Thomas More Society Prevails Once Again in Historic N.O.W. v. Scheidler Case

Joseph Scheidler

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Declares an End to Nearly 28 Years of Litigation

Contact: Tom Ciesielka

Yesterday, just over one month short of its 28th anniversary, the historic, marathon litigation, N.O.W. v. Scheidler, culminated in yet another unanimous, decisive pro-life victory for the defendants, Joseph Scheidler, Andrew Scholberg, Timothy Murphy, and the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League. A unanimous, federal appellate panel roundly rejected any and all objections raised by the abortion plaintiffs, N.O.W., and a pair of abortion providers representing a nationwide class of all abortion providers in the United States to the federal trial judge's award of $63,391.45 in reimbursable, out-of-pocket costs to said pro-life defendants. 

Judge Frank Easterbrook penned a sharply written, seven page opinion in which he seemed almost to scoff at the objections raised by the abortion lawyers' quibbles over the pro-lifers' claims, which he deemed "modest for a suit that entailed discovery, a long trial, many motions in the district court, and appellate proceedings that span a generation." In fact, he dismissed the abortion lawyers' arguments as "preposterous" and quipped that, "The costs amount to less than $2,300 per year of litigation." Judge Easterbrook closed his opinion in a pair of terse sentences that resonate deeply and dramatically with those who fought this often-agonizing litigation over many years, going back to June, 1986: "This litigation has lasted far too long. At last it is over."

N.O.W. v. Scheidler brought about the birth of the Thomas More Society in March, 1997 - some sixteen years ago - just a few months after Tom Brejcha, partner in a Chicago law firm, was told by his managing partner at a firm meeting that he would either have to "quit the case or quit the firm." Tom Brejcha quit the firm to carry on in defense of the case that will go down as a landmark in the annals of American law. 

N.O.W. v. Scheidler went before the U.S. Supreme Court for full dress briefing, hearing, and disposition on three separate occasions -- which may well have been unprecedented, as no legal historian has yet to find another case so well-traveled up and down all three tiers of the federal judicial system!

The first appeal was brought by the abortion plaintiffs after Brejcha's motion to dismiss all charges (under the federal antitrust, racketeering (RICO) and extortion laws) was granted by Judge Holderman in 1991. That dismissal was then affirmed on appeal by the 7th Circuit without a dissenting vote, but the Supreme Court agreed to review the RICO dismissal and reversed by a 9-0 count, in January, 1994, holding that RICO applied to non-profit enterprises equally as to for-profit activities. 

The case was then remanded and reassigned to newly appointed Judge Coar, who presided over a lengthy RICO jury trial in March-April and June-July, 1998, after which Judge Coar entered judgment on a verdict for plaintiffs in July, 1999, awarding treble damages against defendants for over $257,000, with attorney's fees yet to be added onto that sum. Joe and Ann Scheidler then mortgaged their home to post security to an appeal, but the 7th Circuit affirmed the judgment in 2001.

The following April, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed to review the case and reversed the judgment in early 2003, by a decisive 8-1 margin. On remand, however, the 7th Circuit panel whose earlier affirmance of the RICO judgment had been reversed by the Supreme Court, ruled rather surprisingly that the Supreme Court had overlooked part of the RICO verdict and that, therefore, the lawsuit should be reexamined by Judge Coar to determine if the overlooked portions of the verdict alone would support relief for the abortion plaintiffs. 

Defendants then promptly sought a third hearing before the Supreme Court, and the Justices voted to hear the case a third time. This time they reversed the 7th Circuit a third time, in Spring, 2006, by unanimous count, 8-0 (Justice O'Connor having resigned after oral argument but before the decision was issued), and this time they specifically directed that the case be dismissed on its merits.

Thereafter, the pro-life defendants filed to recover some $70,000 in costs -- all that they could back up with invoices and receipts after so many years of litigation. Judge Coar, while allowing what he deemed a late filing, did not act on the costs petition for several years before retiring from the bench. Finally, the case was transferred to Judge Norgle, who awarded defendants most of the costs they sought. But the abortion plaintiffs refused to pay and instead took another appeal. That appeal was briefed, argued just over a week ago on Good Friday, and decided April 29, 2014 in defendants' favor.

"Today we celebrate a long-awaited, hopefully final victory for millions of pro-lifers here and around the country," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "The abortion plaintiffs had been claiming that the heroic leaders whom we defended were leaders of a vast nationwide conspiracy comprising as many as a million members, thereby putting a black cloud over pro-life efforts to advocate against abortion as if these efforts to save human lives were some horrific enterprise bent on 'extortion' and 'racketeering.' After nearly 28 years of litigating and three trips to the U.S. Supreme Court, we are proud to declare that pro-lifers' First Amendment rights to free speech and association are once again secure and protected by law. Banding together with fellow citizens to advocate for the sanctity of each and every human life -- born and unborn, wanted or allegedly 'unwanted' -- are precious rights of all American citizens."

Google accepts NARAL’s “analysis,” rejects pro-life CPC ads

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

It's funny how seemingly disparate stories—when seen as part of a bigger picture–can come together to reveal a startling truth.

First, there is NARAL, ever, EVER on the hunt to put crisis pregnancy centers out of business. Follow this carefully, because it illustrates just how dishonest these folks are.

Something called "The Switch: Where technology and policy connect" appears in the Washington Post. Well, today Havley Tsukayama reports that NARAL had successfully "lobbied" Google to take down ads for "some" crisis pregnancy centers," which, NARAL argues its investigation proves, "violate Google's policy against deceptive advertising."

