

2010-02-09T00:40:00.003-06:00

So-called "tort reform" has discouraged the plaintiffs' bar from serving victims of medical malpractice, including abundant abortion malpractice. In Nevada, for example, a ballot initiative enacted a statute that limits attorney contingency fees to 15% of any recovery. This is well below the break-even threshold, and many - perhaps most - medical malpractice plaintiffs' attorneys simply got out of the business.

The Illinois Supreme Court decision last week may change the calculus in Illinois, but the national trend is to constrict the options of abortion malpractice victims and other medical malpractice victims to seek recourse in the courts.

When the malpractice is egregious enough, California juries aren't reluctant to award significant damages, notwithstanding all the California tort reform measures that have passed. Last week, a Riverside County jury awarded $16.5 million to a paraplegic who lost spinal function due to a neurosurgeon's neglect. (The doctor has since moved to Florida to practice medicine there.)

It wouldn't take very many of these awards for abortion-linked breast cancer to prompt insurers to insist that their abortionist policy holders make full disclosure of abortion risks to patients.

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW
Court says limiting damages violates separation-of-powers clause by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a jury's right to determine damages
By Bruce Japsen and Ameet Sachdev, Chicago Tribune

The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state's medical malpractice law Thursday, saying limits on damages awarded to victims of medical negligence are unconstitutional.

The much-anticipated ruling deals a blow to doctors and hospital officials who say caps on damages are a way to tame rising health care costs.

State lawmakers in 2005 passed legislation, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, that established limits on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages of $500,000 in cases against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. Illinois followed other states, such as California, that capped damages years ago.

The court said the law violates the state's separation-of-powers clause between the branches of government by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a jury's right to determine damages. "The crux of our analysis is whether the statute unduly infringes upon the inherent power of the judiciary," the majority opinion said.

Justices also said they were not persuaded by arguments used in other states. "That 'everybody is doing it,' is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute," wrote Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald in delivering the opinion for four siding in the majority of the seven-member court.

Justices Lloyd Karmeier and Rita Garman dissented on certain key points of the decision and expressed sympathy to providers of medical care, citing President Barack Obama's recent address to a joint session of Congress that they said admonished the nation's collective failure to enact health care reform.

But limiting medical liability is no silver bullet for controlling health costs. The Congressional Budget Office reported in September that reforms, such as capping non-economic damages, would lower the nation's health care bill by only 0.5 percent.

The majority said the court's decision was not made with Washington's health care reform efforts in mind.

Still, the ruling could figure in the national debate of stalled health care legislation. Though Obama and Democrats have said they are unlikely to cap damages in federal health care legislation, they have been open to a compromise on liability reform.

The Obama administration, Republicans and doctor groups have made attempts to scale back the practice of "defensive medicine," in which doctors perform medical procedures that are not necessary because of legal concerns. The CBO said recent studies have shown that liability reforms can slightly reduce the use of health care.

Thursday's decision will not end the heated debate over whether lawsuits affect the quality and costs of medical care.

One area where there is agreement is on establishing evidence-based medicine, which offers guidelines for doctors to follow when treating patients.

"The high cost of potential damages impacts how insurers rate different types of practices," said Larry Boress, chief executive of Midwest Business Group on Health, a coalition that represents some of the region's largest employers. "While we encourage physicians to practice evidence-based medicine to ensure high quality medical care is provided, we know that not all of medicine has evidence-based guidelines. Our state and nation need alternative methods of addressing malpractice allegations."

The state law came after more than two years of political battle in Springfield between trial lawyers and providers of medical care and their insurers. Doctors blamed the lack of malpractice reform for an exodus of physicians from the state, particularly neurosurgeons and obstetricians, who typically have higher insurance premiums.

But government studies have found little evidence that rising malpractice premiums have forced doctors to retire early or move to another state.

Thursday's high court decision upset physicians, who say a return to high premiums and a loss of physicians are likely.

"Today's court decision threatens to undo all that Illinois patients and physicians have gained under the cap, including greater access to health care, lower medical liability rates and increased competition among medical liability insurers," said James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association.

Rohack said patient access to medical care worsened in Illinois after the court overruled the state's previous cap on non-economic damages in 1997.

"Severe problems with patient access to care emerged as the unrestrained excesses of the state's legal system forced Illinois physicians to limit services, retire early or move to other states where liability premiums were more stable," Rohack said. "Without a cap on non-economic damages from 1997 to 2005, Chicago physicians saw their liability premiums increase an average of 10 to 12 percent each year."

When the cap was reinstated in 2005, Rohack said, premiums for Chicago physicians stabilized and even began to shrink.

In 2008, the total volume of malpractice premiums written in Illinois was $600 million, according to the state insurance division. That was down 10 percent from 2006.

But consumer groups and insurance industry officials say the fact that rates have stabilized has nothing to do with the caps. It has more to do with insurance market cycles and other factors, such as increased competition and new insurance regulations that were included in the cap legislation, they said.

As a result of the new regulations, the state's largest medical malpractice insurer, ISMIE Mutual Insurance Co., was subject to hearings regarding a proposed rate increase in 2005. The insurance division ordered ISMIE to return excess premiums to doctors and set a target rate reduction of 3.5 percent.

"Illinois rates have followed national trends," said Bill Yurek, president of Chicago-based Avreco, a wholesale insurance broker. "I don't think the caps really did much."

Removing the caps, though, could potentially increase the cost of claims, said Jeff Weigel, chief underwriting officer at Medicus Insurance Co. of Austin, Texas, which started underwriting insurance in Illinois in 2007. He also said he believes insurance rates would have come down if the caps had been upheld. Despite the court's ruling, Medicus plans to stay in Illinois, Weigel said.

Twice before, Illinois lawmakers have adopted caps, and both times the state's highest court nixed them.

The latest case before the high court comes on appeal from Cook County Circuit Court. In 2007, Circuit Judge Diane Larsen decided that caps on malpractice awards violated the Illinois Constitution's "separation of powers" clause, in effect ruling that the state Legislature can't interfere with the right of juries and judges to determine fair damages. Larsen's ruling falls in line with a 1997 Illinois Supreme Court decision that overturned a 1995 law implementing caps on personal-injury cases.

The first case to test the 2005 law was that of 4-year-old Abigaile LeBron, who suffered a severe brain injury during her birth at Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park. In a lawsuit filed in 2006, her family charged the hospital, her doctor and nurse with negligence.

Her lawyer, Jeff Goldberg, and members of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association praised the court for lifting arbitrary limits on damages.

"We can now focus on the real issue — providing meaningful insurance reform that will keep costs down for doctors and patients alike," said Peter Flowers, president of the lawyer group.

Damage caps hurt the most serious cases of medical negligence, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Personal injury lawyers are less likely to take cases from lower-earning people because the potential recovery is smaller when damages are limited to economic losses.

"Caps don't solve the problems of the medical liability system," Baker said. "Doctors still have tremendous distrust of the system. And people that are the most deserving don't get the money."

Nonprofit Planned Parenthood Pays Its California Executives Generously, But Turns Women Away Due to Budget Crunch

2010-02-07T22:31:00.008-06:00

The individual solo abortionist is often underinsured or even uninsured, but the corporate Planned Parenthood abortion empire in California appears to be flush. The salaries paid at nine California affiliates of Planned Parenthood suggest deep pockets if an abortion negligence or battery case ever gets to a California civil jury.

CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC DAILY

How much do you make?
California’s Planned Parenthood affiliates pay executives top dollar, with generous benefit packages

(Editor’s note: This is the first in an ongoing series about the finances of the nine Planned Parenthood affiliates in California. Unless otherwise noted, the information comes from IRS Form 990, an annual report required by the IRS for tax-exempt non-profits. Check back each week for a new installment in the series.)

Planned Parenthood affiliates in California pay their top executives well and provide many of them with generous benefit packages, even though Planned Parenthood has pleaded with the state legislature in recent years that it was turning away as many as 10,000 patients a month for lack of sufficient funding.

Here is a list of the compensation paid to the five top Planned Parenthood executives at each California affiliate, from highest paid to lowest paid. Unless otherwise noted, the information comes from Form 990s for 2007 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.

Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, San Jose

Linda Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $294,091
Benefits: $31,391
Total Compensation: $325,482

D. Ferguson, Medical Director
Salary: $214,498
Benefits: $18,589
Total Compensation: $233,087

A. Cabebe, Family Practice
Salary: $186,624
Benefits: $19,061
Total Compensation: $205,685

J. Gambruno, Chief Financial Officer, Vice-president of Finance and Administration
Salary: $182,875
Benefits: $22,494
Total Compensation: $205,369

E. Love, Vice-president People Support and Development
Salary: $156,882
Benefits: $23,552
Total Compensation: $180,434

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: 162

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, San Francisco
(Note: Planned Parenthood Golden Gate executives enjoy a 35-hour work week.)

Dian Harrison, President and Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $274,438
Benefits: $18,976
Expense Account: $11,340
Total Compensation: $304,754

Johnetta Stevens, Chief Development Officer
Salary: $174,182
Benefits: $40,064
Total Compensation: $214,256

Jennifer Winter, Vice-president, Medical Services
Salary: $164,000
Benefits: $37,720
Total Compensation: $201,720

Therese Wilson, Executive Vice-president
Salary: $163,490
Benefits: $37,602
Total Compensation: $201,092

T. Marx, Chief Financial Officer
Salary: $134,534
Benefits: $41,590
Total Compensation: $176,124

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: 69

Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties

John A. Dunn, President and Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $270,019
Benefits: $21,185
Total Compensation: $291,204

Nancy Dudley, Senior Vice-president for Strategic Development
Salary: $151,518
Benefits: $11,178
Total Compensation: $162,696

Stephanie Kight, Senior Vice-president for Community Affairs
Salary: $129,908
Benefits: $11,613
Total Compensation: $141,521

Scott M. Marshall, Senior Vice-president
Salary: $111,885
Benefits: $10,448
Total Compensation: $122,333

Christine J. Chai, Vice-President for Clinical Practice and Medial Director
(*Note: Christine Chai works 20 hours per week for Planned Parenthood.)
Salary: $99,922
Benefits: $7,973
Total Compensation: $107,895

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: 61

Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties
(Calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2007)

Darrah Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $253,269
Benefits: $14,467
Total Compensation: $267,736

Nancy Sasaki, Executive Vice President
Salary: $171,037
Benefits: $10,077
Total Compensation: $181,114

Angela Reed, Senior Vice-president
Salary: $154,385
Benefits: $8779
Total Compensation: $163,164

Leonard Dodson, Chief Financial Officer
Salary: $157,307
Benefits: $398
Total Compensation: $157,705

Katherine Sheehan, Medical Director
Salary: $131,906
Benefits: $4715
Total Compensation: $136,621

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: 89

Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles

Mary Jane Wagle, President and Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $225,692
Benefits: $63
Total Compensation: $225,755

Bobby Lee, President, Board of Directors
Salary: $156,184
Benefits: $4,749
Total Compensation: $160,933

Benjamin Tysch, Chief Administrative Officer
Salary: $149,423
Benefits: $2,838
Total Compensation: $152,261

Sally Blowitz, Vice-president for Development
Salary: $137,741
Benefits: $3,320
Total Compensation: $141,061

Adrianne Black, Vice-president for Client Services
Salary: $128,261
Benefits: $10,675
Total Compensation: $138,936

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: 67

Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties
(No benefit amounts were listed on this affiliate’s Form 990.)

Cheryl Rollings, President and Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $189,805

Laura Ferris (no title)
Salary: $124,717

Christine Lyon, Vice-president for Public Affairs
Salary: $114,500

Patricia Fajardo, Vice-president for Clinical Services
Salary: $105,568

Kelly Genovese, Clinician
Salary: $99,614

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: 1

Planned Parenthood of Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley

Sherri Bonner, President and Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $139,970
Benefits: $21,600
Expense Account: $6,000
Total Compensation: $167,570

Anna Rutherford, Lead Clinician
Salary: $112,538
Benefits: $8,867
Total Compensation: $121,405

Henrietta Crite-Wilson, Clinician
Salary: $96,090
Benefits: $8,188
Total Compensation: $104,278

Buff Megaw, Director of Development
Salary: $86,726
Benefits: $7,537
Total Compensation: $94,263

Michelle Matyi, Vice-president for Patient Services
Salary: $72,961
Benefits: $6,962
Total Compensation: $79,923

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: 3

Planned Parenthood Six Rivers, Eureka
(Information for this report was not available from an IRS Form 990. It was instead collected from the website Charity Navigator, the “largest and most utilized evaluator of charities.” The data comes from Planned Parenthood Six Rivers’ 2007-2008 annual report, according to Charity Navigator. No benefits information was provided. Six Rivers is the smallest of California’s nine Planned Parenthood affiliates.)

K. Albright, Lead Clinician -- $70,734
D. Hatch, Clinician -- $64,153
M. Amir, Clinician -- $58,083
Denise Vanden Bos, Chief Executive Officer -- $55,740

Total number of other employees earning more than $50,000 per year: Not available

© California Catholic Daily 2010.

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

2010-01-25T16:37:00.016-06:00

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

2010-01-18T15:38:00.009-06:00

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

2010-01-16T11:57:00.007-06:00

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.

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

2009-09-23T19:26:00.006-05:00

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

2009-08-30T21:14:00.005-05:00

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

2009-08-06T17:18:00.005-05:00

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

2009-07-28T17:30:00.003-05:00

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

2009-07-24T12:40:00.004-05:00

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

2009-07-23T16:55:00.006-05:00

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

2009-07-19T17:26:00.003-05:00

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

2009-07-16T11:55:00.006-05:00

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

2009-07-15T13:50:00.005-05:00

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?

2009-06-14T01:20:00.006-05:00

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

2009-06-02T01:52:00.004-05:00

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

2009-04-13T09:12:00.007-05:00

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

2009-03-10T17:43:00.008-05:00

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

2009-02-04T19:54:00.008-06:00

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

2009-02-02T10:12:00.006-06:00

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

2009-01-20T19:56:00.006-06:00

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?

2009-01-08T13:57:00.005-06:00

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

Obama Sets Table for Pro-Abortion Regime by Domestic Policy Czar Appointment

2008-12-10T20:46:00.006-06:00

Economic conservatives have heaved sighs of relief at the generally moderate appointments President-elect Obama has announced since swamping the hapless McCain campaign early last month. Social conservatives don't have nearly as much to celebrate.

