Danville City Council Advances "Sanctuary City for the Unborn" Ordinance

On April 25, the Public Services Committee of the Danville, Illinois city council voted 3-1 to advance a "sanctuary city for the unborn" ordinance. A final vote in the full 14-member City Council is expected on May 2.

The proposed ordinance would require compliance with the 1873 Comstock Act. The Comstock Act is federal legislation that prohibits the transportation of "obscene" materials through the mail. The law specifically prohibits abortion-inducing drugs and abortion-related paraphernalia from being transported this way. While Griswold v Connecticut famously struck down a portion of this legislation by legalizing contraception for married couples, the law was never entirely struck down. Now, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, pro-life groups hope to use the Comstock Act to protect the unborn.

Some pundits argue that the Comstock Act could have a broader effect on the nationwide legality of abortion than many realize. “Every single abortion in the United States, surgical or medical, requires something that comes in the mail,” said University of California-Davis School of Law professor Mary Ziegler wrote for Slate. “Abortion providers don’t create their own medical devices or surgical instruments. They don’t make their own drugs. They get them from medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical distributors.” If manufacturers and distributors then transport these items in the mail, they could be subject to the Comstock Act.

Residents are determined to pass the sanctuary city ordinance after an Indiana abortion business purchased a property in Danville. The city's location near the state border makes it ideal for Indiana abortionists trying to circumvent pro-life state laws.

The Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative, a national organization working to help cities throughout the US enact such ordinances, met with residents several times last month to help educate the community on how the Comstock Act can be used in local ordinances.

Danville aldermen Ethan Burt, Eve Ludwig, and Robert Williams voted to advance the ordinance, while alderwoman Tricia Teague voted in opposition. Alderman Rick Stebing abstained, and the two remaining members of the Public Services Committee (aldermen Sherry Pickering and Darren York), were absent.

The day before the April 25 vote, the ACLU of Illinois sent a letter via email to the committee asking them to reject the ordinance. The ACLU made two arguments. The first is that the ordinance would violate Illinois's 2019 Reproductive Health Act. The second is that the Comstock Act is not applicable in Illinois.

The Comstock Act, as federal law, should override state law. If courts interpret the Comstock Act to broadly prohibit the transportation of abortion paraphernalia and find the law to be constitutional, then the ACLU's first argument falls moot. The US Supreme Court may issue a decision on this as Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (a pro-life challenge to the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone) advances through the courts.

The ACLU's second argument leans on a memo issued by Biden's Department of Justice last December. As an opinion written by an executive bureaucrat (not a judge), that memo does not create a judicial precedent. In that memo, Assistant Attorney General Christopher Schroeder argued that the Comstock Act does not do what it says. He argues that it only prohibits the transportation of abortion paraphernalia when the sender intends that the recipient will use it in violation of a separate law. This interpretation by the Biden administration is shaky, and it could easily be rejected by courts.

During the April 25 meeting, Danville Mayor Rickey Williams shared that Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell has promised to represent Danville "at no cost to the city or its taxpayers" if the city faces a lawsuit stemming from the ordinance. Mitchell has argued five times before the US Supreme Court, and he is credited with being one of the minds behind Texas's groundbreaking Heartbeat Act.

Click here to read more.

Danville, IL Passes Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance

photo credit: Mark Lee Dickson / Facebook

On the evening of May 2, the city council of Danville, Illinois voted 8-7 to approve a "sanctuary city for the unborn" ordinance. This makes Danville the 67th city in the US (and the first in Illinois) to approve such an ordinance.

Danville Mayor Rickey Williams, Jr. was the tie-breaking vote.

The new ordinance requires compliance with federal statutes known as the Comstock Act. These statutes prohibit the mailing or receiving of abortion-inducing drugs or abortion paraphernalia. The ordinance finds that the 1873 Comstock Act “imposes felony criminal liability on every person who ships or receives abortion pills or abortion-related paraphernalia in interstate or foreign commerce” and that all such acts are “offenses under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.”

Because abortion clinics don't manufacture their own drugs or equipment, this interpretation of the Comstock Act could effectively ban abortion in the United States. Clinics and manufacturers could be subject to criminal liability for mailing drugs and equipment intended to cause abortion.

Danville citizens pushed for the ordinance in response to the Indianapolis abortion business "Clinic for Women" purchasing property there. The business likely intends to flout pro-life Indiana laws by directing women across the Illinois border.

Before the meeting, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the ACLU of Illinois sent letters to the city council arguing that the ordinance is unlawful under Illinois's 2019 Reproductive Health Act. Additionally, the Illinois Pharmacy Association attended the meeting to argue that the ordinance violates the Illinois Pharmacy Practice Act.