Let's deconstruct this. First, it's not "some." NARAL insists a whopping 79% of CPCs "that advertised on Google indicated that they provided medical services such as abortions, when, in fact, they are focused on counseling services and on providing information about alternatives to abortion." Since I don't have access to NARAL's "analysis," I can't be specific.

What I can say is that over the years various analyses cranked out by NARAL are flagrantly political and egregiously misleading. They impute things to CPCs that the facts do not bear out. That's where charges that CPCs are "misleading" comes in.

NARAL means many things by this but customarily (a) that CPCs distribute literature that explains that having an induced abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, and (b) that the CPCs won't say that they don't provide abortions.

The courts, by and large, have been unsympathetic to the last attack on CPCs because they see it for what it is: an obvious, politically-motivated assault on First Amendment free speech rights. (The right to free speech, the courts have pointed out, includes the right not to be compelled to say things you would not otherwise say.)

Again, without seeing NARAL's analysis, my strong suspicion is they are trying to muscle Google into helping accomplish what NARAL's is having loads of trouble accomplishing in the courts: strangling CPCs.

So for NARAL President to tell the Post that "We have no problem with crisis pregnancy centers advertising online; we have no problem with their existing" is so dishonest, it almost takes your breath away.

To double back to the abortion/breast cancer link. A friend forwarded me one of those customarily stupid "Fact Check" item in this case where a Nevada newspaper's fact checking operation addressed what it described as the claim that "Abortion is linked with a raised risk of breast cancer." ("Raised"?)

On a scale of 1-10, this clam, we're told dismissively, rated a "1" on the "Truthmeter."

Let's talk about this analysis of the abortion/breast cancer link from the Reno Gazette Journal. On a 1-10 scale on the Blarneymeter–with 10 being totally smoke and mirrors–this is a twelve.

For example, they swallow hook, line, and sinker the nonsense that healthy women are more likely to deny prior abortions in their medical history study questionnaire than are women who've developed breast cancer. Hence (the argument goes), it would erroneously appear that abortion is more frequent among women who've had an abortion.

Prof. Joel Brind had dismantled this "recall bias" at least a half dozen time for NRL News and NRL News Today, most recently at nrlc.cc/1fKxHvf.

It is a sad day indeed if Google were coerced by NARAL into rejecting CPC ads. It would be worse if it happily went along without bothering to talk to experts like Dr. Brind or reading the trenchant court decisions that shot down NARAL's attempts to ruin CPCs.

Woman who had 4 abortions: ‘Abortions…aren’t something you should do. It could change your life’

A 23-year-old London woman has opened up to the BBC about the four abortions she had between the ages of 18 and 22, in the hopes that she will convince other young women to think twice before having their own abortions.

"Lisa," a pseudonym given by the BBC, had her first abortion at 18, her second at 21, and two more abortions at 22. At 20, she became pregnant but decided to keep the baby, and is now raising her one surviving daughter.

Lisa told the BBC she believes abortion is morally wrong, but had the abortions anyway because she couldn't bear the thought of having four children, each with a different father.

"I was really careless. I can't blame anyone else," Lisa told the BBC. "I should have been more responsible, because I've killed a life now. And it wasn't that baby's fault."

Lisa said that she was terrified the first time she went to have an abortionist end her baby's life, but that time and repetition changed her and made her more callous.

"It does get easier with the more you have," she told the BBC. "I know that sounds really bad, but that is just how it is."

She said that by sharing her own experience of being changed by abortion, she hoped to convince other women to make better choices.

"I thought that if I could tell my story, maybe young women would think twice about having sex without contraception, or sleeping with guys they don't really know," Lisa said. "I want to tell other women that abortions aren't just something you should do. It could change your life."

Even though Lisa echoes the abortion industry line about contraceptives preventing abortion, she admits she was using contraception during each and every one of her conceptions – everything from the pill to semi-permanent solutions like the IUD.

"I've tried the pill, the patch, the injection, the coil and the implant. And they didn't work," Lisa said. "I bled continuously while I was on them. And the coil gave me pains, so I had to take that out after a month."

She added, "No one wants to keep on having terminations - so I have tried different methods of contraception but they don't seem to work for me."

Click "like" if you want to end abortion! 

Lisa is far from alone. A telephone study of former clients by the Marie Stopes UK abortionist group found that 57 percent of those who sought repeat abortions were active users of contraception who nonetheless became pregnant anyway.

"Our research shows all sorts of women of all ages can experience repeat unwanted pregnancy," Genevieve Edwards, Marie Stopes UK's director of policy, told the BBC. "In the past we've failed to tackle this, because we didn't want to stigmatize women."

Edwards admits that contraceptives, particularly the short-term kind, are not as effective as many people think, and when they fail, many women look to abortion as a backup plan.

"One-in-three women will have an abortion, and one-in-four of them will go on to have another," she said in announcing the results of the survey, which focused on girls and young women between age 16 and 24. "Our research shows there is no particular demographic group who are more likely to have abortions – it can happen to any of us. But for the majority of women, it was more often the short-term methods that failed them."

Edwards said she would like to see the morning-after-pill – which, taken after sex, either prevents ovulation or causes the uterus to become hostile to a fertilized egg, inducing a very early abortion – become more popular in the UK as a way of heading off later abortions.

"We are particularly concerned about low awareness of emergency contraception," said Edwards. "Family planning doesn't start and stop with condoms or the pill and much more needs to be done to support women on choosing and using the contraception that suits their lifestyle and stage of life."

But Paul Tully of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) told the BBC more contraception isn't the answer; fixing society is.