Obama's new Domestic Policy Council director, leftist New York lawyer Melody Barnes, is an "unyielding" advocate of abortion, according a post in the Clerical Whispers blog, reproduced below. Barnes is a veteran of Emily's List, a pro-abortion PAC that cut off contributions to longtime pro-abortion allies who voted to ban partial-birth abortion.

Obama may be more successful than any of us predicted. "Real change" may indeed be on the way. "Country club" (economic) conservatives" never much cared for the unwashed social conservatives in the first place. High-church aristocrats like Danforth and Warner could scarcely conceal their contempt for the unsavory Fundamentalist - mostly Baptist and Pentecostal - Republicans whom they considered necessary but impudent allies.

Could it be that Obama is making a bid for their loyalty, re-aligning the American political landscape to put down the ragged 40-year Evangelical insurrection once and for all?

One of the programs under Barnes' direction will be Faith-Based Initiatives. She could slash funding, but Obama thinks like a chess player - several moves ahead. How much wiser for him to direct "faith-based" funding into pro-abortion denominations and nominally Christian outreaches, and as patronage for the Black church, which will be reliably pro-Obama when he runs for a second term.

Clerical Whispers
Fides - Libertas - Veritas
November 28, 2008
New Obama domestic policy director has close ties to abortion lobby

President-elect Obama has selected as Director of the Domestic Policy Council Melody C. Barnes, a New York lawyer with an “unyielding” record of abortion rights advocacy.
According to the White House web site, the Domestic Policy Council oversees major domestic policy areas such as education, health, housing, welfare, justice, federalism, transportation, environment, labor and veteran's affairs.

It also oversees the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Barnes is a former Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, where she led the left-wing think tank’s Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative.

She has also served as a board member of EMILY’s List, a group formed more than two decades ago to support pro-abortion rights women candidates. Over the years the group has raised millions for Democratic women candidates who support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

EMILY’s List has even cut funding from pro-abortion rights politicians who voted to ban partial-birth abortion.

Barnes has also lobbied on behalf of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).

Carlos Polo, director for Latin America at the Population Research Institute, has linked the Center for Reproductive Rights to a strategy to force permissive abortion laws upon Latin America.

Members of CRR have proposed using international litigation to “develop new standards for the protection of reproductive rights” and to force local authorities to ignore their country’s laws and introduce changes that would allow abortion and “reproductive health” services for teenagers.

Barnes was a former aide to Sen. Ted Kennedy and was his chief counsel at the Senate Judiciary Committee from December 1995 to March 2003. According to the New York Times, Barnes is associated with a “bitter dispute” over confirmation of a federal appeals court judge in 2002. At the time, charges were leveled against Barnes and another aide to Ted Kennedy that they tried to influence the outcome of a high-profile affirmative action case by delaying the confirmation of a judge who might have ruled against affirmative action.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, in a Monday statement voiced criticism of Barnes’ selection as head of the Domestic Policy Council.

Claiming her “forte” is working with the “religious left,” Donohue reported that Barnes has been described by the left-wing journal The Nation as a “dyed-in-the-wool progressive.”

“She wants to overturn all restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, and her passion for abortion rights is so unyielding that she has served on the board of EMILY’s List and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund,” he charged.

Donohue also alluded to a controversy over pro-life Catholic and evangelical jurists allegedly being denied approval to serve as federal judges. Without mentioning specifics, he said Barnes had denied bigotry was an issue in the delay.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Former Pro-Life Stalwart Moves Into Obama Column, Denounces Former Comrades

2008-11-23T18:57:00.009-06:00

Catholic pro-life Constitutional law professor and author Douglas Kmiec joined the swell of support for pro-abortion, pro-infanticide Barack Obama this year, and has been hard at work defending his new position ever since. His pro-life former comrades aren't buying it. One website labeled the recent fratricide "the pro-life circular firing squad."

Given that his abortion views are increasingly indistinguishable from those of Chemerinsky et al, one wonders if Christian law schools will continue to use Kmiec's Constitutional Law casebook, or rebuke him by replacing it in the curriculum.

The Increasingly Bizarre Doug Kmiec
by Matthew Miller
Nov. 8, 2008

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, some months ago Catholic lawyer and former Romney supporter, Doug Kmiec took the bold step of endorsing Barack Obama. In succeeding installations defending his decision, Kmiec confessed that he felt Barack Obama would be more “pro-life” then John McCain. Really. At which point, he became a laughing stock in the conservative movement.

Now, in Slate’s post-election analysis from “conservatives” (i.e, idiosyncratic sometimes/once-were-right-leaning moderates), the Atlantic’s Ross Douthat has a few unkind words for Kmiec. He writes:

What I don’t understand at all is Kmiec’s position, which seems to be that the contemporary Democratic Party, and particularly the candidacy of Barack Obama, offered nearly as much to pro-lifers as the Republican Party does.

I am sure that Kmiec is weary of being called a fool by opponents of abortion for his tireless pro-Obama advocacy during this election cycle, but if so, then the thing for him to do is to cease acting like the sort of person for whom the term “useful idiot” was coined, rather than persisting in his folly.

Those seeking a primer on the case against Kmiec’s putatively pro-life position on Obama and abortion can begin here or here or here. Suffice to say that what he calls “outright lies and falsehoods” about Obama’s views were, in fact, more or less the truth: The Democratic nominee ran on a record that can only be described as “very, very pro-choice,” and his stated positions on abortion would involve rolling back nearly all the modest — but also modestly effective — restrictions that pro-lifers have placed upon the practice, and/or appointing judges who would do the same.

There may have been reasons for anti-abortion Americans to vote for Barack Obama in spite of his position that abortion should be essentially unregulated and funded by taxpayer dollars. But Kmiec’s suggestion that Obama took the Democrats in anything like a pro-life direction on the issue doesn’t pass the laugh test. (And nor, I might add, does his bizarre argument that because the goal of placing a fifth anti-Roe justice on the court is somehow unrealistic, the pro-life movement should pursue a far more implausible Constitutional amendment instead.)

I suppose I could find a thing or three to agree with in Kmiec’s longer list of ideas for how the party he abandoned could win back his vote. But frankly, I don’t see the point.

I understand that the pro-life position on abortion does not command majority support in the United States and that people of good will can disagree on the subject. And I have no doubt that the Republican Party can profit from greater dialogue between its pro-life and pro-choice constituents—and do a better job, as well, of addressing itself to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers who aren’t already inside its tent.

But I can’t begin to fathom why the GOP should consider taking any advice whatsoever from a “pro-lifer” who has spent the past year serving as an increasingly embarrassing shill for the opposition party’s objectively pro-abortion nominee.

Douthat is normally an interesting, but genteel writer, so even these few hints of venom are spicy. He’s, of course spot, on, but Kmiec doesn’t quite see it that way. Here’s, in part, his reply:

I am stunned by the coarseness of your writing, Ross. While we have not met, so little of what you have written is in any way respectful or acknowledges that you are addressing not some abstraction but a fellow human that I can only pray that if any of your family or closest friends come into contact with this commentary that they reach out to you in the most gentle and understanding way, without precondition, to calm an anger that is harmful to the soul.

