FEBRUARY 4, 2010

AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE DEFENDS ARIZONA’S INFORMED CONSENT LAW
AUL Files Brief in 9th Circuit Affirming State’s Interest in Protecting Women

WASHINGTON, DC – Attorneys with Americans United for Life filed a brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Arizona’s 2009 informed consent law is a constitutionally-appropriate expression of the state’s legitimate interest in safeguarding the health of women considering abortions.

“Abortion providers in Arizona are making it clear that they aren’t protecting women’s health,” noted AUL’s lead attorney Mailee Smith, “rather their priority is getting paid.”

In 2009, Arizona enacted a law mandating that a woman considering abortion must receive information about its risks and also about the alternatives. The law also requires a 24-hour reflection period before the woman may actually undergo an abortion, and it prohibits abortion providers from collecting payment prior to the expiration of the reflection period.

In September 2009, Arizona abortion providers filed legal challenges to the law in both federal and state courts, requesting that it be enjoined and declared unconstitutional. A federal district court later refused to enjoin the law and abortion providers have elected to appeal the enforcement of the payment restrictions to the 9th Circuit.

State Representative Nancy Barto, AUL’s client and a principal sponsor of the legislation, remarked during a February 2009 hearing on the measure, that the State of Arizona has demonstrated a commitment to “protecting Arizonans’ right to make informed decisions about their medical care.”

Amicus Brief: http://blog.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/AUL-Tucson-v.-AZ-Amicus-Brief.pdf

http://aul.org/Amicus_Briefs
SOURCE: AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE: The first national pro-life organization in America

Media Contact
press@aul.org

202-556-1994

###

Thanks to your support, this past week saw AUL at the center of two national news stories, including an outstanding victory for life.

• The Associated Press, CBS News, and dozens of other media outlets across the country spotlighted Sotomayor411.com — our one-stop resource for background on Judge Sotomayor’s record on our life issues — and our campaign showing she would be “Worse than Souter.”
• In a case that featured heavy AUL involvement, the Fourth Circuit upheld Virginia’s partial-birth infanticide law. What’s more, the arguments our legal team presented to the court featured prominently in its decision.

These and other AUL success stories testify to the power of our pro-life advocacy to influence minds and hearts.

But we must reach higher.

With the Sotomayor confirmation hearings set to begin on July 13, we need “all hands on deck” to show the Senate and the nation that Judge Sotomayor’s radical record — including her longtime participation in a pro-abortion advocacy group — makes her unfit for the highest court in the land.

AUL is not only America’s oldest national nonprofit working exclusively to promote life. We also have the largest and most experienced team of pro-life attorneys working to defend life in law.

We have already been meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to brief them on Judge Sotomayor’s agenda and urge them to ask her the tough questions.

But to do that takes long hours of legal research and lots of legwork on Capitol Hill.

That’s why I’m asking you to stand with us. Our fiscal year ends on June 30, and we must close strong. Over the last few months we’ve been able to hire new attorneys – Bill Saunders, a Harvard-trained expert in life issues, and Mary Harned, former Chief Counsel on the Judiciary Committee to Senator Tom Coburn – and we plan to bring in even more expertise to keep the focus on life in these challenging times.

We only have 48 hours left before we close out our books for the year. We need your support now to make sure Congress hears your opinions about Judge Sotomayor! Join our support team today. By acting before midnight, Tuesday, June 30, you further enable us for the confirmation battle which begins just two weeks from today.

When U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican from South Carolina, asked Judge Sotomayor if she believed the unborn had any rights whatsoever, she told him she had “never thought about it.” We need to get the Senate Judiciary Committee to think about the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice whose radical record shows she would vote to overturn all legal protections for the unborn.

Will you join us? Make your donation today and be part of this historic effort to protect and defend the hard-won victories of the pro-life movement.

Thank you for supporting our work and and standing with us For Life!