The ordinance argues that Illinois law cannot supersede federal law. Therefore, Illinois law cannot create a right for citizens to perform activities that are considered criminal under the Comstock Act.

Arguments by the Illinois Pharmacy Association caused several council members to fear that the ordinance would negatively impact the health of community members who might need mifepristone, misoprostol, or methotrexate to treat health conditions unrelated to pregnancy or abortion. These concerns were addressed after the meeting by Attorney Jonathan Mitchell.

“This ordinance does nothing to restrict the shipment or receipt of drugs that are used for non-abortion purposes,” Mitchell said. “It remains legal to ship and receive mifepristone and misoprostol if the intended use does not involve abortion.” 

Mitchell is credited as being one of the minds behind Texas's Heartbeat Act, and he has agreed to represent the city and its taxpayers at no cost if the ordinance causes the city to face litigation.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Senators Demand that Major Retailers such as Walmart Sell Abortion Pills

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)

On March 13, seventeen pro-abortion senators, including Illinois Sen Tammy Duckworth (D), sent letters to retail and pharmacy chains demanding that the companies distribute the abortion pill mifepristone in all 50 states. The senators took particular offense at Walgreens's announcement that it would not distribute mifepristone in 21 states to conform with the Comstock Act.

The senators wrote to Walmart, Costco, Albertsons, and Kroger, “We write with great frustration that [your company] has not indicated whether it plans to allow your customers to access mifepristone through your pharmacies…We urge you to pursue policies that provide the strongest possible access to the full range of essential health care they need, including mifepristone, and to communicate clearly to your customers about how they can access this care.”

To Walgreens, which has announced plans to sell abortion pills in all but 21 states, the senators wrote,

"We write with grave concerns about the misunderstanding and confusion your company has created with regard to patients’ access to mifepristone from retail pharmacies. Earlier this month, it was reported that Walgreens does not intend to fill prescriptions for a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug in states where it is legal for patients to access that product. While we are well aware of threatening letters you received with regard to the distribution of mifepristone in certain states, the response to those pressures was unacceptable and appeared to yield to these threats—ignoring the critical need to ensure patients can get this essential health care wherever possible. As you work through the FDA certification process, we urge you to fully assess the laws in each state and ensure your policies provide the strongest possible legal access to this critical patient care."

Walgreens's announcement that it would not dispense abortion pills in 21 states came in response to a letter it received from a group of pro-life attorneys general. The group wrote to CVS and Walgreens to inform them that the Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of any item that will ‘be used or applied for producing abortion.’ Walgreens, rather than risk prosecution in states with pro-life attorneys general, elected to only sell pills in states with more abortion-friendly governments.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-OK), New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) are also on record urging Walgreens to distribute abortion pills in violation of pro-life federal and state laws. Gov. Newsom went as far as to announce, "California won't be doing business with Walgreens -- or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women's lives at risk." All of these politicians appear to be using their power to threaten businesses that don't fall in line with their pro-abortion agenda.

The pro-abortion senators also sent letters to CVS and Rite Aid, thanking them for their announcements to sell abortion pills and asking them how they “plan to notify current customers about access to mifepristone in any given state, where restrictions do and do not exist.”

The seventeen senators who signed the March 13 letters include Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Wyden (D-OR), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).

Click here to read more.

Obama's Expected Approval of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

National Institutes of Health Prepares for Obama's Expected Approval of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are preparing new guidelines for funding embryonic stem cell research, which destroys human life at its earliest stages, the Washington Post reported today.
 
Although the Bush administration permitted such research on already existing lines of embryonic stem cells, it prohibited the creation of new stem cell lines.  Advocates of the research anticipate, however, that the Obama administration will lift this restriction soon, although they are expressing some concern over what they perceive as a delay in doing so.

"We were surprised and disappointed it wasn't in there," Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research told the Washington Post, referring to Obama's package of reforms during his first week in office.  "We're wondering why it's taking so long."

However, Obama administration senior advisor David Axelrod told Fox News last Sunday that the president is considering issuing an executive order, and that a decision would be coming soon. Earlier in the month Obama himself said he would be issuing an executive order on stemcells. "I guarantee you that we will sign an executive order for stem cells," he said at a meeting of Congressional Democrats, according to the Washington Times.

Although embryonic stem cell researchers claim that embryonic stem cells may someday be used to replace damaged tissue in patients, so far the procedures haven't yielded a single cure, according to Dr Insoo Hyun of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, who recently told the Scotsman newspaper that "patients need to know there are no proven therapies using embryonic stem cells."