Genuine love and affection do not reside on the Internet, so I cannot extend it to you, but in my heart, I forgive your great unkindness. I do hope you can free yourself from its enslavement. Realize that your meaning is bound up in the occasions in your life to be of service. Ross, once you allow yourself to see your dependence upon others, and their need for you, I am certain you will appreciate the cruelty of what you have written. To the extent that Slate accepts Ross’ submission as appropriate commentary directed toward helping the Republicans find their bearings, it must be accepted as a counter example from that which is ultimately desired. Ross’ anger is as unexplainable as it is wrong. Yet Kathleen suggests that Sarah Palin perhaps embodied exactly such anger; the anger of the “ordinary” person. One could sense that anger in the mobs riled by Mrs. Palin’s tirades about Obama being in a conspiracy of some sort with Bill Ayers. It was frightening to see on tape, and it is even uglier to see it rear its head here.

Ross, you are not ordinary in God’s eyes; nor are the women facing abortion as a tragic answer to a dismal, impoverished, and near-hopeless existence. Ross, you and she are brother and sister made in God’s image and are expected to be of help to one another. That is a lesson for the Republicans.

If it be useful idiocy to save even one child from death by lifting up the economic or social prospects of the mother, I accept the title as an honor among men. It is pro-life. If it is hypocritical not to want to treat as criminal the woman abandoned by the selfishness of an abusive spouse, I embrace the hypocrisy. It, too, is pro-life.

Surely this is parody. It reads like the dialogue from a B movie. I suspect the embarrassingly overwrought writing is a defense mechanism to obscure the indefensible. I don’t know too many women who’ve had abortions, or who admit it openly. I do know that in the United States, there are very few people, of any type, who can be fairly described as having a “dismal, impoverished, and near-hopeless existence”. This is not a third world (or should I say “developing”?) country. Doug would have us believe all 1.2 million American women who have abortions each year are digging through garbage piles for food and using water from puddles to bathe. Many women who have abortions ARE in truly heartbreaking situations, but Kmiec’s appeal to pity is obfuscation at best.

How precisely does it follow that because many women are struggling, or to accept Doug’s ludicrously stronger formulation, “in a near hopeless state of existence”, they should be permitted to have abortions? Where is the logical connection between pregnancy and a hopeless state of existence? Is Doug claiming that being pregnant is a hopeless state of existence? Or is he, rather, arguing that women who are already in a hopeless state of existence are becoming unwittingly pregnant? If the former… well I find his claim to be “pro-life” dubious. If the latter, I guess I’m supposed to conclude that ending a pregnancy (and thereby ending a person’s life) will substantially improve a woman’s previously hopeless existence. One moment, she’s cleaning her hair with her spit, while living out of a 3 wheeled Winnebago; the next she’s enrolling in night school, acing the bar, and taking up a satisfying croquet habit. Abortion as a rejuvenator. Or something.

If Kmiec means something else by this bizarre exposition, if he means instead that because women who have unwanted pregnancies often suffer, we ought to have compassion for them and seek to offer counseling and easy alternatives to abortion, then he has no quarrel with Douthat. Or me. Or John McCain. This is what the pro-life movement has substantially focused on-especially post-Casey when it looked as though future abortion litigation was DOA-for decades. It, more then any attempt to overturn Roe, dominates the energies of on the ground pro-life activists. Kmiec knows this, given that he ostensibly counted himself among them as little as a year ago.

He goes on, of course, to demonize pro-lifers and conservatives. Pro-lifers and conservatives don’t want to “lift up the economic or social prospects of the mother”. No mention that pro-lifers and conservatives believe that broadly conservative economic policies, combined with private charity and compassion, “life up all boats”. Pro-lifers want to “punish women who have been abused by their husbands”. No mention here that not a single mainstream pro-life politician has advocated “punishing” the women and that this is a canard of the left. This is all really more then one should have to bear from a man who’s now taken to arguing that justices Breyer and Souter advance the pro-life cause. I don’t begrudge Douthat his anger in the face of such raving nonsense. And I don’t believe Douthat is the one who needs prayer. Something is not right with Doug Kmiec.

Actionable? Panel Discussion on Post-Abortion Mental Health Effects

2008-10-08T19:57:00.006-05:00

This looks to be a useful discussion and a good networking opportunity for anybody interested in abortionists' legal liability for the emotional distress of women (and perhaps even men) impacted by abortion. Especially interesting is the reappearance of Dr. David Reardon who "wrote the book" on litigating mental anguish claims against abortion providers, and helped put on training conferences for attorneys in conjunction with Life Dynamics several years ago.

FRC To Host Panel Discussion On Post-Abortion Mental Health Effects

Washington, D.C. - Thursday, October 9, at 10:00 am, Family Research Council will host a panel discussion with leading researchers and clinicians on abortion history and associated mental health effects. Data from numerous studies will be discussed and analyzed to explore associations between abortion and mental health, and substance abuse disorders. Additionally, results from a national poll conducted through the Elliot Institute examining politics and post-abortion awareness will be presented. Join us to learn more about the body of research the American Psychological Association failed to assess in its recent report on abortion and mental health.

Who: Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., Bowling Green State University; Catherine T. Coyle, RN, Ph.D., Alliance for Post-Abortion Research & Training; Tom McClusky, Vice President for Government Affairs, FRC; David Reardon, Ph.D., Elliot Institute; Vincent M. Rue, Ph.D., Institute for Pregnancy Loss; Martha Shuping, M.D., Shuping & Associates.

What: Panel Discussion: Post-Abortion Mental Health Effects, Awareness, and Politics

When: Thursday, October 9, 2008 10:00am-12:00pm

Where: Family Research Council
801 G St, NW
Washington, DC 20001

RSVP: 1-800-225-4008 www.frc.org

*Complimentary lunch will be served*

Fathers Traumatized by Abortion: Approaching Critical Mass?

2008-09-22T09:23:00.008-05:00

Even without a reversal of Roe v. Wade, if post-abortive men can establish that physicians have breached a duty and caused psychological injury to them in the course of aborting their children, the abortionists' potential liability at tort will be multiplied by two.

According to a psychologist quoted in this OneNewsNow article, "post-abortive" men often are psychologically traumatized by the abortion of their children, and have significant therapeutic needs. As such men meet and organize themselves, it's likely that they will eventually seek compensation from the abortionists who aborted their children.

Post-abortive men finally speak out
Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper
OneNewsNow

A second national conference on the negative effects of abortion on men has been held, and more may be scheduled.

The conference's purpose explores the revelation that men experience, according to LifeNews.com, profound regret and grief after an involvement in an abortion decision. Vicki Thorn of the National Office of Post-Abortion Reconciliation and Healing believes consideration and psychological care for post-abortive fathers is long overdue.

"It's time we begin speaking about it, and that was my intent in being able to organize these two conferences -- that we begin to speak through the veil of science about the fact that there's more than one partner in this," Thorn explains. "The pregnancy didn't occur in a vacuum, and so there is both a woman and a man that are involved."

Thorn knows that fact from her own practice. "I've had calls from men from the very beginning, when I first started doing post-abortion work, risking to share their experiences and seeing that, within the society, there's no validation for the fact that a male might suffer afterwards," she adds.