"Increasing the provision of contraception isn't going to reduce the abortion rate," Tully said. "Contraception doesn't address the social, financial and relationship reasons which are usually the drivers for women to seek abortions. We need to answer those problems, and then we'll see the abortion rate coming down."

BY KIRSTEN ANDERSEN, LifeSiteNews.com 

Chicago teen charged with 1st degree murder for killing newborn baby who “looked like her ex-boyfriend”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Ana Rosa Mora, 18, allegedly murdered her newborn by putting it in a plastic bag and leaving it outside to die.

Judge Laura Marie Sullivan Saturday ordered 18-year-old Ana Rosa Mora held on $500,000 bail for the murder of her full-term baby boy whom prosecutors said she placed outside her house in a plastic Walmart bag a week ago Saturday and then went back to bed.

"Prosecutors said that Mora told police the baby looked like her ex-boyfriend, who was in fact the father, and that she was afraid her current boyfriend would realize that and leave her," reported Mitch Smith for the Chicago Tribune.

The baby was alive when stuffed in the plastic shopping bag, The Cook County medical examiner's office later determined. He died of asphyxia and possible exposure. The baby was found by a construction worker.

Mora concocted an elaborate but flimsy cover story to fool those who knew she had been pregnant. Assistant State's Attorney Glen Runk said Mora told two staff members at Kelvyn Park High School that she had given birth, and showed them a photo of a baby girl on her iPad.

In the same conversation, prosecutors said, the high school senior "then brought up the dead baby found near her home and asked the school officials whether police had the right to take DNA from people in her house and whether that DNA would show who the child's mother was," Smith reported. When Mora was offered congratulations by a Chicago police officer stationed at the school, she further incriminated herself by telling the officer the baby was six months old in front of other staff members. (It turned out Mora had downloaded a baby's photo off the Internet.)

"One of the school staff members grew suspicious that evening and called the officer," Smith reported. "That officer called detectives, and police interviewed Mora on Tuesday. Officers arrested the teen at her Logan Square neighborhood home Friday afternoon."

Mora first denied the baby was hers, and then admitted placing him in the gangway next to her home in the 2700 block of North Hamlin Avenue.

Federal, state governments pay Planned Parenthood to sign people up for ObamaCare

A new report by The Daily Caller has revealed that the California state ObamaCare exchange is using taxpayer money to pay Planned Parenthood to sign people up for ObamaCare.

According to the California Health Benefit Advisers, as a certified "enrollment entity," the abortion giant receives $58 for each new person it signs up for ObamaCare, another $58 for each dependent, and $25 for each successful renewal.  A total of 38 Planned Parenthood facilities in the state are currently listed as "enrollment entities," alongside labor unions, community organizing groups, and others approved for the kickback-style program.

This isn't the first time ObamaCare's passage has resulted in massive payoffs for Planned Parenthood.  On the federal level, the Obama administration also provided the organization with hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to help its affiliates become ObamaCare "navigators," which grants them access to federal databases containing the sensitive personal, medical and financial information of millions of Americans. 

The administration's "Champions for Coverage" program also funnels money to abortion providers in exchange for promoting ObamaCare to their clients.

Matthew Clark of the American Center for Law and Justice says he's not at all surprised that ObamaCare has become such a cash cow for Planned Parenthood.  In a recent op-ed, he noted that even if the administration wasn't directly funneling taxpayer funds into the group's coffers, the system is set up to expand access to and increase insurance coverage for abortion and contraception – the very things Planned Parenthood is selling.

"The abortion industry and the Obama Administration have been in cahoots from the beginning," Clark wrote.  "The individual mandate, the employer mandate followed by the HHS abortion-pill mandate, 'School-based Health Centers,' expansion of Medicaid, federal subsidies, the abortion surcharge on insurance, and on and on make ObamaCare a smorgasbord of opportunity for big abortion." 

"Isn't it time we stop subsidizing an industry that makes its living perpetuating death?" asked Clark.

BY KIRSTEN ANDERSEN, LifeSiteNews.com

Mississippi governor signs 18-week abortion ban, one of nation’s most restrictive

Mississippi has passed one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws after Governor Phil Bryant signed a bill banning most abortions at 18 weeks' gestation, or 20 weeks after a woman's last menstrual period.

House Bill 1400, which will take effect on July 1, allows an abortion if a woman would likely die or face permanent injury as a result of the pregnancy. It also has an exception for when an unborn baby has severe abnormalities, but no rape or incest exceptions.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant

Bryant, who has said he wants to ban all abortions in his state, signed the bill into law on Wednesday despite heavy criticism from Democrats and abortion providers. One of those critics, Center for Reproductive Rights CEO Nancy Northup, said that "it's time for these politicians to stop passing laws that attack constitutionally protected women's health care and finally focus on policies that would support the health, lives and rights of Mississippi women and families."

The owner of the state's only abortion clinic, Diane Derzis, said the law would not affect her business, noting that her clinic only does abortions up to 16 weeks' gestation. Health Department data shows that 2,176 abortions were done in Mississippi in 2012, two of which were done at 21 weeks' gestation or later, and 382 of which did not state the gestational age of the unborn child.

Americans United for Life president Dr. Charmaine Yoest praised Bryant and other pro-life politicians in Mississippi "for their leadership," noting that "this new law helps correct the shocking reality that as a result of Roe v. Wade, the United States is one of only four nations along with China, North Korea, and Canada that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever and sometimes with tax payer subsidies."

Pro-abortion blog Think Progress called the law "blatantly unconstitutional," saying that Roe v. Wadeallows abortions for up to 24 weeks' gestation. Think Progress and other opponents of the law note that a similar law in Arizona was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court, but supporters say that since Mississippi is in a more conservative Circuit Court, any challenge might see a different result.

