Wonderful news on Crisis Pregnancy Centers

A big win in court and the deception of NARAL and PPFA revealed

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasenow

NRL News Today has covered the systematic attack on pregnancy care centers/CPCs going back decades, and, particularly, of late NARAL's all-out offensive. Let's catch up with the good news, of which there is plenty this last week.

Montgomery County (Maryland) has thrown in the towel in its assault on Centro Tepeyac, a Montgomery County pregnancy care center. The county chose not to appeal a decision by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland [which we reported on at nrlc.cc/1jAzess] that struck down the entirety of a 2010 law that forced pro-life pregnancy care centers to advise women against using their services

This particular victory is, of course, important in its own right. But there are other NARAL-inspired laws being challenged in the courts in Baltimore, New York City, San Francisco, and Austin, Texas. We can reasonably hope that the strength of Judge Chasanow's powerful reasoning will help shape subsequent decisions.

The Montgomery City Council passed Resolution No. 16-1252 on February 1, 2010. Among other things, the resolution required what they called "limited-service pregnancy centers" to post signage (in English and Spanish) stating that "the Center does not have a licensed medical professional on staff" and "the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider."

As Alliance Defending Freedom observed, "The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn't apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons."

The nub of the rationale for these ordinances is they are needed to "safeguard the health of pregnant women." But instead of relying on what pro-abortionists alleged to be going on, Judge Chasanow actually investigated. She found (according to her opinion) that

• Dr. Ulder Tillman, Montgomery County's Chief of Public Health since 2003, testified "in that time she has not received one complaint from someone who had sought service at either Centro Tepeyac or Birthright. She had not received any evidence that any actual pregnant women who went to an LSPR delayed seeking medical care."
• Mariana Vera, Executive Director of Centro Tepeyac, "submitted comments and stated that at least half of the women who come in for a pregnancy test are referred to them by the public clinics in Montgomery County." Judge Chasanow added, "Those referrals continued even after passage of the Resolution."
• Ms. Jacqueline Stippich, executive director of Shady Grove Pregnancy Center, "stated that they received forty-three percent (43%) of their clients from their advertisements where they are listed under 'Abortion Alternatives' in the telephone book. They opened in 1983 and have served over 30,000 women 'without ever receiving a formal complaint for giving inaccurate information or misrepresenting our services.' She stated that their website has four disclaimers, including one that states 'we are not an abortion provider.'"
• "Councilmember Phil Andrews opposed the Resolution, finding that it is unnecessary as he had not received a single complaint from anyone who went to an LSPRC in his eleven years as a Councilmember."

That's on the legal front. Along with other pro-life sites, we reported on the dustup created by NARAL's assertion that Google was taking down "deceptive" pro-life advertising. (The irony that pro-abortionists could accuse anyone of deception is too obvious to belabor.)

But from the beginning, reputable, well-established pro-life CPCs/Pregnancy Help Centers flatly denied deceiving anyone and noted that not one of their ads had been pulled, contrary to the impression of pro-life capitulation fostered by NARAL. (For example, see "When it comes to Google advertising, it is pro-abortion sources who are the real deceivers")

Subsequent investigations have shown that the lone ad NARAL offered as "proof" of deception proved not pro-life intent to deceive but was likely a product of the way Google's AdWords' real-time bidding engine works.

Many have pointed out (as noted above) that the real deceiver is the Abortion Industry. Although the following is incredible, I assure you I did not make it up.

I went to Google this morning, typed in Crisis Pregnancy Center and the FIRST link is to…Planned Parenthood. Specifically

Crisis Pregnancy Center – plannedparenthood.org‎
Ad www.plannedparenthood.org/ (877) 616-3351
Learn About Pregnancy Care and Your Options. Get Advice Today.

When I put quotation marks about "Crisis Pregnancy Center," the above came second. What came first?

Expert Abortion 4-24 weeks-americanwomensservices.com
Ad www.americanwomensservices.com
14 offices 25 doctors; 30 years exp call 1-888-ABORTION for immed appt

An abortion clinic that aborts up until almost the end of the second trimester listed under "Crisis Pregnancy Center." You can't make this stuff up, right?