Over 70 percent of relationships, according to Thorn, break up after an abortion. She claims the American Psychological Association (APA) mislead the American people in its recent claims that abortion is "psychologically safe" for women. The APA refuses to recognize long-term effects on women, and certainly on men, but Thorn believes it is a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed.

Another psychologist at the conference, Catherine Coyle, believes pro-lifers should be more available to help men who are grieving an abortion and show them that they are not alone.

"It is the compassionate thing for us to do to recognize that some people -- men and women -- have profound grief and suffering after an abortion," Coyle contends. "And if we are to be a compassionate society, we must validate their pain and provide the help they need regardless of where we may stand individually on the issue of abortion."

Parental Involvement Threatens Cash Flow

2008-09-19T21:29:00.004-05:00

According to a Family Research Council study, state-level parental involvement laws could begin to drain the troubled waters in which abortion marketers fish for their clientele. If the figures in this FRC press release are correct, the abortion industry is already suffering significant financial damage in the studied locales, and enactment of parental involvement laws in the larger markets might financially cripple the national abortion industry.

Family Research Council Releases New Study on Successful Abortion Reduction Legislation

Washington, D.C. - Today, Family Research Council released a study demonstrating which state level parental involvement laws are most effective in reducing abortions among minors. The study is the first comprehensive analysis of minor abortion data from nearly all 50 states between 1985 and 1999. Overall, the findings indicate that when a state enacts a parental involvement law, the abortion rate falls by an average of approximately 13.6 percent. The study is available on www.frc.org

Family Research Council Fellow and study author Dr. Michael J. New, assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, had this to say:

"This study is the first of its kind to compare different types of parental involvement laws. The study finds that more protective parental involvement laws result in even larger declines in abortion rates. Laws that require parental consent instead of parental notification reduce the minor abortion rate by about 19 percent. Furthermore, laws that mandate the involvement of two parents, instead of just one parent, reduce the in-state abortion rate by approximately 31 percent.
Minnesota and Mississippi laws are among the most effective in reducing abortion rates among minors.

"This study shows that parental involvement laws are an important causal factor in this decline in the overall abortion rate among minors in the United States, which has fallen by close to fifty percent between 1985 and 1999. Currently about 36 states have a parental involvement law on the books, but some are more effective than others in their ability to reduce the incidence of abortion."

"The overwhelming evidence in support of parental involvement laws should be a boon to legislators everywhere."

Health & Human Services Moves to Protect Pro-Life Physicians' Right of Conscience

2008-08-26T17:15:00.007-05:00

The Family Research Council quickly congratulated the federal Department of Health and Human Services last week after it proposed a new regulation to protect pro-life medical professionals "right of conscience," which is to say their right not to provide abortions or referrals to abortionists.

None of this will matter if pro-abortion Barack Obama is swept into office this January, as he will certainly reverse any pro-life regulations shortly after his arrival at the West Wing, as former President Bill Clinton did in 1993.

FRC Welcomes Proposal Protecting Conscience Rights of Health Care Workers
August 21, 2008

Washington D.C.- Today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offered a new proposed regulation that increases awareness of, and complies with, three statutes on the books that protect federally funded health care providers' right of conscience.

Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council released the following statement:

"It is imperative to protect the fundamental rights of all healthcare professionals to practice medicine in line with their moral convictions and ethical standards. Until now regulations had not been issued ensuring the implementation of numerous laws protecting conscience. The absence of regulations has resulted in confusion and a lack of awareness within the medical community regarding their conscience rights, leaving healthcare personnel vulnerable to discrimination.

"This proposal ensures that doctors and other medical personnel will retain the constitutional right to listen to their own conscience when it comes to performing or participating in an abortion. These regulations will ensure that pro-life medical personnel will not be forced to engage in the unconscionable killing of innocent human life. Protecting the choice not to participate in abortions is a huge win for religious freedom and the First Amendment.
.
"The Family Research Council believes that the HHS proposal will help protect religious organizations and individuals. Secretary Michael Leavitt is to be commended for his courageous stance in protecting the constitutional guarantee of personal conscience and religious liberty.

"We look forward to filing comments in defense of final regulations enforcing over three decades of conscience laws."

Kansas Judge Holds Late-term Abortion Restrictions Constitutional

2008-08-05T16:28:00.007-05:00

The Associated Press reported last week that Sedwick County (Kansas) District Judge Clark Owens declared a state abortion law Constitutional 10 years after its enactment, thus depriving Wichita late-term abortionist George Tiller of a defense in his pending criminal trial. The well-connected, church-going abortionist is a major contributor to Kansas political campaigns, and has emerged as something of a kingmaker there.

Judge Rules Kansas Abortion Statute Constitutional, Denies Request To Dismiss Case Against Late-term Abortionist Tiller

(AP) District Judge Clark Owens ruled Monday that a state law requiring an independent, consulting physician to approve some abortions after 21 weeks' gestation does not violate the U.S. Constitution or the Kansas Constitution, the AP/Wichita Eagle reports. Subsequently, Owens also denied a motion to dismiss a criminal case against abortion provider George Tiller.

Tiller is being charged by state Attorney General Stephen Six (D) with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly violating the state law. The law requires two physicians, without financial or legal ties, to agree that if a pregnancy continues, the pregnant woman will die or face "substantial and irreversible" harm to a "major bodily function." Prosecutors have accused Tiller of having an illegal financial arrangement with physician Ann Kristin Neuhaus, who provided second opinions on abortions he conducted in 2003.

Tiller's attorneys argued that the law creates an unconstitutional burden on a physician's right to practice medicine and a woman's right to obtain an abortion. They also argued that the law is unconstitutionally vague. Tiller's attorneys also argued that it violates the right to travel because of the requirement a woman be seen by two separate physicians in Kansas.

In a 35-page decision, Owens upheld the statute against each of the challenges.

Owens also denied a defense motion Tuesday regarding the number of jurors who will hear the case, according to the Wichita Eagle. State law limits juries in misdemeanor trials to six members, but Tiller's attorneys had requested 12.

Although no Kansas case has directly addressed the issue of six-person juries, Owens said a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in a Florida case was a factor in his decision.

"There is no need to interpret the Kansas Constitution any differently than what the Supreme Court interpreted the U.S. Constitution," Owens said.

Ashley Anstaett, a spokesperson for the attorney general's office, said Monday that prosecutors will move forward with the criminal case.

Owens set the trial date for the case for March 16, 2009.

Reaction

Dan Monnat, one of Tiller's lawyers, said, "We certainly respect the decision of the judge, but we hasten to point out that the decision on this one legal point does nothing to affect Dr. Tiller's innocence of the very technical charge still set for jury trial.

"Of course, Dr. Tiller is disappointed that the court did not take this opportunity to end his political prosecution and clear the huge roadblock that lies in the path of women who choose to exercise their right to get a lawful abortion in Kansas."

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, said the ruling is good news because Neuhaus was not independent of Tiller.

"I think the court has made a correct decision," Culp said. "There was no doubt in our minds that the law was constitutional, but you have to depend on judges to interpret these things."

Culp said Owens' decision shows that the 1998 law is valid, with "fail-safes" in place to prevent unwarranted late-term abortions, if officials will enforce them.

Troy Newman, president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, said that the ruling "vindicates our efforts to bring Tiller to justice.