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life

P.S.  If Judge Sotomayor makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, she will have the power to read a fundamental right to abortion into the Constitution. Send your donation by midnight tomorrow, June 30, and help us make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee calls her to account for her radical record.

Chicago, Illinois — In response to the U.S. Supreme Court announcement that it will not grant further review to life-related cases from Arizona, Missouri, and New Jersey, Americans United for Life (AUL) made the following statements.

Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton requires that Choose Life license plates be offered in Arizona.

Denise Burke, AUL’s Vice President & Legal Director said: “This is huge victory for ‘Choose Life’ license plates. By denying review, the Court has affirmed that Arizona and other states cannot deny Choose Life license plates simply because of their pro-life message.”

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of pregnancy care centers arguing that the Arizona Life Coalition was discriminated against when the state failed to grant its petition for a “Choose Life” license plate. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and the State of Arizona subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ArizonaLifeCoalitionvStanton.pdf

As cases involving “Choose Life” license plates are still pending in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma, AUL’s Staff Counsel Mailee Smith remarked, “We are hopeful that the Court’s denial of review will signal to those courts that states cannot discriminate against ‘Choose Life’ license plates.”

In addition, the Court denied review in Roe v. Crawford, a Missouri case where a female prison inmate has successfully argued that she has a right to be transported at state expense for an elective abortion. At issue was a Department of Corrections policy prohibiting such transport.

“By denying review, the Supreme Court is allowing a prisoner to unilaterally demand that she be transported for a controversial elective procedure where the associated costs will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers,” stated AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke. “The Court is also ignoring the state’s interest in protecting women from the negative consequences of abortion—especially those women who are in custody and under the care of the state.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of Missouri legislators arguing in favor of the prison policy. The Eighth Circuit sided in part with AUL, agreeing that the denial of elective abortions does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, and even stating that elective abortions do not constitute medical need. However, the court ultimately agreed with the inmate that her Fourteenth Amendment “right” to abortion means that the state must transport her for abortion.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Eighth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/RoevCrawford.pdf

Finally, the Court also denied review in Acuna v. Turkish, a New Jersey case where an abortionist failed to adequately counsel and answer a woman’s questions before her abortion.

“This case underscores the dire need for comprehensive informed consent laws. Had the abortionist in this case been held to this type of legal requirement, Ms. Acuna would have received the information she needed in making the abortion decision,” stated AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith.

To date, New Jersey, 17 other states, and the District of Columbia do not require that women receive any information pertinent to making the abortion decision.

In a devastating loss for the people of Mexico this week, the Mexico Supreme Court upheld a Mexico City law which allows abortion-on-demand in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

AUL filed the leading American pro-life amicus brief in this case, and I posted a blog entry about the case in June (you can read that entry and details about the case at http://blog.aul.org/2008/06/05/the-battlefield-broadens-the-mexican-roe-v-wade/ ).

As I reported then, the case had been labeled Mexico’s “Roe v. Wade.”  And unfortunately, Mexico’s Supreme Court took a terrible turn, just like ours did 35 years ago.  While initial reports were contradictory—as the Supreme Court in Mexico doesn’t exactly do things in a way we are accustomed to—the AP later reported that 8 of the 11 judges had ruled to uphold abortion-on-demand in Mexico City.

This is a major loss for the people of Latin America.

Obviously, it is a loss for the unborn.  Between the passage of the law in April 2007 and June 2008, at least 6,400 abortions were performed.  One source states that, to date, 12,000 abortions have been performed.  12,000 lives brutally taken.  While after 35 years the United States is finally seeing a downturn in the number of abortions performed each year, the number in Mexico is expected to rise.  But the Supreme Court of Mexico ignored what its ruling would do to the children of Mexico.