Actually, if you are NARAL and Planned Parenthood, you can.

Teen abortion rate at lowest since Roe v. Wade

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

On Tuesday, after we have a chance to investigate more thoroughly, we will delve further into the conclusion of the Guttmacher Institute that teenage pregnancy, birth, and abortions are at "historic lows."

"U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2010: National and State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity," is written by Kathryn Kost and Stanley Henshaw. For purposes of this report, teenagers were defined as ages 15-19.

"The 2010 teenage abortion rate was 14.7 abortions per 1,000 women," they conclude. "This figure is the lowest since abortion was legalize and 66% lower than its peak in 1988 (43.5/1,000 women)."

Unfortunately, that decrease was not uniform across among ethnic groups. For Hispanic teenagers the abortion rate (15.3) is almost twice that of non-Hispanic whites (8.5), while the rate for black teenagers (34.5) is almost four times as high as non-Hispanic whites.

Incredibly, however, in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut more than half of teenage pregnancies ended in abortion.

What about those state who had experienced the most success? Writing for the National Journal, Sophie Novack put the worst possible interpretation on those states with the greatest decline in teen abortions.

"[T]he states with the lowest proportions of teen pregnancies ending in abortion tended to be states that now have the most restrictive anti-abortion legislation: South Dakota, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Texas. In each of these states, less than 15 percent of teen pregnancies ended in abortions."

Guttmacher, which is pro-abortion, offers the customary pro-abortion explanation: more contraceptive use.

But as the breakdown of the states above clearly demonstrates, those states with legislation that educates and informs women—and typically includes some form of parental involvement—lead the way in fewer and few teen abortions.

Woman videotapes own abortion “to show other people it doesn’t have to be scary”

By Dave Andrusko

At the very end of March, we ran a post written by Lauren Enriquez, which she aptly titled, "Clinic worker films her own abortion in bizarre video."  She—meaning Emily Letts—actually videotaped her own abortion. Lauren wrote

"The video opens with Emily explaining her feelings and justification for the abortion. Giggling, she says 'Yeah, I'm gonna be having an abortion tomorrow morning!' Emily's video includes (non-graphic) filming during the abortion. The experience was anomalous compared with the recorded testimonies of many post-abortive women. The doctor was extremely friendly, Emily was smiling the whole time, and two clinic workers were present on either side of Emily to hold her hands during her child's death."

Specifically, the Abortion Care Network sponsored a video contest–to "bust the stigma" associated with abortion—and Letts was one of those who contributed. I've been waiting for further, shall we say, explanation.

Leave it Tara Culp-Ressler to not only justify Letts' behavior, but (more helpfully) give us more context. (See "This Woman Filmed Her abortion to show other people it doesn't have to be scary.")

I learned that Letts had published on Cosmopolitan.com. Tomorrow I will offer my take on her post.

In a few words (according to Culp-Ressler), Letts (an "abortion counselor") first contemplated writing a blog to "help" women decide whether or not to "end a pregnancy." (Yah, sure.) So, in the Cosmo post,

"Letts explains that she decided to film her procedure after trying and failing to find a video of a surgical abortion online. There's at least one YouTube clip of a woman taking the abortion pill, which is the non-surgical option for ending an early pregnancy, but that's it. So Letts decided that she wanted to have a surgical procedure — the option that seems scarier to many women — to help educate people about what it's actually like.

"'We talk about abortion so much and yet no one really knows what it actually looks like,' Letts writes on Cosmo's site. 'A first trimester abortion takes three to five minutes. It is safer than giving birth. There is no cutting, and risk of infertility is less than one percent. Yet women come into the clinic all the time terrified that they are going to be cut open, convinced that they won't be able to have kids after the abortion.'"

Well, no wonder she giggled, right? Two quick thoughts, which I will expand on tomorrow.

First, the pain-free surgical abortion that Letts touts is simply not the experience of most women who have had abortions. And while chemical abortions may seem less "scary," that is only because women have not read the accounts of women who say they do not regret their abortions but tell you frankly that the pain was unbelievably intense–or know that women have died after taking this powerful two-drug combination.