"All along, we knew that it wasn't the law that was faulty, but it was Tiller's interpretation of the law that was faulty. This gives us a glimmer of hope that we could eventually see some shred of justice."

According to Monnat, abortion-rights opponents have been trying to intimidate and threaten doctors in Wichita who provide the required second opinion. "Tiller, however, will not be deterred by these people but rather will continue to work within the law as he has done for 30 years to help women get the health care they need and deserve," Monnat said, adding, "Tiller looks forward to having his day in court."

Pro-abortion Ethical Regime May Force Pro-Life Doctors and Pharmacists Out Despite Federal Law Protecting Conscience

2008-08-04T15:43:00.012-05:00

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Pro-abortion activists are attacking pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists by revising professional ethics within the field, thus circumventing statutory protections that heretofore have protected the pro-life doctors' right to exercise conscience in this area. The Heritage Foundation reports that under the revised ethical system, doctors who refuse to perform abortions or provide abortion referrals will lose the certification that enables them to practice medicine at a hospital.

Forcing Pro-life Doctors Out of Baby Business?
By Daniel Patrick Moloney and Peter Reed

Should pro-life doctors and pharmacists be free to practice their profession according to the dictates of their consciences? Should a woman have the freedom to choose an obstetrician or gynecologist she trusts to provide care consistent with her beliefs?

Current federal law says yes. But many women may have that choice greatly restricted, and their doctors driven out of business, if a medical association is able to require that all doctors either perform abortions or make referrals for abortions.

In November 2007, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) announced that the ethical standards of the profession had changed. Its ethics committee stated that an ob/gyn who is unwilling to perform an abortion has an ethical duty to refer the patient to someone who will perform it. If the physician is unable to refer the patient in a timely manner, he would be required to perform the abortion himself.

This decision threatens the livelihood of pro-life doctors. Every ob/gyn who works in a hospital or clinic needs not only a license, but also certification that his skills are up to date and that he is aware of recent developments in the field. To be certified, he must follow the ethical standards of the profession, so under the new ethics policy a pro-life doctor risks losing his certification if his pro-life convictions don't allow him to perform or cooperate in an abortion. And if he loses his certification, a hospital or clinic won't let him deliver babies there.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has labeled the decision “a raw power play to cripple, and ultimately eliminate from practice, those doctors who hold a conscience conviction on the sanctity of human life.” Besides forcing current ob/gyns out of the profession, the policy would make any bright young pro-life student think twice about going to medical school for obstetrics or gynecology.

Federal law protects doctors from discrimination for being pro-life. Any hospital or clinic that receives government funds (and most do) must allow a qualified pro-life doctor or medical student to practice his profession. So any hospital or clinic that rejects a doctor who lacks board certification could find itself in violation of federal law, and unwittingly be at risk of losing its government funding.

In response, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Mike Leavitt sent the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the professional agency that provides continuing certification for doctors, a letter strongly urging the agency not to base its licensing requirements on the ACOG ethics opinion. The Board was evasive: It claimed that whether a physician is pro-life has no bearing on his certification, yet it did not explicitly reject the ethics opinion. Nor did it rule out taking action against “unethical” pro-life doctors in the future. ACOG announced simply that it would review the ethics committee opinion. In June, Leavitt sent a second letter requesting more decisive action. But as things stand, a pro-life ob/gyn still risks losing his certification.

Even if the Board and the College continue to evade the communications from HHS, Leavitt could act to help the doctors. He should send a letter to all federally funded hospitals and clinics that employ ob/gyns, explaining federal law and how the new certification policy conflicts with it.

To further clarify current law protections, HHS is reportedly reviewing a draft regulation to ensure that federally funded hospitals and clinics protect the conscience rights of health care professionals. Current law protects doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health workers against being forced to violate their moral convictions.

Developments in the field -- such as the "morning-after" pill -- have made once abstract distinctions about the moment life begins immediately relevant. Many people believe that life begins when an egg is fertilized, and that the “morning-after” pill constitutes abortion. Other people believe that conception occurs only when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus, so that the “morning-after” pill is simply “emergency contraception,” because it prevents “conception” as they define it. The HHS regulation deems each view reasonable, and protects both views. Rather than imposing a bureaucratic definition, it defers the matter to the conscience of the health care provider -- as federal law has to date.

Federal law has upheld and should continue to uphold the conscience rights of medical professionals. Indeed, it was designed to combat the very kind of discrimination the ACOG ethics opinion recommends. Bureaucracy shouldn’t get in the way of qualified professionals being allowed to practice conscientiously and patients being able to choose a health care provider with similar convictions.

Daniel Patrick Moloney, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Peter Reed, a senior at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va., is a Heritage intern.

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

2008-07-31T00:28:00.009-05:00

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

2008-07-26T09:14:00.005-05:00

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

2008-07-25T10:04:00.007-05:00

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

2008-07-20T10:06:00.006-05:00

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

2008-07-11T00:34:00.008-05:00

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?

2008-07-10T17:56:00.004-05:00

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

2008-07-03T02:02:00.007-05:00

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.

"With Trepidation," Missouri Circuit Judge Rules Abortion-Related Law is Constitutional, Yet Stays Enforcement Again

2008-06-20T14:42:00.007-05:00

Jackson County Circuit Judge Charles Atwell has ruled that SB1 - a state law allowing civil litigation against anyone who intentionally assists a minor in obtaining an abortion without parental or judicial consent — is constitutional, according to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report Wednesday.

However, Atwell said the law is only constitutional with judicial limitations that protect free speech, and he issued an injunction stopping enforcement of the law until a higher court rules on the case.

Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (PPKMM) filed a lawsuit last month to challenge the law, complaining that it could financially cripple some Planned Parenthood affiliates.

PPKMM attorney Eve Gartner argued that counselors who discuss abortion with pregnant girls, whether or not the girls undergo abortion, could be considered to have violated the law. Atwell issued a preliminary injunction in November blocking the state from implementing the provision while he considered the issues of the case.

Atwell said the law is unconstitutional, as it infringes on the right to free speech and due process for people who provide information and counseling to girls, and said providing information on reproductive rights would be protected. However, he said the law would be constitutional if it were interpreted with his judicial restraints.

Atwell’s said that a lawsuit only could be brought against someone if they were familiar with the law and if they knew the girl being counseled was under 18 and also was trying to circumvent the consent requirement.

“[T]he court, with substantial trepidation, finds that(the law) is constitutional” with those restrictions in place, Atwell wrote. In his ruling, Atwell also questioned if his interpretation is “a legitimate act of judicial interpretation or does it constitute a rewriting (of the law) infringing upon the powers clearly invested in the legislative branch?”.

A Planned Parenthood spokesperson said the group will appeal Atwell’s ruling.

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Nonprofit Business Structure Doesn't Confer Malpractice Immunity

2008-03-13T18:34:00.005-05:00

Doctors practicing abortion under the umbrella of the Planned Parenthood Federation or other nonprofit organizations may not qualify for the charitable immunity doctrine in Virginia, after an analogous recent state supreme court decision.

The case involved doctors working for the nonprofit University of Virginia Health Services Foundation who argued they should be immune from malpractice suits.

The Court observed that the foundation "operates like a profitable commercial business with extensive revenue and assets." Therefore it is "not immune from tort liability under the doctrine of charitable immunity."