BY DUSTIN SIGGINS. LifeSiteNews.com

League Exposes Planned Parenthood at Chicago’s Navy Pier

Last night, Wednesday, April 23, Planned Parenthood of Illinois held their annual "Generations Gala" fundraiser at Chicago's Navy Pier, and the Pro-Life Action League was there to expose the grisly reality of the abortion giant's business.

A crowd of 20 pro-life activists braved chilling winds outside Navy Pier holding signs depicting abortion's victims along the streets leading to the event where Planned Parenthood's guests would have to pass by.

Others held signs reading "Navy Pier Tonight: Planned Parenthood Abortion Party" to alert those visiting the pier to Planned Parenthood's celebration.

Among the sponsors of the event was Chicago billionaire Susan Pritzker. The Pritzker family is one of the wealthiest families in the nation, most famous for their ownership of the Hyatt hotel chain.

The League called out the Pritzkers for funding Planned Parenthood, whose only solution to poverty is to kill off the unborn poor, and called upon them to fund organizations that provide true help to families in need.

Pregnant Mother Extols Abortion Victim Photos

About midway through the protest a young woman approached one of our longtime volunteers, Luann Bloom, and told her she had just found out three days before that she is pregnant.

With her tears in her eyes, she told Luann that she would never consider abortion herself, and that seeing pictures of actual babies who have been aborted strengthened her conviction, adding, "I wish more girls saw these signs."

Extraordinary Encounter with a "Proud Teen Mom"

Lilliana and her sign [Photo by John Jansen]

Then, as we were about to wrap up, we had the great fortune of encountering a young woman named Lilliana, who came out support of our protest with her own sign that read, "Proud Teen Mom 4 Life," and "Young girls deserve better than Planned Murderhood."

Lilliana told us that when she found out she was pregnant nearly two years ago, she called Planned Parenthood looking for help—and they told her an abortion would cost $300.  But ultimately, she chose life for her son instead!

Her experience of becoming a mother has really turned her life around.  She has since become a strong Christian, and can't imagine life without her one year old son and shudders to think what would have think what would have happened if she had gone through with an abortion.  Lilliana is engaged to be married this summer.

Encountering her was an extraordinary way to conclude our protest. Sure, Planned Parenthood's rich and famous donors believe they're offering real "help" to women and girls.  But the personal stories of young women like Lilliana prove that they really do deserve better than the abortion that Planned Parenthood has to offer.

Thanks to all who came out to make last night's protest a success! Keep an eye on the League's blog for more details on upcoming protests like this so that no abortion party goes un-protested.

Posted by Matt Yonke, Pro-Life Action League

Preemie goes untreated, mother not informed it was hospital policy

By Dave Andrusko

Memory box: First-time mother Tracy Godwin, 34, cradled her newborn son Tom in her arms until he died.

In 2010, when Tracy Godwin, then 22 weeks pregnant, suddenly developed excruciating stomach pains, she immediately went to the hospital. The Daily Mail's Andrew Levy writes

"She was put in a private room at Southend Hospital and when staff told her the baby might arrive early she begged them to do everything they could to keep it alive. After three days a midwife broke her waters with what Miss Godwin believes was a large pair of scissors and she gave birth to her 1lb son shortly afterwards."

But despite her desperate pleas, Godwin was left alone to cradle her tiny son for 46 minutes until Tom stopped breathing "as staff ignored her desperate pleas for help." It was not until six weeks later that she learned it was the hospital's policy not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks.

Tom was 22 weeks and two days.

Now, four years later—and after the successful birth of a daughter who was also born premature— the hospital finally apologized and promised "to improve our internal policy for babies born prematurely," which, on the surface, does not guarantee they will care for future babies like Tom. It more likely means that staff will be ordered to tell mothers of the hospital's non-treatment policy.

Godwin described the traumatic experience to Levy:

"They put him in my arms and he cried and was wriggling around. I could feel him breathing and see his eyelashes and toes.

"'But I kept thinking, 'Where's the incubator?' We were begging the midwives to do something to help him but no one was saying anything. He was not stillborn, he was trying to live."

Although the hospital reached an unspecified agreement with Godwin in January, earlier this month the Coroner's office recorded that the baby died from natural causes and said failings in the care provided "did not affect the outcome."

Back in December 2012, we wrote about a similar situation in Great Britain but with a happier ending, courtesy of what can only be described as a miracle.

Part of the criteria for "viability" is that a preemie weigh at least one pound. Placed on the hospital scale, Maddalena, born early to Kate Douse and her husband Renato, weighed exactly one pound.

Only the baby didn't weigh 1 pound. Maddalena only seemed to weigh that much because a pair of scissors had accidentally been left on the scale! The doctors at Royal Sussex Hospital did not discover their "error," the Sun newspaper reported, until she was safely on the ventilator.

Source: NRL News

5 videos that show abortion ends the lives of real human beings

By Kristi Burton Brown

Note: There are no graphic images of abortion in the videos included below.

In today's modern age, it's difficult to avoid the fact that unborn human beings are alive, growing, unique individuals – from the very first moment they come into existence. Yet some still manage to close their eyes to reality. It's important to understand the things we claim to support. It's essential to be aware of all the facts, not just the ones that seem to support our position.