Second, consider the (bitter) irony. Pro-abortionists insist that abortions are easy, safe, and virtually complication-free. And anyone who says otherwise is one of those hysterical pro-lifers making stuff up.

But what is counter-intuitive is to think that something (literally) this unnaturally would not have consequences, beyond a dead baby, that is. Why wouldn't you expect there to be damage to reproductive organs and thus an increase not only in lost subsequent pregnancies (future babies) but also more preterm babies with the associated problems that go with it?

As I say, more tomorrow. It's interesting, by the way, that the photo that accompanies Culp-Ressler's post is Letts at her finest. We don't see the photo taken from her video widely posted—and posted above.

Wonder why.

Dobson defends his 'abortion president' remark

During his address at the National Day of Prayer, Dr. James Dobson called Barack Obama the "abortion president," inciting Americans to fight against the political assault on preborn children. Part of the motivation behind Dobson's words that have sparked much media attention arises from a recent lawsuit.

After coming off a monumental legal victory against the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act, which ordered Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk and other faith-based organizations to provide abortion pills under ObamaCare, America's most trusted pro-family voice has been quite vocal about the president's ties and unconditional endorsement of the abortion industry.

"Before Obama was elected, he made it very clear he wanted to be the abortion president," Dobson declared at the prayer event. "He didn't make any bones about it, that this was something he really [was] going to promote and support. And he has done that. He is the abortion president."

As Dobson spoke at the NDOP, Rep. Janice Hahn, D-Calif., stormed out of the event.

"He goes on about health care and ... providing abortions, and at that point, I stood up and I pointed my finger at Dr. Dobson and I said, 'This is inappropriate!' and walked out," Hahn told Huffington Post. The Democrat expressed that she was angered because she saw the event as "a nonpartisan day of unity," and therefore thought Dobson "behaved inappropriately by going after the president."

Does Dobson concur? "The people who were there were with me 100 percent," Dobson told Fox News in an interview with Megyn Kelly about Hahn's charge that he acted inappropriately.

Noting that there were 34,000 NDOP events across the country in addition to the main event he spoke at in Washington, DC, Dobson emphasizes that most media attention focuses on the one objection being made, as if there is a mass uproar over his stand to protect preborn children.

"One person chose to walk out, as far as we now, [but] that's what everyone feeds on," Dobson said.

Yet Hahn used her post-event comments to air her opinion about the pro-life stance.

"It was very disturbing to me ... and really a shame James Dobson hijacked the National Day of Prayer – this nonpartisan, nonpolitical National Day of Prayer – to promote his own distorted political agenda," Hahn expressed.

But Dobson was even more disturbed that under ObamaCare, Family Talk Radio – which he founded in 2010 – would have ceased to exist if he had not prevailed in the courtroom, where on April 18, he obtained an injunction keeping the Obama administration from enforcing its mandate that his employees' health insurance include providing abortion-inducing agents.

"The mandate requiring that we provide abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill, would have begun on May 1," said Dobson, who, along with more than 100 other religious ministries, organizations and individuals, filed lawsuits challenging the president's takeover of healthcare, alleging it violates Christians' religious rights. "After that, if we hadn't prevailed, fines amounting to $800,000 per year would have kicked in. We would have closed our doors."

Why wasn't Family Talk covered under a religious exemption? Government officials defined the exemption for religious employer so narrowly that when the Obama administration was asked for the protection, para-church ministries such as Dobson's weren't included. Also not included are Christian convalescent homes, soup kitchens and even colleges.

"According to the administration, Family Talk is not 'religious enough' for an exemption," attorney Martin Nussabaum of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP stated, who is co-counsel in the suit. "Yet sanctity of life and protecting the unborn have long been core religious convictions for Dr. Dobson and Family Talk."

Dobson continued to warn Americans at the NDOP about the president's nationwide attack on preborn children that he was able to fight in the courtroom, keeping Family Talk from having to pay an annual fine of $36,500 per employee.

"He has made it so that every American will have to pay toward support[ing] abortion," Dobson said, while reminding fellow prayer warriors that the world's largest abortion-provider, Planned Parenthood, already receives $250 million in taxpayer funding. "Keep fighting! We can win. And keep praying, because that's what really made a difference here."