A ruling to the contrary would have permitted doctors and other professionals to escape liability by working under a nominally nonprofit structure, according to one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, quoted below.

Virginia Supreme Court Rules That Nonprofit Charity-Affiliated Doctors Are Not Sued for Malpractice

By Nancy Young
The Virginian-Pilot

Doctors affiliated with charitable foundations are not immune from malpractice suits, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The cases involved the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation, whose lawyers had argued that because its physicians were working for a nonprofit organization they should be immune from malpractice suits.

The state's highest court found that while the foundation's physicians conducted "commendable" charity care for indigent patients, the bulk of its services were not charitable in nature. It sent three malpractice cases back to lower courts to be decided on their merits.

"HSF operates like a profitable commercial business with extensive revenue and assets," the court's opinion said. Therefore it is "not immune from tort liability under the doctrine of charitable immunity."

If the court had ruled that UVA foundation doctors were entitled to charitable immunity, it could potentially have meant "no more medical malpractice litigation in Virginia," said L. Steven Emmert, an appellate lawyer in Virginia Beach who argued before the court on behalf of one of the patients. Such a ruling would have opened the door to doctors and other professionals to escape liability by working under a nominally nonprofit structure, he said.

Eastern Virginia Medical School has an affiliated nonprofit physicians' foundation group similar to UVA's and has claimed charitable immunity for its physicians facing malpractice suits, said Glen Huff, a Virginia Beach lawyer who represents the EVMS Academic and Physicians and Surgeons Health Services Foundation.

While the EVMS group has cases pending before the state Supreme Court, Huff said that there are variations in structure versus the UVA group that could lead to a different outcome.

"We're greatly disappointed with the opinion," Huff said. "But it's not necessarily a death knell for us."

In July, the medical malpractice cap in Virginia will reach $2 million, according to The Medical Society of Virginia.

Planned Parenthood's Potential Problem with African-American Jurors

2008-03-01T18:00:00.012-06:00

The Family Research Council (FRC) reported this week on a sub rosa investigation by a UCLA student showing that Planned Parenthood chapters in all seven surveyed states were amenable to accepting donations earmarked for the abortion of Black babies.

Some of the audio is already on Youtube.com, and the FRC is posting transcripts and an audio montage at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK08B57&f=WA08B46.

The implications for defendants who work at Planned Parenthood clinics are ominous. Unless pro-abortion forces can stanch the public dissemination of the UCLA evidence, Black jurors and Black-sympathetic jurors may be more sympathetic to plaintiffs in future litigation against Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortionists, and this sentiment could bleed over to litigation against unaffiliated abortionists.

Here is the FRC's brief article:

Racism Alive and Well at Planned Parenthood

A shocking set of recordings was released this week that could prove disastrous for Planned Parenthood's ties with the African-American community. Lila Rose, a pro-life student and reporter at UCLA, launched an undercover investigation aimed at exposing the racism of the nation's largest abortion merchant. With the help of an actor, she contacted Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states, inquiring if they would be willing to accept a donation earmarked for the abortion of black babies. The results were jaw-dropping.

Rose was appalled to discover that every last clinic agreed. Not one employee objected or questioned the request, even when the actor insisted that the purpose was to "lower the number of black people" in America. When the caller phoned an Ohio branch, he was told that Planned Parenthood "will accept the money for whatever reason."

Actor: ...I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids.
Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.
Actor: And we don't, you know, we just think the less black kids out there the better.
Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable... This is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out.

Students at UCLA are so infuriated by the investigation that they are petitioning the university to cut all affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

What few people realize is that the organization has a history of racism that has been ingrained since Planned Parenthood's earliest days, when founder Margaret Sanger advocated negative eugenics and spoke to a woman's branch of the KKK (Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, 1938, p. 336-367).

However, as is customary for Planned Parenthood, the organization has managed for decades to cover its tracks--and the facts. That task has just been made monumentally more difficult.

Abortion has taken the innocent lives of over 14 million black children--a national tragedy that has begun uniting and mobilizing African-Americans across party, state, and financial lines.

Today, FRC hosted a press conference to kick off the National Black Pro-Life Gathering in Washington, D.C. which drew pastors, parents, leaders, and activists from across America to commemorate Black History Month by calling on abortion merchants like Planned Parenthood to stop preying on their community.

As these abortion clinics continue to demonstrate that blood money is not colorblind, we call on Congress to de-fund and disavow Planned Parenthood. Taxpayers should not be forced to spend over $300 million on an organization whose scruples are for sale, even to those who seek racial genocide.

Iowa Supreme Court: Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Runs From First Knowledge of Extent and Cause of Injury

2008-02-28T17:34:00.003-06:00

The Iowa Supreme Court sent two medical malpractice lawsuits back to district court last week after announcing a new decision on how the statute of limitations should be interpreted. The decision, which affects a breast cancer patient and a woman who had liver problems as a teenager, could allow more leeway for when patients can file negligence claims.

Justices ruled that the statute's two-year window should begin when patients know the extent and cause of their illness or injury, not necessarily when their symptoms are initially diagnosed. "We choose this approach because it is ... fair to patients, doctors and the medical malpractice industry," the court wrote.

The district courts, citing previous Supreme Court opinions, had dismissed both malpractice lawsuits after deciding the limitations period had expired.

Death by Cardiac Pulmonary Arrest During Abortion Anesthesia

2008-02-21T18:07:00.005-06:00

Hyannis, MA - Five months after the death of 22-year old Laura Hope Smith during anesthesia for an abortion, Rapin Osathanondh has relinquished his medical license. A criminal investigation and disciplinary action by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine preceded Osathanondh's decision.

The Board had moved to suspend Osathanondh's license pending further investigation, declaring him to be a "risk to public safety." In a surprise move yesterday, Osathanondh instead permanently surrendered his license, and will not practice medicine again anywhere.

On Monday, the Boston Medical Examiner's office declared that the cause of Smith's death was "cardiac pulmonary arrest during anesthesia during a voluntary termination of pregnancy."

Calls to Osathanondh's clinic revealed that it is not accepting patients, but is referring women to other clinics.

Smith had sought an abortion from Osathanondh on September 13, 2007, at his office, Women's Health Center, in the Cape Cod town of Hyannis. Smith was placed under full anesthesia when only Osathanondh and a non-medical receptionist were present. When Smith suddenly stopped breathing, the receptionist phoned 911 but gave very little information to the dispatcher. Smith died later that day.

FDA Chinese Pharmaceutical Scandal Prefigured by Politicized RU-486 Approval

2008-02-21T15:13:00.005-06:00

Nobody who witnessed the dishonest, politicized FDA approval of (French) RU-486 abortifacients during the Clinton administration can be very surprised at this latest dereliction, regulating Chinese-manufactured pharmaceutical imports.

How Many Decades Will It Take to Fix FDA?
By Terence Jeffrey

The unfolding tragedy in which four Americans have died in the last two months and about 350 others have suffered adverse reactions after being injected with Chinese-made heparin -- a blood-thinning drug -- has its roots in a spectacular example of bad government that some federal watchdogs started barking at a decade ago.

Elected officials in Washington, D.C., simply did not respond adequately to the warnings.

In 1998, after investigating the Food and Drug Administration's procedures for inspecting foreign factories producing drugs for import into the United States, the Government Accountability Office told Congress the system put Americans at risk.

