Judge rules women have right to choose life

That’s only one headline among several that should be making the news in recent days.

But since they’re not, let’s go through a few. Starting with that judge who ruled that an Illinois city ordinance violates a woman’s right to choose. Seriously. Some headlines on this story called it a ‘victory for anti-abortion groups’ or something close. That rhetoric is getting tired but at least it’s transparent. Call things what they are, like choice.

In an opinion which called Elgin’s “effort to curtail private entities from providing free and valuable services to its young women …ill-advised,” United States District Court Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan permanently enjoined Elgin’s code restrictions which had been used to halt The Life Center’s mobile pregnancy services…

The opinion went on: “[I]t must be recognized that the City is preventing Life Center from being able to effectively provide pregnant women in the City with needed medical care that could identify issues and save lives of unborn children. Life Center has in fact provided evidence that it has helped a multitude of young women who have used the services at the Mobile Facility.”

Furthermore, it should be noted, US District Court Judge Der-Yeghiayan said in his decision (on page 14 of the decision, in the final paragraph under Section III of Discussion):

The City’s Code is unduly burdensome to the right of a woman to choose life.

And there you are. With an economy of words, the simple truth of the so-called ‘choice’ movement.

Then there was the permanent injunction against an Alabama abortion clinic, which these days is emblematic of legislation and court cases across the country involving the regulation of abortion clinics with the same standards applied to any other medical clinic. It’s about time.

efferson County Alabama Circuit Court Judge Joseph Boohaker ruled today that the abortion business operating out of the New Women All Women building in Birmingham was subject to regulation by the Alabama Department of Public Health. He further ruled that since abortionist Dr. Bruce Norman has not obtained proper licensure from the Department of Public Health, the business should be permanently enjoined.

This news comes on the heels of the discovery of an apparent botched abortion at Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, a facility which is also owned by Diane Derzis, and out of which abortionist Norman operates as well. Local pro-life activists took to the streets in Montgomery to bring public attention to the hazard Derzis is creating for women.

Allison Aranda, Life Legal Defense Foundation’s Senior Staff Counsel, commented on the court’s ruling:

“We are elated that Judge Boohaker saw Bruce Norman’s activities for what they really were—operating an unlicensed abortion clinic. The court has essentially ordered Norman to cease operating an abortion clinic without having a license, which seems like common sense—that’s what the law requires. But now, if Norman continues to defy the ADPH regulations and Judge Boohaker’s ruling, ADPH can seek further sanctions against Norman for not merely violating the law but for violating a court order as well.”

So here we have two questions I’ve been asking for years, addressed. One, if the whole abortion on demand movement is about ‘choice’, why does that movement so vigorously fight any effort to pass informed consent laws, common sense legislation that safeguards a woman’s right to a fully informed decision? And two, if all other medical clinics should and must abide by common sense regulations that oversee the premises and procedures and instruments directly affecting patients for the good of their health, why should and do abortion clinics get exempted from application of those regulations?

After the Kermit Gosnell trial, things changed, and abortion is under far more scrutiny. As it should have been for the past 40 years, for crying out loud.

The other headline people likely didn’t hear is that the GAO is investigating Planned Parenthood for abuses of taxpayer funds. Initial audits by separate states have already shown that tab runs in the tens of millions of dollars.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed last week it will be conducting a comprehensive investigation into the use of federal taxpayer funds that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers have received. This news comes on the heels of an agreement by Texas-based affiliate Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast to repay $4.3 million to U.S. and Texas taxpayers to settle the fraud claims brought forward by a former Planned Parenthood employee and whistleblower.

“The fact that Planned Parenthood received over half a billion dollars in taxpayer money last year is beyond comprehension, especially as there is little federal oversight of the exact use of these funds. They should be held accountable for every dollar they receive, like every other federal contractor and grantee,” said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser. “As despicable clinical care conditions, including at Planned Parenthood facilities, continue to be exposed in the post-Gosnell world, it is even more important to track the funding going to America’s largest abortion provider.

“We applaud the GAO for conducting this investigation. After 40 years of lavish federal funding from dozens of programs, a comprehensive audit is long overdue.”

And here’s more proof.

But while you are likely to hear very little about this in the media, this is not the first time that state or federal governments have determined that Planned Parenthood affiliates have engaged in waste, abuse and potential fraud with taxpayer dollars. In just a handful of publicly disclosed and very limited audits of Planned Parenthood affiliates, federal and state government auditors in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington, California, and a previous audit in Texas have documented approximately $8.3 million in waste, abuse and possible fraud by America’s leading abortionist.