Planned ParenthoodAnd just what kind of support does the Obama administration give the abortion industry? Here's what Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in her 2013 keynote address: "President Obama has done more than any president in history for women's health and rights. He understands that access to birth control and preventative health care [abortion] are economic issues for women and their families."

Richards asserts that ObamaCare played a key role in forwarding the abortion agenda.

"We fought alongside him to ensure that women's health access was expanded in the landmark Affordable Care Act, and now we have to fight hard to ensure that the full promise of health care reform is realized for millions of women," the head of Planned Parenthood continued, corroborating Dobson's labeling of Obama as "the abortion president."

Because Dobson realizes that many Americans don't realize Obama's intimate ties with the abortion industry and how ObamaCare feeds into the agenda, he understood how some people can't comprehend the gravity of the issue.

"It is very difficult for those who aren't part of the sanctity of life movement to understand how intensely we feel about the issue of killing babies," Dobson told Fox's Kelly while dismissing (as inaccurate) her account of his NDOP address as a "scathing attack."

Dobson insisted that the real attack is coming from the other side – against innocent babies.

"The president has not only done everything he could to promote abortion, he let us know before he was elected and people elected him anyway," Dobson argued. "[Obama] determined that people of faith and people of conscience were going to have to go along and be part of it."

The pro-family leader then mentioned the ObamaCare proposal to have taxpayers outright fund abortions, noting that the issue is still being pressed and responding: "If you insist on us paying for abortion, we're not going to go there."

Dobson expressed his sentiments well in his commentary published on the issue.

"I believe in the rule of law, and it has been my practice since I was in college to respect and honor those in authority over us," the founder of Focus on the Family, with which he is no longer affiliated, declared. "It is my desire to do so now. However, this assault on the sanctity of human life takes me where I cannot go."

He stressed that price doesn't matter when it comes to human life.

"I WILL NOT pay the surcharge for abortion services," Dobson continued. "The amount of the surcharge is irrelevant. To pay one cent for the killing of babies is egregious to me, and I will do all I can to correct a government that lies to me about its intentions and then tries to coerce my acquiescence with extortion."

Dobson says making any concession is not an option.

"[It] would be a violation of my most deeply held convictions to disobey what I consider to be the principles of Scriptures," Dobson concluded. "The Creator will not hold us guiltless if we turn a deaf ear to the cries of His innocent babies. So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation."

Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com)

ACTION ALERT on SB 3076

UPDATE: SB3076 Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment [POLST] bill and amendment are now in the Health Care Licenses Committee and were not called on Wednesday but will be heard NEXT WEEK.  Now is the time to have your voice heard.  Follow this link to fill out an Electronic Witness Slip (no registration needed): http://my.ilga.gov/WitnessSlip/Create/79472?committeeHearingId=11952&LegislationId=79472&CommitteeHearings-page=1&_=1399323889924

For the "Firm/Business or Agency" field enter "Illinois Federation for Right to Life" and for the "Title" field enter "Concerned Citizen".

In the position section, under "Original Bill" select "Opponent" and for "HCA 1" select "No Position On Merits".

Here is why we oppose this bill...

The Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment or "POLST" form, which gives no distinctions for terminal and non-terminal conditions, is more for removing "life-sustaining" treatment than for protecting patients with "life-sustaining" treatment.  SB 3076 would change the long-standing relationship of doctor and patient in matters of end-of-life decisions by having nurses and even less qualified physician's assistants talk to patients about these decisions and authorize "actionable medical orders" including "do-no-resuscitate" orders even in non-terminal situations.

A patient who signs a POLST form can check a box "do-not-attempt-resuscitation" if he/she stops breathing and the pulse stops.  This is an "actionable medical order" to do nothing even if CPR would clearly be called for in a medical situation.  For example, an allergic reaction to a medication can stop the breathing and pulse, but most patients would want to have CPR.  The POLST form says NO.

Also, many elderly and frail patients may not understand the various options available to them with a POLST form, and so should have better education and options that the POLST form does not give.