And so, for anyone involved in the abortion debate – and for all those who are unsure exactly where they stand – here are five important videos. These short videos show just what that unborn baby in his mother's womb looks like, at various stages of development. Modern scientific videos like these demonstrate that unborn babies are not:

• A clump of cells
• Part of his or her mother's body
• Similar to a virus or
• Merely "potential" life

Rather than showing what abortion does to babies, these five videos demonstrate the reality and beauty of human life. Human life isn't only beautiful after birth. Human life is beautiful – and worth valuing – at every stage. At the moment of fertilization, a new, unique human being comes into existence. She has her own unique DNA sequence that is present at that very moment. All she needs is a chance to grow and develop.

Who are we to deny her the chance that each of us were given?

As one person put it after viewing one of the videos below:

"To be a fetus is just a part of life, just like being a baby, a teen or an elderly."

1. Conception to birth – visualized: http://youtu.be/fKyljukBE70

2. The baby's beating heart at 4 1/2 weeks (The heartbeat is present at only 22 days.): http://youtu.be/k0WNRR-epPI

3. Watch your baby grow! Week by week ultrasounds: http://youtu.be/gfgq7WiHbh4

4. Unborn life, through the stages: http://youtu.be/AJIKe9eJLh4

5. A 4D ultrasound journey from 8-34 weeks in the womb: http://youtu.be/RBKKnCtNeRU

Editor's note. Kristi Burton Brown is a pro-life attorney, volunteering for Life Legal Defense Foundation and also as an allied attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom. She enjoys being a stay-at-home mom, and is married to the amazing David Brown. You can watch all five videos at liveactionnews.org.

Unborn child has ‘inalienable’ right to life ‘at all stages of development’: Alabama Supreme Court

Children in the womb should have the same legal standing as other children, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled Friday.

The decision upheld the prior conviction of Sarah Janie Hicks for "the chemical endangerment of her child," when she exposed her unborn baby to cocaine. The boy, referred to as "JD," was born testing positive for cocaine. 

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker

The 8-1 decision reaffirmed the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case last year that the word "child" includes "unborn child."

Friday's decision was a review of the lower Court of Criminal Appeals' conviction of Hicks.

According to Justice Tom Parker, who wrote the majority decision, "It is impossible for an unborn child to be a separate and distinct person at a particular point in time in one respect and not to be a separate and distinct person at the same point in time but in another respect. Because an unborn child has an inalienable right to life from its earliest stages of development, it is entitled not only to a life free from the harmful effects of chemicals at all stages of development but also to life itself at all stages of development. Treating an unborn child as a separate and distinct person in only select respects defies logic and our deepest sense of morality."

Fr. Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, referred to the decision as a unique instance of "common sense and logical consistency."

"In ruling that a child is a child whether born or unborn, the Alabama justices have cut through decades of tortured, twisted rationales and issued a national call for courts to recognize the obvious – all humans have the right to life."

Justice Parker said, "Courts do not have the luxury of hiding behind ipse dixit assertions," which means that courts cannot rule simply to uphold the legal status quo but must, in this case, "allow the law of non-contradiction" to come into play, in order to "recognize a child's inalienable right to life at all stages of development."

Until this is the case, the judge added, "our grief is not for the Constitution alone; we also grieve for the millions of children who have not been afforded equal value, love, and protection since Roe."

"In contrast to the reasoning of Roe and Casey, Alabama's reliance upon objective principles has led this court to consistently recognize the inalienable right to life inherently possessed by every human being and to dispel the shroud of doubt cast by the United States Supreme Court's violation of the law of non-contradiction," said Parker.

BY COLIN KERR, LifeSiteNews.com

Amazing Video of Conception to Birth Is Worth Watching

No matter how many times I watch Alexander Tsiaras's short film, "Conception to birth – visualized," I walk away feeling amazed.

Tsiaras, a professor at Yale University, helped to create the stunning video that shows a baby's development in the womb from conception to birth.

In an amazing display of images, we watch as the baby's cells split and spread out. Then his or her heart begins to beat. Then arms and hands form. Then a tiny nose and eyes appear. Within 44 just days, the baby is recognizably human. By 9 weeks, he or she is basically fully formed.

Every step of development is so beautiful. Yet, what's most amazing of all is realizing that from that very moment of conception we are already living, growing human beings – completely unique and valuable.

Please take the time to watch the whole video.  It's only about nine minutes. Then share it with people you know. These visual images, backed up by science, make it hard to deny that babies in the womb deserve the right to life.

(Family audiences, please note that there are some brief anatomically graphic images – not violent, but graphic.)

Editor's note. This appeared at paprolife.us.  For more about Alexander Tsiaras's work, seenrlc.cc/1kDOHbo and nrlc.cc/1it1koQ​

​By Micaiah Bilger, Education Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation

Hospital let 22-week preemie die despite mother’s urgent pleas

A UK hospital has apologized to a woman four years after doctors and staff let her 22-week premature son die in her arms within an hour of being born, despite the mother's urgent pleas for help.

Tracy Godwin, who in 2010 held her newborn son Tom for 46 minutes before he ceased breathing, said she was never told about the hospital's policy stating that babies born before 23 weeks would be left to die.

Tracy Godwin

But the hospital has not indicated that it has changed its policy, only that it now has new guidelines in place for staff to deal properly with such cases.

A coroner has determined Southend Hospital in Essex made a series of errors including poor communication, lack of qualified staff remaining with Godwin after the delivery, and inadequate counseling following the baby's death, reported Daily Mail.

Godwin said if she had known the hospital's policy, she would have given birth somewhere else. The traumatic experience still haunts her.

"They put him in my arms and he cried and was wriggling around. I could feel him breathing and see his eyelashes and toes," she said.

"But I kept thinking, 'Where's the incubator?' We were begging the midwives to do something to help him but no one was saying anything. He was not stillborn, he was trying to live."