It is also a loss of women.  During April 2007 to June 2008, at least 22 women were injured, and at least 8 women died of complications from abortion—one of them a teenager.  This number, too, is expected to rise.  In fact, detailed medical studies, as revealed in AUL’s amicus brief, demonstrate that abortion causes devastating short- and long-term affects on the health of women.  For example, even abortion proponents acknowledge that abortion can cause infection and perforations to the uterus.  But the Supreme Court ignored the detrimental effects to the health and wellbeing of women.

It is a loss for the Mexican people.  The Constitution of Mexico clearly states that human life must be defended “from conception until its natural end.”  So, in a quest to impose abortion-on-demand on a reluctant nation, the Supreme Court even ignored the Mexico Constitution itself.

Finally, it is a loss for every nation in Latin America.  Groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood have been pushing for abortion-on-demand in these nations for the last several years.  Now they have a win.  And they smell blood.  They will not stop with abortion-on-demand in Mexico during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.  They want more.  They want abortion-on-demand in every nation, during all nine months of pregnancy.  Their agenda is clear from what has happened in the United States over the last 35 years – clearly that was just a trial run for what awaits Latin America.  And again, the Mexico Supreme Court ignored this fact as well. 

We had hoped that the Supreme Court in Mexico would learn from the mistakes made in the United States.  Apparently it only hopes to exacerbate them—worldwide.

In a disturbing unanimous opinion today, the California Supreme Court ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The Plaintiff, Ms. Benitez, brought suit because physicians at North Coast Women’s Medical Care Group could not, based upon conscience, perform one particular form of artificial insemination. Ms. Benitez was told from the beginning of the patient-physician relationship that certain North Coast physicians could not perform that particular elective procedure on unmarried women. When later denied that elective procedure, Ms. Benitez claimed it was because of her sexual orientation and sued.

The Court’s ruling is disturbing—and dangerous—for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Benitez’s arguments—as adopted by the California Supreme Court—represent an extremist position that will deny physicians free exercise in any medical situation. Rather than balancing the patient and physician interests so that everyone wins, the Court completely ignored the physicians’ constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise rights. Thus, this decision will force physicians to perform any elective procedure in any situation, regardless of their moral or religious beliefs. In fact, this decision is dangerous to any professional in any occupation.

Second, the Court’s decision poses a threat to good medical care. It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. We want our physicians to have consciences. In addition, by giving physicians an ultimatum—treat every patient in any way she demands, or get out of the profession—we will be left with a diminished supply of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers. Obviously, a diminished supply will be disastrous for the overwhelming demand in American society today.

What is ironic about Ms. Benitez’s arguments and the Court’s opinion is that both demonstrate their complete intolerance for the lifestyle decisions of other Americans. Ms. Benitez demands to be respected in her lifestyle decisions; but she does not afford that same grace and dignity to the decisions of others.

AUL filed an amicus brief at the appellate level as well as before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA), American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), and Physicians for Life. AUL argued that Ms. Benitez’s extremist arguments would, if adopted by the Court, open a Pandora’s Box of ramifications threatening to religious freedom and the practice of medicine.

The case now returns to the trial court for a trial and important factual determinations including whether the physicians declined to perform the demanded treatment because of Ms. Benitez’s marital status or her sexual orientation. If, as the physicians have demonstrated all along, the trial court agrees that the physicians acted based upon Ms. Benitez’s marital status, the case should be decided in favor of the physicians. Ms. Benitez has raised no claims of marital discrimination.

Chicago, Illinois — The California Supreme Court today ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious or moral beliefs.

Denise Burke, Vice President & Legal Director of Americans United for Life (AUL), said, “This ruling will deny physicians and other professionals the ability to freely exercise their religious convictions.”

Added Burke, “By forcing healthcare professionals to choose between conscience and career, we will lose doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who are already in short supply.”

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., President and CEO of AUL added, “Medical experts already project that existing shortages of nurses, physicians, and pharmacists will soon worsen, failing to meet future healthcare needs. Legal action to compel healthcare providers to participate in procedures to which they conscientiously object threatens to make the already dangerous situation disastrous.”