Pro-Life has broad concerns with the POLST forms.  One clear concern is that private foundations that have put their money into promoting POLST have also given large amounts of money to the Euthanasia organizations.

Again, now is the time to have your voice heard, follow this link to fill out an Electronic Witness Slip: http://my.ilga.gov/WitnessSlip/Create/79472?committeeHearingId=11952&LegislationId=79472&CommitteeHearings-page=1&_=1399323889924

You Won’t Believe What a Twin Who Survived Abortion Says in a Letter to the Abortion Doctor

Claire Culwell knows what it's like to be a survivor. At the age of 13, her mother learned she was pregnant and decided to have an abortion, though she didn't know she was pregnant with twins.

After she had an abortion of Claire's brother, she returned to the abortion clinic after realizing she still had a growing and developing baby inside of her. Told she was too late to have a second abortion, she gave birth to Claire, who struggled on life support as she dealt with a myriad of medical issues following her birth.

Despite the obstacles she has had to overcome, Claire is actively sharing her story — urging people to choose life instead of abortion. And now, via the web site of pro-life activist Abby Johnson, Claire has written an incredible letter with an incredible message to the abortion doctor.

Here is that letter:

Dear Dr. Patel,

I am writing with a heavy heart. I recently discovered you in the news due to the violations your abortion clinic has made. I found that I have a closer connection to you than I thought.

In 1988, my 13-year-old birth mother placed herself in your care to perform her abortion…her 20-week abortion. She was assured that the abortion would fix her problem and that her life would return to normal but it didn't.

When she returned to see you, she was informed that the abortion had been successful, in part, but she was still pregnant as she had actually been pregnant with twins but had been misinformed. She was also told that during the abortion the amniotic sac had been ruptured, thus leaking fluid for weeks. This proposed many complications for my birth mother. Due to the botched abortion, I was born 2.5 months premature with many lifelong complications.

As I read your medical practice history, I found my testimony consistent with many of your other former patients. My birth mother was 13. She was young and naïve; she would be easy to manipulate and lie to. She didn't know any better. Due to the abortion that was botched, my birth mother has suffered 26 years of hardship and regret. I can only imagine the things that may have happened that she feels like she can't speak about…things that other women are confessing that you did to them while in your care.

However, she was not the only one affected by the failed abortion. My life, my family's life, and my children's lives would all eventually be effected by one "mistake" or one "botched abortion" that was performed so long ago. Not only was I born 2.5 months premature but I was born with complications including dislocated hips, club feet, and was on life support in the hospital. I went through multiple casts on my feet, a harness on my hips to prepare for surgery and body casts in order to correct what the abortion had done to my body. In fact, I still have hip and foot complications today due to the abortion. The unfortunate part is that I am not alone. Hundreds of other survivors of abortions are speaking up letting the world know that we ARE children, we DO deserve a chance at life and that abortion is, clearly, NOT SAFE.

I spent 21 years of my life wondering if I had a sibling that was missing. I felt it in my heart. My birth mother confirmed my questions when she told me about her abortion when I met her. Realizing that you have lived your entire life without your twin is a harsh reality.  However, the hardest part for me is realizing that you took my daddy's only son from him. His life would have been even more full and joyful had he had his son who would carry on his family name and do the things he loves with him—hunt and fish. Because of the selfishness that abortion has brought to us today, our family will remain incomplete and I mourn the amazing adventures my daddy is missing with my brother.

In February of 2013, another miracle happened… My daughter was born! I can't help but think about how she wouldn't be here if the abortion had been successful on my life. She has only been here for a short time but she has touched so many lives with her fun-loving personality. I can't help but wonder how many children are missing because their mothers were misinformed by you and told that the best decision, or even the only decision, was abortion.

Dr. Patel, I write to not only shed light on the reality of the severe aftermath that can happen when abortions are performed but to also express my forgiveness to you for what happened. I have lived a full life and been well loved in my 26 years of life despite my circumstances. I was adopted into an incredible home that gave more grace and forgiveness than I ever could have asked for. In the same way I have been forgiven by God for many things, I choose to forgive you. I forgive you for performing the abortion in 1988 and for the enormous impact it has had on my birth mother and me.