"If they had tried for an hour and said they couldn't do anything more for him or he was severely brain-damaged that would have been different, but he wasn't given a chance."

It was not until 6 weeks after the death of her son that Godwin learned about the non-resuscitation policy during a meeting with senior hospital staff.

Current UK ethical guidelines employed by many hospitals suggest that preterm infants "less than or equal to 22 weeks' gestation" be left to die while receiving "compassionate care only."

A baby girl born prematurely at a UK hospital in 2012 barely escaped death after doctors discovered that she weighed just enough to be considered "viable" according to their standards of infant care, not realizing that it was a pair of scissors left accidentally on the scale that bumped up the baby's weight to their acceptable standard.

Godwin, who has received undisclosed damages from the hospital, believes that her ordeal has "brought about significant change at the hospital, and the fact that no other mother will go through what I went through."

The coroner ruled that the baby died from natural causes and that the hospital's lack of care "did not affect the outcome."

BY PETER BAKLINSKI, LifeSiteNews.com

CLOSED: Forest View Abortion Clinic in Des Plaines, Illinois

Maria Goldstein of Northwest Families for Life stands outside the now closed Forest View abortion clinic in Des Plaines, IL

Earlier this year the notorious Chicago area abortionists Vinod and Vijay Goyal had recently sent a cold-call mailing [PDF] to local physicians inviting them to consider working at one of the husband-and-wife team's six abortion clinics.

The letter also tried to drum up business for the financially troubled Goyals.  Their business has been down in recent years — which means their abortions have been down, reflecting a statewide trend across Illinois — and just this morning, we heard some great news: one of the Goyals' abortion clinics, Forest View Medical Center in northwest suburban Des Plaines, is now permanently closed!

Grassroots Pro-Life Activism Closed This Abortion Clinic

The closing of the Forest View abortion clinic is a textbook example that proves grassroots pro-life activism works.

Four years ago, two young, energetic, faith filled sisters, Maria Goldstein and Laura Vandercar, dove into pro-life activism when they decided to spearhead a local effort against the Goyals, who at that time owned seven abortion facilities in and around Chicago.

Maria and Laura had heard rumors that the Goyals were planning to open another abortion clinic in northwest suburban Arlington Heights, near where they live, and where the Goyals have a medical practice focused on other services.  In response, they organized a regular prayer presence outside that office.

(left to right) League staffers Matt Yonke, Eric Scheidler, Laura Vandercar, Maria Goldstein and Ann and Joe Scheidler, May 2010

Along with other local parish Respect Life coordinators, they called for a meeting at St. Theresa Parish in Palatine on May 26, 2010 and invited Pro-Life Action League staffers Joe, Ann, and Eric Scheidler to share their expertise on how to mount an effective campaign against the Goyals' abortion empire.

A few weeks later in May 2010, Maria and Laura officially launched Northwest Families for Life, which organized sidewalk counselors and prayer partners to maintain a weekly presence outside Forest View, where abortions were being performed on Thursdays. As with many abortion clinics, the position of the Forest View made access to abortion-bound clients difficult. Nonetheless, with a tireless prayer effort and the outreach of compassionate sidewalk counselors, over 80 babies were saved there.

Last week, while Maria was praying outside Forest View, she spotted several men in business suits looking over the property. As one gentleman was leaving, she asked him what was going on over there. He told her he was a Roman Catholic and that he was there to "fix this place." "That's what I'm doing here," he said. He then told her he was running late and had to get to O'Hare Airport.

That's all we knew at that point. Freedom of Information Act requests will surely yield more information, though, so watch this space.

Four years ago, the Goyals owned seven abortion clinics.  Now, with the closing of Forest View, along with the previous closing of the Dimensions facility (also in Des Plaines) in 2011, they're down to five.  Praise God and to Him alone be the glory!

Every time an abortion clinic closes, it's cause for rejoicing.  What a glorious beginning to Holy Week!

And special thanks and blessings to Maria and Laura and everyone from Northwest Families for Life who showed us what can happen when a couple of rank-and-file churchgoers take up the mantle of pro-life activism in their local community.

Posted by John Jansen, Pro-Life Action League

Abortion Coverage in Obamacare Remains a Mystery

Whether buying your insurance from a state exchange or from the government health care website, it's almost impossible to find out whether you're paying for abortion coverage.

The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, released a report showing a lack of information available to consumers – albeit from the other side of the issue.

Guttmacher examined the online plan descriptions of 12 state exchanges that allow abortion coverage. Researchers reviewed the "summary of benefits and coverage" that the Affordable Care Act requires all plans to include. However, the template for the summary provided to states by the federal government does not include any place to disclose abortion coverage.

"It's not in the template, and plans are just following that," said Gretchen Borchelt with the National Women's Law Center, a pro-abortion organization. "It's a lack of awareness on their part, a lack of familiarity with what should be included."

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia allow abortion coverage; 24 states do not. Guttmacher found that in only four states that permit abortion coverage, just a handful of the plans spell it out.

Chuck Donovan, president of the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, recalls an article he wrote for The Heritage Foundation in 2010.

"Polls taken in the U.S. have routinely showed majority support for limits on taxpayer funding of abortion," he said, "Since 1976, restrictions on such funding have grown to span numerous public programs, including Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the Indian Health Service, appropriations for the District of Columbia, and many more. Nearly two dozen federal programs or agencies are covered by such policies, which include measures to protect the right of medical personnel and health care researchers not to participate in abortions."

Even as the administration was pushing for Obamacare, President Barack Obama told Congress, "One more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

Donovan said the Guttmacher report flies in the face of that assertion – and consumers are not happy.