In fact, thus far embryonic stem cell research has only produced harmful results, a point highlighted by the case, currently being widely reported on in the international news media, of an unnamed Israeli boy whose parents took him to Russia for an embryonic stem cell treatment for a neurological disorder. According to the Journal PLoS Medicine, where a study on the case was published, the boy received injections of embryonic stem cells taken from aborted fetuses directly into his brain.  He now suffers from brain tumors caused by the stem cells.

The results in the case are similar to those of other embryonic stem cell experiments, which have also resulted in tumors.

Sean Savitz, a neurologist at Houston's University of Texas Medical School, recently told Scientific American that "there is simply not enough evidence from animal studies, let alone human studies" to indicate that embryonic stem cells can be used in medical therapies, according to the magazine.

Savitz, who is doing research on adult stem cells, told Scientific American that the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is that the former do not proliferate and grow, but die after conferring their benefit, thus eliminating the possibility of tumor growth.

Adult stem cell research, which does not destroy human life, has been approved for over one hundred treatments, and has been used to reconstruct heart tissue, nerve tissue, a trachea, and other damaged body parts.

Contact: Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: February 19, 2009
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/090220_2.htm

Biden DOJ Advises Postal Service that Abortion Drugs can be Mailed Lawfully in All 50 States

President Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote a slip opinion for the United States Postal Service (USPS) advising that mailing abortion drugs is not a violation of federal or state law.

Christopher Schroeder, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, wrote the slip opinion. He argues that the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of "[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion," does not apply to the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol "where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully."

Schroeder writes, "there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may use these drugs, including to produce an abortion, without violating state law. Therefore, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully." He later clarifies, "dosages of mifepristone and misoprostol that are used for medication abortion can be used to treat a miscarriage, and misoprostol is commonly prescribed for the prevention and treatment of gastric ulcers."

Further, Schroeder argues that it is lawful to send deliver doses explicitly provided for abortion even in states that ban abortion. He argues,

"even if a state prohibits a pregnant person from ingesting mifepristone or misoprostol for the purpose of inducing an abortion, such an individual has a constitutional right to travel to another state that has not prohibited that activity and to ingest the drugs there. Someone sending a woman these drugs is unlikely to know where she will use them, which might be in a state in which such use is lawful."

Sending abortion drugs for the purpose of causing abortion to a person who lives in a place where abortion is illegal is still fine, according to Schroeder, as long as the sender believes that the mother will travel out of state before ingesting the pills. Such an assumption seems unreasonable, and it is very possible that a sender could still face charges from a pro-life state that would argue otherwise.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erik Baptist told Live Action News,

“These longstanding federal laws prohibit the distribution of chemical abortion drugs by mail, common carrier, or express company. That means only the chemical drug manufacturer may deliver and distribute these drugs to abortionists around the country. The manufacturer cannot use the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, or any third-party courier to distribute chemical abortion drugs to abortionists, pharmacies, or women in the United States.”

Click here to read more.

State Attorneys General Warn CVS and Walgreens Against Mailing Abortion Pills

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey

20 state attorneys general, led by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, sent letters to pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens warning them against using the mail to distribute abortion pills. The letters inform these companies that the practice is unsafe and illegal.

“As Attorney General, it is my responsibility to enforce the laws as written, and that includes enforcing the very laws that protect Missouri’s women and unborn children,” said Attorney General Bailey. “My Office is doing everything in its power to inform these companies of the law, with the promise that we will use every tool at our disposal to uphold the law if broken.”

CVS and Walgreens announced plans to distribute abortion pills, including by mail, after the Biden FDA loosened regulations on the deadly drugs.

The letters reference the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mail distribution of abortion pills. The Biden administration recently wrote a memo arguing that the law does not apply "where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully." The memo does not require federal judges to rule one way or another, and it inaccurately portrays the law.

The letters read,

“Federal law expressly prohibits using the mail to send or receive any drug that will ‘be used or applied for producing abortion’… the text could not be clearer: ‘every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion … shall not be conveyed in the mails.’ And anyone who ‘knowingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating’ is guilty of a federal crime.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey authored the letter. He was joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Click here to read more.

Parents of unborn babies with disabilities often experience great pressure to abort

Now that prenatal testing can so easily detect babies with physical and mental disabilities, more and more women are choosing to abort their children if something is wrong with them. For example, up to 92% of women whose tests show that they are carrying babies with Down syndrome abort.