I also pray for you. I pray that you are able to see past the medicine, the money and your usual way of life… and that you will remember my face (and my daughter's who would not be here had the abortion been successful) as you go to perform abortions. I pray that as you remember my face that you will be moved in such a way to walk away from the abortion practice and use your gifts outside of the industry. I assure you that many of us, myself included, would help you leave the industry and be encouragers and supporters to you. I would welcome you with open arms because I fully believe your life and what you do with your life is just as valuable as every single unborn child that I advocate for. I will continue to pray for you and your past and current patients.

Sincerely,

Claire Culwell

By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Pro-life leaders to mark National Day of Prayer with nationwide Prayer Meeting for the Unborn

Every year on May 1, millions of Christians across America come together under the banner of the National Day of Prayer. Although it's an event focused on praying for the general needs and challenges of our nation, this year one nonprofit organization is making plans to dedicate its prayers to bringing an end to our nation's greatest tragedy — abortion.

"Scripture clearly calls us to protect and defend the innocent, and that most certainly includes the unborn,"  said Brian Fisher, Founder and President of Online for Life. "While we should come together to pray for God's blessing on our country, we cannot expect God to bring revival when we allow an estimated 1.2 million babies to be aborted within our shores every year. Abortion is primarily a spiritual issue, and it is, bar none, the predominant challenge for the American Christian today." 

In an effort to bring this national tragedy into greater focus on the National Day of Prayer, Online for Life has scheduled a stream of the prayer meeting dedicated specifically to praying to end abortion in America. At 10:00 a.m. (CDT) on the National Day of Prayer, pro-life individuals from all across the country can join with Online for Life for the first-ever nationwide prayer meeting of its kind.

Led by Brian Fisher and his fellow Online for Life team members, the prayer meeting will see numerous pro-life leaders come together to pray for the most prominent challenges faced by the pro-life movement today. These include: Brian Fisher, Jim DeMint, Alveda King, Rev. Dean Nelson, Fr. Frank Pavone, Matt Chandler, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Johnny Hunt.

"With so many moving pieces working independently to bring an end to abortion in America," Fisher says, "this prayer time is designed to bring us all together with one purpose: To pray for every facet of our movement that we might see a culture of life restored in America."

According to Online for Life's WePrayForLife.com website, the prayer time will be divided into five separate segments:

1.     A time of prayer for organizations such as Online for Life, which seeks to reach abortion-determined women through online and offline marketing techniques. Participants will also lift up the staff at the nearly 50 participating life-affirming pregnancy centers in 23 states, who love and care for the abortion-determined people that OFL sends their way. 

2.     Prayers will be said for the doctors, nurses and staff who work in abortion clinics. Participants will pray specifically that God softens their hearts and removes the scales from their eyes so they may be set free from the bondage of the abortion industry. 

3.     Prayer meeting participants will then intercede on behalf of activists who participate in life marches across the country, and for those who consistently pray outside of abortion clinics. They will ask God to encourage and strengthen them so they may continue to boldly live out their mission. 

4.     Likewise, participants will spend time praying for those who work to end abortion through the legislative process. As pro-life activists have witnessed in recent years, many state legislatures and assemblies have taken up pivotal bills to protect the right to life in their states. The participants will pray this trend continues and these brave lawmakers will continue to find favor among men and with God.

5.     Finally, participants will lift up those in ministry positions who have served sacrificially in order to speak out for the unborn. They will pray that in the coming year, God will raise up more laborers to proclaim the truth about life during church services and stand as vanguards for Scriptural truth regarding abortion.

With the theme of this year's National Day of Prayer being "One Voice United in Prayer," Fisher cannot think of more appropriate words to usher in the first-ever Online for Life live prayer meeting. "Much like the body of Christ, the pro-life movement is made up of many parts. But on this day, at this prayer meeting, we'll bring all the parts together — united in prayer — to advance the cause of life."

To learn more about the National Prayer Call, please visit the WePrayForLife.com website, where you can also register to participate and then download a copy of the prayer call agenda.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

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