The grand total: Federal and state auditors and investigators have specifically tabbed Planned Parenthood affiliates with at least $12.5 million in waste, abuse, and “fraudulent overbilling” of taxpayers. (View the Alliance Defending Freedom full report on the state audits here.) Former Planned Parenthood employees and others allege many millions more.

So. Where have the media been on this story? Mostly missing, complicit, looking the other way. Shame on them. But never mind them.

Now you know.

South Dakota passes abortion law

The Mt. Rushmore state has been at the forefront of women’s health and protection laws applying to crisis pregnancy and abortion, and they’ve done it again. Lawmakers recently passed legislation requiring both a waiting period for abortion, and access to information about alternatives. So women really do have a choice.

Tuesday, it was signed into law by the governor. Here’s how some major media are reporting it.

Women who want an abortion in South Dakota will face the longest waiting period in the nation — three days — and have to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions under a measure signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

To clarify, the state is making sure women really will be informed before they sign any informed consent papers in an abortion clinic.

Dr. Allen Unruh of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls has been out in front of the ongoing work to reduce abortions in that state, hoping more states will follow the trail they’re blazing in South Dakota. He provided me with some background on this law, including a recent letter to the editor of the Argus Leader by a former abortionist in the state, Dr. Patti Giebink urging the governor to sign the bill and the public to support it.

There is no true “doctor patient relationship” when you first meet the doctor after you already paid your money, signed the ‘consent’ form, and taken off your clothes in the procedure room…Women are treated like cattle and moved through the process before they can change their mind. That is…demeaning and insulting to women! Nowhere else in medicine is there such sub-standard care. If the public really knew what goes on in these abortion clinics, they would demand even stricter laws to protect their daughters, wives, nieces and grandaughters.

Unruh says that’s happening now. “This bill does not outlaw abortion,” he said. “Its intent is to prevent women from uninformed and coerced abortion.”

Women get alternatives in pregnancy help centers and free services and resources. They get a choice.

If the law providing for it withstands the lawsuits coming from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

OK, another abortion round

Judges, legislators and activists are tangling with some interesting back-and-forth attempts to regulate the abortion industry in Oklahoma and give women an informed choice…..or not.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has declared that an Oklahoma law regulating abortion practice and requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortion violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule, saying it contained multiple subjects for legislation. 

The high court struck down SB 1878, upholding the August 2009 decision of Oklahoma County Judge Vicki Robertson, who ruled the multiple legislative mandates in the law required separate bills to pass constitutional muster.

OK, let’s untangle this…

Sounds like abortion backers won on a technicality, and they did.

The abortion law required abortionists to perform an ultrasound within an hour before the abortion procedure, and established the right of women to engage in civil action against abortionists who violated the law. 

Excellent provision for women’s rights to information about their pregnancy before terminating it.

The law also required abortion clinics to have a notice prominently displayed in plain view declaring that: “it is against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion.  By law, we cannot perform, induce, prescribe for, or provide you with the means for an abortion unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent.  …  You have the right to contact any local or state law enforcement agency to receive protection from any actual or threatened physical abuse or violence.”

Good, solid and vital information necessary for women’s rights to protection and the real freedom of choice (for crying out loud).

The law also regulated the prescribing of RU-486, dealt with informed consent, and established rules banning “wrongful birth” lawsuits.

This was all about protecting women, their rights, and the ability to make a choice based on information of all options and consequences. Who in the world (OK, in the state), was against that?

The abortion industry, of course. And those ideologically aligned with them.

So the judge said those provisions of the law were separate ones rolled into one, and you can’t do that, and therefore the law was struck down in toto.

Attorneys for the state argued that the bill was constitutional because it addressed the same subject, namely, abortion.

But that’s too obvious and logical.

They said that the Court’s interpretation would have a paralyzing effect on the legislative process not intended when the single-subject rule was adopted, by turning every topical sentence into a new subject for legislation.

That’s how abortion activists and their ideological cohorts on the bench need to break down – or at least slow down – the process. Piecemeal….nickel-and-dime it….hairsplit the syntax.

Proponents of the law were prepared for this.

…Oklahoma legislators have already submitted single-subjects bills – plan B in case the state Supreme Court rejected the law – that covers the multiple aspects of the single bill struck down by the high court. 