Some women have successfully sued doctors for the “wrongful life” of babies who were born handicapped, claiming that their doctors should have detected the anomaly so they could abort. Perhaps this is one reason why many doctors urge their pregnant patients to undergo amniocentesis, a test which is not without the risk of miscarriage. Along with the pressure to undergo amniocentesis comes the pressure to abort if the amniocentesis – or other recommended prenatal testing – shows a problem.

Parents are Subjected to Eugenicist Views and Urged to Choose Abortion

According to one pro-choice author:

“Through the gradual introduction of new forms of technology and testing, the medical establishment and the public health sector have been developing subtle quality-of-life standards and not-so-subtle ways of discouraging the birth of those who do not measure up.” (1)

Another researcher writes:

“The mere existence of a [genetic] technology contains an implicit coercion to use it[.] … Sometimes the coercion is more than implicit.” (2)

Some doctors oppose even allowing women to give birth to their handicapped children. Bob Edwards, the scientist who presided over Great Britain’s first in vitro fertilization delivery, gave a speech at a fertility convention where he said:

“Soon it will be a sin if parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children.” (3)

While it is impossible to know how many OBGYNs share this eugenicist and elitist view, a number of women have experienced pressure from doctors to abort their handicapped children.

One women who found out she was pregnant with a baby with Down syndrome recounted her obstetrician saying, “It could just be hanging off you, drooling,” while encouraging her to abort. (4)

Another writer recounted the following:

“A woman I know was told by her obstetrician that her fetus had Down syndrome. The doctor ordered her to abort, she refused. … Another woman was similarly coerced. Her doctor told her that her baby would be more like a fish than a human and would only be as smart as a baboon.” (5)

The article this quote appears in talks about a study that found that 99% of individuals with Down syndrome report being happy with their lives.

Parents Are Pressured to Make Fast Decisions While Their Children Become Victims of Prejudice and Discrimination

Women who are pregnant with disabled babies are often pressured to make a decision quickly. This may be partly because some abortion providers believe that abortion becomes more dangerous the later in pregnancy it is performed. One abortionist claims that the risk of abortion complications increases 20% for each week of pregnancy that passes (6).

Abortions for reasons of fetal anomaly are usually late-term abortions because amniocentesis can be performed only in the second trimester, and most disabilities are not discerned until midway through pregnancy. This is why many women who are carrying disabled babies have abortions in the late second or third trimester. (This may change with the advent of blood testing that can detect some abnormalities.)

One study found that parents of babies aborted due to disability or “fetal anomaly” suffer depression and loss. Those who conducted the study said:

“Despite the shock and grief they may experience upon hearing the news of a fetal anomaly, the pregnant woman and her partner are usually urged to make the decision to terminate quickly. Behind the urgency is the physician’s desire to avoid complications of ‘late’ terminations of pregnancy. Because of the delays involved in amniocentesis, abortions may occur in the second and even third trimester pregnancy. In health care settings, the issue of such late abortions has raised ethical and legal questions. In one early study, most of the terminations occurred within 72 hours of the woman receiving the news of the abnormality. This hardly allows time for the couple to become informed about parenting children born with that anomaly and thus considering carrying through with the pregnancy.” (7)

Rayna Rapp, who aborted a baby who was found to be handicapped, conducted interviews with women who aborted due to their children’s disabilities. She said of her research:

“New developments in reproductive technologies assist in the quest for the perfect baby not only by genetically creating ‘better’ children but also by detecting and eliminating fetuses deemed abnormal and defective. In a world where babies are bred for desired characteristics, having a healthy, normal baby becomes nothing less than a duty. While it may appear that medicine simply offers procedure such as diagnostic ultrasound, fetal electrocardiography, and amniocentesis as options for those who desire them, the fear of producing a child that falls outside the boundary of ‘normal’ compels many women to seek premonitory information regarding the status of the fetus. As one of [Rayna Rapp's] interviewees explained regarding her tests, ‘if he was gonna be slow, if he wasn’t gonna have a shot at being President, that’s not the baby we wanted.’“(8)

Rapp reveals that simple prejudice against the disabled is a factor in driving couples to abort their babies.

Parents Suffer from a Lack of Accurate Information

Along with prejudice against the disabled and pressure from doctors to abort, another factor driving these abortions is that couples who face a disabled baby are often given limited, one-sided information. Their doctors may overemphasize the suffering that handicapped children go through or present the worst-case scenario. This may be because the doctor fears being sued or because the doctor has his or her own prejudices towards disabled people. According to one woman who aborted her disabled baby and later regretted it:

“We had only one isolated piece of information, not a whole crystal ball. How were we to know what would be best? …

“A person reeling from shock, numbed by a sudden catastrophe, cannot think.” (9)

In pressuring couples to make a decision quickly, doctors deny them the opportunity to come to terms with the fact that their baby will most likely have a disability. When couples are given biased information and pressured to make a quick decision, they may not have the wherewithal or opportunity to do a great deal of research on their own. They may not have the opportunity, for example, to thoroughly research the disability and talk to parents of children with disabilities. Many times, these parents would encourage them to carry their pregnancy to term. In reality, many women who have their babies with disabilities are glad they did not abort.