"The people we communicate with are looking for the information," he said. "We're hearing complaints about it."

Source: CitizenLink

Nurse quits abortion industry after baby born alive is left to die

Marleen Goldstein worked in a hospital that performed abortions. After 30 years, she's come forward with her story.

According to Goldstein:

"My husband was a resident at a hospital and I just got 'the job of my dreams' at a nearby Oakland hospital. I was very much a believer in the abortion issue and now I felt I was going to be part of it.

"I got hired as a charge nurse at this clinic that did late term abortions. I spent about 30 days on the day shift getting familiar with everything. I would witness and assist the doctor in the actual procedure, injection of drugs to the fetus, the seaweed, etc. On the day shift I really never saw the actual start of the contractions or the termination process. I was uncomfortable, but I really thought to myself, this was something new and I needed to get more experience."

In these abortions, the woman was dilated with laminaria, which are sticks made of seaweed that are placed in the woman's cervix. These sticks slowly absorb fluid and dilate the cervix; they can be kept in overnight or longer. Drugs were injected into the baby to kill him or her on the first day the procedure. Late-term abortions are often performed in a similar way today .

Goldstein was insulated from some of the horror of these abortion procedures. She did not actually witness the dead baby or the pain of the women going through contractions.

Goldstein would later be promoted to a position where she would deal with the actual aborted babies. Other clinic workers have talked about how they were eased into the more difficult parts of their jobs in a similar way. They were started off doing things that were less emotionally difficult, such as record-keeping, receptionist duties or taking blood pressure, then gradually given more responsibilities until they were handling body parts or assisting in late-term abortions. By that time, they are "in too deep" and committed to their jobs. It is a way that some abortion clinics have been known to manipulate their workers.

Whether or not this was the case with Goldstein, she would have a life-changing experience working with one late-term abortion:

"One evening a young girl was having a very difficult time. I was there with the doctor. I knew even though the doctor wrote this patient was 15 weeks, she was close to 30 weeks. This happened quite a bit, but no one ever said anything."

Other abortion providers, such as Carol Everett and Kathy Sparks , have spoken about their clinics doing abortions further along than was legally allowed, and trying to hide that fact. Kathy Sparks' clinic disposed of illegally aborted late term abortions down the toilet .

Goldstein says:

"When she delivered this tiny baby (it looked full term to me) she was actually alive and crying. The doctor said to me, 'Put it in the room and close the door. Do not enter til the morning shift.' I immediately took the crying baby and wrapped it up and laid it in a room. I then immediately started calling hospitals around (against the doctor's wishes) to find someone that would take it. None around would take it cause they said it was not viable. I spent many hours trying. I just wanted to leave this place, but I knew I could not walk out and leave other patients without a charge nurse. Til this day I hear this crying infant in my head."

Despite her desperate efforts to get medical help for the child, the baby girl died. Goldstein quit her job, no longer an abortion supporter.

She says:

"I wish others that promote abortion, especially late term would experience what I did. The next day, I terminated my employment immediately and landed a job in a pediatric unit at another hospital."

This experience would change Goldstein's life in another way when, several years later, she experienced a difficult pregnancy of her own.

"After a few years I got pregnant and went into labor at 20 weeks. The doctors wanted me to terminate immediately due to my health. They stated that this baby would not be normal and I should try again. I refused and was in the hospital, then was at home on complete bedrest. I was not allowed to be alone.. I finally spiked a very high fever and was rushed into the hospital. I was quite early still.. He was supposed to be born in November, I had him in July. – a 2 pound 10 ounce little boy. This was 30 years ago. I was told that he was quite small and it would be touch and go to see what would happen. They also told me, 'Do not expect too much.' He was in the ISU for preemies for some time. He fought all the way and was perfectly normal. Today my son is a healthy young man. He is working on his 2nd Masters (MBA) and has a full time job. He is aware that he is lucky to be alive, cause if I did not have the experience I did early on, he would not be here today."

Goldstein showed great courage in fighting for that little girl's life 30 years ago. She also showed great courage fighting for her own son's life. And, finally, she has shown great courage in sharing her story. As more clinic workers leave the abortion business and courageously step forward to tell their stories, more and more people who are uninformed about abortion are hearing the truth. We can hope that those who have been ambivalent or uncertain about abortion will be swayed when they learn what abortion is really like, coming straight from "the horse's mouth": those who experienced performing these abortions first hand.

Editor's note. Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the clinicquotes.com website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and PLAGAL. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Sarah Terzo

UN, Please Note that Abortion is not Maternal Health Care

The UN Commission on Population and Development held its annual meeting last week. Wendy Wright (C-FAM) delivered a statement jointly submitted by the Family Research Council, C-FAM and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).

We must continue to hold the U.N. accountable for keeping maternal health as the priority in the agenda and not conflating it with abortion services. Here are some excerpts:

"Now better than ever before, we know what it takes to make pregnancy and childbirth safe for mothers. It takes investment in education, skilled birth attendants, prenatal and antenatal care, clean water and sanitation, adequate nutrition and vitamins, antibiotics and other healing medicines, and emergency obstetric care.

Making abortion legal doesn't improve maternal health in any way.

Maternal health care strives to make pregnancy safer for both mothers and their unborn children. Preventing births by aborting the unborn child, or preventing the human embryo from implanting in the mother's womb does not improve the health of the mother or her unborn child.

We know what it takes to make pregnancy and childbirth safe. Maternal health care, must remain a distinct and urgent priority in the post-2015 development agenda. This cannot be confused with elective abortion, which destroys the life of innocent unborn children and places the lives of mothers in jeopardy."