For instance…

A bill requiring abortionists to give women ultrasounds before an abortion passed the state House of Representatives on Thursday.

OK, good. Keep at it.

Media praise for South Dakota’s lone abortionist

Specifically, the Washington Post was responsible for this jaw-dropper. For anyone who has followed the groundbreaking work of pregnancy help centers, pro-life advocates and conscientous legislators in South Dakota over the past few years, WaPo’s praise for the bravery of the state’s only abortionist was astonishingly clueless.

In his glowing tribute “Minnesota Abortion Provider Helps Meet Need in South Dakota,” Slevin not only turned Ball into a hero, but sympathized with her “difficult” situation…Ball told the Post her decision to start performing abortions was easy. “It was legal. It was right…Why would anybody argue with that?” Talking about pro-lifers upset with what she does in South Dakota Ball said: “I think to myself, ‘What century do we live in?’”

Indeed. That sounds consistent with how Dr. Ball views her abortion involvement.

Let’s go back and look at the most comprehensive document written on the subject since Roe v. Wade, the 2005 ‘South Dakota Report of the Task Force to Study Abortion’. When you get the chance, read the whole document. For now, let’s look at a snip involving testimony from state Planned Parenthood director Kate Looby and Dr. Carol Ball.

Based upon the reporting of the women on the forms reviewed by the Department of Health, and the testimony of Ms. Looby and Dr. Ball, it appears that Planned Parenthood does not voluntarily convey other information about the fetus after women listen to the doctor’s taped recording. In fact, what is communicated to the women is misleading. Ms. Looby and Dr. Ball played a video for the Task Force illustrating what may be communicated to women about the abortion procedure. In this video, reference is made to the contents of the woman’s uterus in dehumanizing and misleading language. For instance, the video never mentions that an unborn child, embryo, or fetus is even present. It never refers to the unborn child in any way that would imply the existence of a second patient. The language used in the video simply implies that something is removed but does not identify what it is except to claim it is only “tissue:”

1. “The uterus is then emptied by a gentle suction.”
2. “As the uterus is emptied…”
3. “A spoon shaped curette may be used to feel the walls of the uterus to help ensure
complete evacuation.”

4. “Occasionally the contents of the uterus may not be completely emptied.”
5. “To remove the tissue it may be necessary to repeat the vacuum aspiration.”
6. “Very infrequently, the early abortion procedure will not end the pregnancy.”
7. “If the pregnancy has not been ended, another abortion procedure is
recommended.”

At this point, the Task Force applies the standards South Dakota’s legislators considered necessary to qualify any signed ‘consent’ as being truly informed.

We find first that Planned Parenthood fails to inform the pregnant mother in any language that her unborn child is in existence. It is impossible for a woman to give informed consent to an abortion if she does not fully understand that her child is in existence and that she is consenting to the termination of the life of her child.

Second, the doctor who in seeking consent to terminate the life of his or her second patient (the child)

[in this case Dr. Ball]

cannot, in a professional or moral sense, contend that proper authority has been obtained from the mother if she is not fully aware that she is giving such authority. Dr. Ball and Ms. Looby testified that the women who come to Planned Parenthood sign a “consent” to have an abortion without first speaking to the doctor. These consent forms are filled out before the doctorsees the patient.

The video, Dr. Ball, and Ms. Looby all verify that the women are told that they may ask questions of the doctor who is to perform the abortion. However, we find that the process which results in the pregnant  mother signing the consent form and making her decision before ever seeing or speaking to a abortion doctor is incompatible with the principles of a doctor’s duty to see that the patient’s decision is informed before she consents to an operative procedure.

We find that there is no true physician-patient relationship in this process…

And here’s the clincher:

Following her testimony, Dr. Ball was asked what she would tell a woman who asked her “Is this a human life?” or “At what point in the process does human life begin?” or similar questions. Dr. Ball testified that she would refuse to answer these questions. When pressed on this point, Dr. Ball stated that it is a subjective matter for the woman to decide, and an answer from her is nothing but her subjective personal opinion.

No, it is not a subjective personal opinion that human life exists from conception. Choosing to deny the facts doesn’t change the facts.

That someone with a medical degree can make such a testimony is simply stunning. That she performs abortions, and is praised by the Washington Post for her bravery in continuing to do so, is in the realm of the bizarre. And another measure of how irrelevant big media can really be.