The mother of a five-year-old girl with a cleft lip and palate wrote this letter to the editor:

“I was horrified to read that many couples now opt for abortion rather than risk having a baby with such a minor physical imperfection. My daughter is not some abnormal freak[.] … She can, and does, lead a happy, fulfilled life[.] … What sort of society do we live in when a minor facial deformity, correctable by surgery, is viewed as so abnormal as to merit abortion?” (10)

When radio show host Dr. Laura broadcast a call from a woman who aborted her baby with Down syndrome at 20 weeks, parents of handicapped children wrote her letters to express their disapproval. One man, the father of a baby with Down syndrome, said the following:

“Today, the 28th of March, I was listening to talk to one of your callers. She recently had terminated the life of her child in her 20th week of pregnancy and I believe the child’s 20th week of life.

“The child’s life was ended when it was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. This really struck a nerve and infuriated me, as I and my wife have the honor of being parents to our 22 month son, Conner, with Down Syndrome, that along with our other 2 children (a daughter 8 and a son 5) the joy and light of our life. This person that ended the child’s life has no idea of the joy or divine love that these special people possess. It is hard for me to understand the callousness that she had about thinking that the child was a mistake of nature and it was okay to terminate its life. I would almost dare say that it is our limited understanding of these special people that is the problem.

“I have often looked into Conner’s eyes and have felt a true divine, Godlike love shining forth. I will be honest and say that our life has not been changed by Conner. Unlike our other two children that walked before they were one and talked by two and developed in what we understand as ‘normal’. Conner has yet to walk on his own, but he does possess the ability to brighten the darkest days we have faced.

“I would hate to think of life without Conner, he is the light in our families’ lives. Our other children think the world of him and I feel are gaining a greater understanding and acceptance of ‘ALL’ people, unlike the caller today. She has missed a wonderful opportunity to learn and grow.”

These are the voices that parents considering aborting their children with handicaps need to hear. In pressuring these couples to abort quickly and giving them one-sided information, doctors encourage these parents to have abortions which they may later come to regret. The opportunity to bring a special and unique child into the world is taken away from these parents, and the ultimate gift of life is taken away from their children.

Sources:

1. Elizabeth Kristol. “Picture Perfect: the Politics of Prenatal Testing” First Things 32 (April 1993): 22 Quoted in Paige Comstock Cunningham, Esq. “The Supreme Court and the creation of the two-dimensional woman.” Erika Bachiochi. The Cost of “Choice”: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion” (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2004)

2. Lori Andrews, “Future Perfect: Confronting Decisions about Genetics” (New York: Columbia University press, 2001), 63

3. Sunday Times (London) July 4, 1999 as reported in American Feminist, winter 1999 – 2000

4. Jonathan Finer “Study: Negativity Often Tied to Down Syndrome Diagnoses” Washington Post, April 29, 2005 A3 Quoted in Ramesh Ponnuru  “The Party of Death” (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006)166

5. Rebecca Taylor “99% of Adults With Down Syndrome Report Being Happy in Life” LifeNews.com 10/6/11 (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/06/99-of-adults-with-down-syndrome-report-being-happy-in-life/)

6. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, abortionist: press conference. Statement read at a joint press conference with the Manitoba Coalition for Reproductive Choice in Winnipeg, Friday, June 23, 2000

7. Donnai P, Charles N, Harris R. “Attitudes of Patients after ‘Genetic’ Termination of Pregnancy” British Medical Journal 1981; 282: 621 – 622, P622 in Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles. Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence Second Edition (Toronto, Canada: The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2003) 159

8. Rayna Rapp “Moral Pioneers: Women, Men, and Fetuses on a Frontier Of Reproductive Technology,” and Hoffman et al., Embryos, Ethics and Women’s Rights, 110, from Kathy Rudy. Beyond Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Moral Diversity in the Abortion Debate (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1996) 11

9. “Brown, Judy” (pseudonym) The Choice. Journal of the American Medical Association 1989, 262:2735

10. Susan Kitching, London Sunday Times, February 11, 1990

Editor’s note. This first appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Sarah Terzo
Source: NRL News