GAO had discovered two internal FDA documents -- a 1988 "internal review" and a 1993 "internal discussion paper" -- that indicated the agency knew it had problems monitoring the safety of foreign-made drugs.

"The evaluations concluded that unless corrected, problems in FDA's foreign inspection program could lead to the importation of adulterated and low-quality drugs that could pose serious health risks to Americans," Bernice Steinhardt, then the GAO's director of public health issues, told the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

One remarkable GAO discovery: The FDA did not possess a complete and reliable list of the foreign manufacturers producing drugs that would end up in the bloodstreams of Americans.

Had it known who all these foreign manufacturers were, however, the FDA still would not have done a good job inspecting them.

The foreign inspections that FDA did do, GAO discovered, were primarily limited to facilities applying to ship new drugs into the United States. After that, foreign manufacturers rarely saw the sort of routine follow-up inspections U.S.-based manufacturers are subject to every two years.

Nor was the Reagan doctrine of "trust but verify" applied to foreign drug makers in places such as the People's Republic of China. Managers of a U.S. facility where a problem was discovered had to fix it and face re-inspection; managers of a foreign facility simply had to give their word they would fix it.

Lack of resources to conduct foreign inspections, GAO said, led FDA staff to 'trust' a foreign manufacturer to correct serious manufacturing deficiencies."

Last year, GAO auditors took another look at FDA's system for inspecting foreign drug factories. On Nov. 1, Marcia Crosse, the agency's director of health care, presented their preliminary findings to the same congressional panel that received GAO's 1998 report.

FDA's performance had not improved.

It still did not have a complete and reliable list of foreign factories making drugs that end up in American bloodstreams. "FDA does not know how many foreign establishments are subject to inspection," Crosse told the committee.

One FDA list said about 3,000; another, 6,800. A third list of foreign facilities that FDA "prioritized" for inspections cited 3,249. Of these, says GAO, FDA inspects about 7 percent a year, meaning it would take 13 years to inspect them all.

In the People's Republic of China, according to GAO, there are now 714 drug-making facilities on FDA's "prioritized" list. From 2002-2007, FDA inspected only 88 of these, and the number of inspections has been declining each year. In 2005, it inspected 21 Chinese plants; in 2006, 17; in 2007, 13.

Double standards persist. Here, FDA inspections are unannounced. In China, FDA inspectors warn the drug maker in advance and must get a visa.

Most remarkably, the FDA does not bring its own translators on foreign inspection tours or hire independent translators to accompany its inspectors to foreign drug-making facilities. Instead, it relies on English-speaking officials at the factories being inspected to tell them what is going on.

"Our concern is not whether there is somebody in the Chinese facility who speaks English," GAO's Crosse told me, "but whether the inspectors can to talk to anybody on the line that they want to, can look at the signs labeling the equipment and read it and understand whether it is appropriately labeled, whether it has the right kinds of warnings on it, can look in a logbook and understand what kind of records were being kept, and understand what the columns were that people were asked to fill out."

The heparin that is suspected in the four deaths over the last two months was sold by Illinois-based Baxter Healthcare Corp., which secured the active ingredient in the drug from a company in China called Changzhou SPL. Changzhou was never inspected by the FDA, the Chicago Tribune reported this week, because "regulators confused the factory's name with another that already had U.S. approval."

"This is exactly the risk we were pointing to," Crosse told me.

Will another decade pass before politicians fix the FDA?

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews.

Endocrinology Professor's View of Research on Breast Cancer-Abortion Link

2008-02-18T15:00:00.005-06:00

The importance of a causal link between abortion and breast cancer, from a legal perspective, is that it might obligate the abortion provider to make full disclosure to the patient before her decision to proceed, in order to satisfy the "informed consent" requirement. Without informed consent, the abortionist may be liable at tort for negligence or battery, or both.

Dr. Joel Brind, Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at the City University of New York, remarks below on the stubborn editorial bias within his field against any link between induced abortions and breast cancer. This favors defendants, as expert witnesses will be able to cite "consensus in the literature" that no link has been proven. But it could change, and definitely bears further monitoring.

“Is there any evidence for an association between induced abortion and breast cancer?”
By Joel Brind

Dr. Joel Brind is a biochemist who has specialised in reproductive steroid hormones and their links to human diseases since 1972. In a paper given at Newman House in Birmingham, England in October 2005, he said he discovered a link between breast cancer and induced abortion in published research going back to 1957.

Since that time, he has devoted much of his research to promoting awareness to what has become known as the “ABC link”. In 1996, along with colleagues from the Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, he published a comprehensive review and meta-analysis on the ABC link in the British Medical Association's epidemiological journal.(1)

In 1999, along with three physician colleagues, he founded the non-profit Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in Poughkeepsie, New York. He was later appointed to a federal advisory committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) on early detection and control of breast and cervical cancer.

A criticism sometimes levelled at the link is that it was based on certain reporting bias on the part of women suffering breast cancer. On the other hand, other studies purporting to show no linkage, were flawed in various ways.

One large British study of recent years was a meta-analysis based on 52 studies, when in fact only 41 of them had been published, and others had been eliminated for no valid scientific reason.

In another, the percentage of women in a large study in Oxford who had had admitted to having an induced abortion, was only a fraction of the nationally accepted proportion of women who have an induced abortion, thus calling into question the study`s benign conclusions.

In a Scottish study, although computerized medical records were available, they had been selectively interpreted with significant groups of women eliminated, notably teenagers who had had induced abortions, which called the conclusions into question.

Throughout research on any link with induced abortion, a strong editorial bias seems to have been exercised towards supporting the status quo of current abortion practice. There appeared to be a basic presumption that there is no risk and a selective removal of the evidence pointing the other way. A study in Australia which was based on fuller evidence, had simply published incomplete results.

The epidemiological risk is associated with an increase in the levels of estrogen. This is increased 2,000 fold in the first trimester and it stimulates breast changes leading to rapid growth and an increase in Type 1 and 2 breast lobules. These are less stable than the later Type 3 and 4 lobules in the mature breast. Thus a term pregnancy protects against the development of breast cancer.

In fact, a natural miscarriage is not associated with an increase risk of breast cancer since miscarriages are associated with low levels of estrogen. About 23% of pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage, 90% of which occur in the first trimester. Miscarriages in the second trimester can increase risk of breast cancer.

Induced abortion in the first trimester, and even more so the second or third trimester, are associated with high estrogen levels and a persistence of the less stable and more rapidly growing type 1 and 2 breast lobules. This risk is highest in teenagers having an induced abortion in the late first or second trimester. There is also an increased risk in women who deliver prematurely before 32 weeks and women who have never had a full term pregnancy.

A quotation from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute publication “Breast Cancer, risks and prevention”, says

“Over the last thirty years, whilst most major cancers have started to decline, breast cancer incidences in the US has increased by an alarming 40%. Most of this increase has occurred in the author's generation, the generation of “Women's Lib.” (2)

Refs;

(1)
Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summary-Long J, Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481 - 496

(2)
“Breast Cancer, risks and prevention”

Angela Lanfrachi, MD., F.A.C.S., Joel Brind, Ph. D

Published by
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, 9 Vassar St., Poughkeepsie. NY