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, said, “It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. A diminished physician population is not good for medical care.”

The case — North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez) – involves a situation where artificial insemination was not provided due to the marital status of the patient (Ms. Benitez).

Ms. Benitez filed suit arguing that she was not provided the procedure because she is a lesbian. However, the physicians testified that the real issue was her marital status, and that they would not have provided artificial insemination to any single woman.

Ultimately, Ms. Benitez received the procedure from another physician after receiving a referral from the objecting physicians (who paid the additional costs she incurred).

AUL filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Physicians for Life, arguing that federal and state law as well as the ethics standards of major medical organizations support the physicians’ right to conscientiously object to performing certain nonessential, elective medical procedures that conflict with physicians’ religious and moral beliefs.

About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

Website: http://www.AUL.org
Blog: http://Blog.AUL.org

Media Contact
Matthew Eppinette
202-289-1479

##

Chicago, Illinois – Americans United for Life (AUL) has filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of nine Missouri not-for-profit pregnancy resource centers in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case Kevin M. Roach, et al. v. Omar Davis, et al.

AUL argues that the decision of the Western District of Missouri, deeming Missouri Choose Life license plates to be private speech, be affirmed.

The case involves a challenge by Choose Life of Missouri, Inc., which applied for a Choose Life license plate under the state’s specialty license plate statute. The organization filed suit against the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue and members of the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight when the plate was improperly denied because of its pro-life viewpoint. Defendants claim the plates constitute government speech, and therefore the state can prohibit the message.

However, as AUL demonstrates in its amicus brief, other similar state decisions have been challenged and courts have held that Choose Life license plates are private speech, thus deeming the denial of such plates unconstitutional.

For example, in an Arizona case similar to the situation in Missouri, Choose Life license plates were determined to be private speech because a private organization created and petitioned for the Choose Life plate, not the government.

According to AUL attorney Mailee R. Smith, lead counsel on the brief: “Because the license plate speech at issue is private and because the Defendants, vested in unbridled power, have engaged in improper viewpoint discrimination, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.”

The money generated from Choose Life license plates in Missouri supports pro-life pregnancy resources that provide a variety of pregnancy and post-pregnancy services, such as adoption education and counseling.

The full text of the brief is available at http://www.AUL.org (PDF).

AUL has also recently filed briefs in Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. and Stormans, Inc. v. Mary Selecky. For more information on these and other briefs AUL has filed, please visit http://www.AUL.org/Amicus_Briefs.

In the last several years, the “usual suspects” in the pro-abortion movement have been infesting other nations with their pro-choice rhetoric.  One need only peruse the first page of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ website to see headlines such as “Center for Reproductive Rights Denounces Chilean Constitutional Tribunal’s Decision to Ban Distribution of ‘Morning-After Pill’ in Public Facilities” and “Filipino Women and Men Sue Manila Mayor for Ban on Contraception.”   It is clear that the battle lines are now being drawn in countries far from our U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  Thus, it is becoming all the more important for the pro-life movement to shift to a more global focus, and support our pro-life brothers and sisters in other nations as they wage a war which has been litigated in this country for 35 years.  We have much to offer from our wins and our losses.

To read the entire article click here

In its controversial 4-3 decision on marriage, the California Supreme Court also decided, for the first time anywhere in the United States, that as a matter of state constitutional law, sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” deserving of heightened protection.

The legal repercussions of this case are yet to be known. However, we may soon have the chance to evaluate how far this liberal court is willing to go in advancing a progressive social agenda and undermining the right of the people to decide important issues and govern themselves. A case currently before the court and dealing with healthcare rights of conscience may provide that opportunity.

In North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court (Benitez) (Case No. S 142892), Ms. Benitez, an unmarried lesbian, filed suit when two Christian physicians at North Coast would not artificially inseminate her because of her marital status. Ms. Benitez filed suit even though the physicians referred her to an alternative provider (who successfully performed the procedure) and paid the costs associated with her transfer to the new provider.