Let's work on real solutions to improve maternal health care around the world. Abortion is not the answer.

Source: FRC Blog

Visit Website

IPAS and Pro-Abortion Activist Groups Push "Universal" Right to Abortion

Editor’s note. This analysis was provided by PNCI, the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues.

Pro-abortion activists under the direction of Ipas have issued a declaration, The Airlie Declaration for Safe Legal Abortion, calling for “universal access to safe legal abortion” following a meeting near Washington, D.C. The declaration seeks to “repeal laws that criminalize abortion and remove barriers on women’s and girl’s access to safe legal abortion services” and to “make safe, legal abortion universally available, accessible, and affordable for all women and girls.”

The declaration was signed by mostly leaders and officials of pro-abortion organizations including Ipas, IPPF, Marie Stopes, and the Global Fund for Women with very few government officials endorsing the document. It was issued “against the backdrop of the 20-year review by the United Nations of the Program of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and global debates about the post-2015 development agenda.”

This statement follows yet another defeat for pro-abortion extremists at the recent meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which issued an outcome document that in the context of ‘reproductive rights’—which includes abortion—‘the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious background must be borne in mind.’ This was a clear defeat for those activists who lobby for “universal access to abortion”.

The target of the declaration is the next UN meeting, the Commission on Population and Development, April 7-11, which will evaluate progress on the ICPD Programme of Action which was enacted in Cairo in 1994.

Pro-abortion activists are frustrated that they have not had any success during UN meetings to advance their agenda beyond the gains made in Cairo in 1994. At the upcoming CPD countries will again likely debate whether or not recognition of the right to sovereignty on laws on abortion or recognition of cultural and religious backgrounds will be included in resolutions or outcome documents.

The growing strength of countries at the United Nations that oppose or restrict abortion is an encouragement to all who believe that the child in the womb has a right to life and that her or his mother deserves emotional and practical support.

This declaration is a sign of desperation to advance the antiquated concept of ‘universal access to abortion’ throughout the world while countries are increasingly moving in the opposite direction by upholding laws and policies that protect the unborn child and his or her mother from the violence of abortion. Countries with long histories of abortion on demand are recognizing the negative consequences of legal abortion and are enacting restrictions on abortion, including countries with high abortion rates such as Russia.

Other countries are learning from science and medicine that abortion causes pain to the unborn child and are acting to issue restrictions on abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy. And yet others are appalled at the discrimination of sex selective abortion and are acting to protect the youngest females in the womb by banning sex selection abortion.

PNCI notes that there is no universal right to abortion, there is no recognized ‘right to abortion’ in any international treaty, however, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) does state, “…the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Laws against abortion provide special safeguards to the child before birth as urged by the CRC.

Ipas and other pro-abortion NGOs are targeting the post 2015 global development agenda that will set global UN priorities and budget goals for the future. Included in their ‘wish list’ is advance of universal access to abortion: “Ensure that government and donor priorities for the post-2015 global development framework incorporate safe, legal and accessible abortion as an integral component of gender equality and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights”.

Out-dated slogans and arguments on abortion cannot hide the fact that every abortion ends the life of a precious child and can have harmful physical, emotional, or psychological consequences for the woman. Women of the world deserve better. For starters, they deserve sustainable development that helps them and their children to thrive. Abortion does nothing to meet their needs.

Source: NRL News

Breathe deep and Exhale the truth: abortion hurts unborn children and their mothers

The unintentional irony—tragedy, really—of the graphic that accompanied the celebration of April as “Abortion Wellbeing Month” is hard to miss: two hands grasping each another with “You are” written on one and “Not alone,” on the other.

There is, however, a “you” who is alone: the unborn child.

We’ve written about Exhale and its founder, Aspen Baker, before. Likewise for its now fourth annual celebration of “Abortion Wellbeing Month,” whose goal, Baker tells us, is for “those with personal abortion experiences and their allies can come together to honor and acknowledge the importance of wellbeing”

Why? Baker says [the boldface is in the original]

“Women with personal abortion experiences are too often told how to feel or judged for feeling certain ways. Allies are too often unsure how to acknowledge and support those with personal experiences.

“This month is a time when, together, we can raise awareness that emotions of all kinds after abortion are common; and that feeling heard, supported and respected – without judgment – is important to the wellbeing of every woman who has an abortion.”

Baker argues that health and wellness after abortion requires “Understanding the whole picture of abortion in our lives.” She maintains,

“Each of us is more than just one person with our own thoughts and feelings—we are members of our families and communities. We’re in relationships. We experience nature. We share faith and spiritual beliefs. And abortion, while an event that happens in our body, is connected to so much more of who we are and what we believe in the world.”

So, she concludes, “Join us in celebrating wellbeing, connectedness, compassion, respect for those with personal abortion experiences by modeling the change you want to see in the world.”

What can we say?

We can say that just as much as her mother, the unborn child is a member of the family and the community.

We can say that the failure to “judge” the decision to abort is making a judgment—that none is needed. We can also say that condemning the woman (as opposed to the action] who has aborted is very unhelpful and highly unlikely to help her heal.

We can say to Baker, who describes the “storytelling” approach at Exhale as “pro-voice,” that we agree with her that abortion is “connected to so much more of who we are and what we believe in the world.” That is known as relationships, which we celebrate and which abortion severs.

We can say that where we most vigorously disagree is that in stilling the voice of the smallest, most vulnerable member of our family, she is “modeling the change you want to see in the world.” Abortion is the very opposite of what all of us ought to be striving for: win-win solutions.

Were it only so that there would be no need for an “Abortion Wellbeing Month” because there are no abortions.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News