Actionable? Panel Discussion on Post-Abortion Mental Health Effects

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*

Parental Involvement Threatens Cash Flow

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

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."

Is a New Day Dawning in Abortion Litigation?

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

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

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

A new day is dawning in abortion litigation

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

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

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

A new day is dawning in abortion litigation.

Planned Parenthood's Potential Problem with African-American Jurors

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.