Despite evidence to the contrary, Ms. Benitez claims the physicians refused to treat her because she is a lesbian and argues that their decision amounts to illegal discrimination. Further, Ms. Benitez and her attorneys have also argued that the physicians have no right to assert their consciences as a defense to the claims in the lawsuit.

A lower court disagreed and, in December 2006, ruled that the physicians had every right to assert their constitutionally-protected rights of conscience as a defense in the case. Ms. Benitez appealed and this issue is now before the California Supreme Court.

Thus, this case now pits the long-established federal and state constitutional rights of healthcare providers to practice according to their consciences against the new determination of the California Supreme Court that sexual orientation is entitled to heightened legal protection.

At worst, the court could use its analysis in the marriage case to undermine healthcare rights of conscience. Specifically, the court could find that a physician’s right of conscience is trumped by the right of patients to demand certain procedures. In doing so, the Court would likely find that medicine is not a service but a commodity and that the patient is entitled to receive what he or she wants without regard to the physician’s ethics, morals or religious beliefs.

This would be an unprecedented and incredibly dangerous decision for patients and healthcare providers, ultimately undermining the quality and availability of healthcare in California while eviscerating important constitutional rights.

For more information on healthcare rights of conscience click here.

To review the brief that Americans United for Life filed in support of the physicians in the Benitez case click here.

On January 22, 2008—yes, on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade—the Eighth Circuit handed down a decision that is disappointing on the one hand, yet encouraging on the other.

The case, Roe v. Crawford, was filed by a female inmate seeking to have an elective abortion. However, Larry Crawford, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, maintained a policy of not transporting female inmates for elective abortions (note: elective means that the woman is not in medical need, but simply wants to obtain an abortion).

Ms. Roe filed a claim under both the 14th and 8th Amendments. As to the 14th Amendment claim, the Circuit stated that the policy was valid only if it was “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests” such as cost and security. Unfortunately, the Circuit ruled it was not. In deciding so, the Circuit ignored the fact that the Supreme Court and other federal courts have told us time and time again that abortion is inherently different (because it involves human life) and should be treated differently.

But the 8th Amendment claim (the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment) is a different story. Reversing the district court and adopting the reasoning argued by Americans United for Life in this case and in a case in Arizona, the Circuit stated that “[t]he Supreme Court has made it clear the state has no affirmative duty to provide, fund, or help procure an abortion for any member of the general population.”

Most importantly, the Circuit went on to conclude:

We hold [that] an elective, non-therapeutic abortion does not constitute a serious medical need, and a prison institution’s refusal to provide an inmate with access to an elective, non-therapeutic abortion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.

This holding is significant, because it dictates in no uncertain terms that elective abortions cannot rise to the level of medical necessity.

AUL will keep you updated as to the progress of this case.

Chicago, IL – August 7: Americans United for Life (AUL) today filed an amicus curiae brief in the case Kansas v. Tiller on behalf of twenty Kansas senators and representatives.

The case involves a challenge by late term abortionist George Tiller to a 1998 Kansas law requiring two doctors to sign off on some late-term abortion procedures (that is procedures after the fetus has reached the point of viability and can survive outside of the womb). Having been cited with 19 violations of the law, Tiller now claims that the law is unconstitutional.

However, as the AUL amicus brief demonstrates, U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) precedent—particularly in Casey (1992) and Gonzales (2007)—supports the Kansas statute. According to AUL attorney Mailee R. Smith, lead counsel on the brief, “States have a substantial interest in unborn children once those children reach viability—and any increased cost, delay, or difficulty in obtaining an abortion under the Kansas statute is not an undue burden.”

Not only that, but according to Smith, “Kansas is not alone in requiring some form of physician concurrence for late term abortions: at least 11 other states require it in the abortion context.”

Any claim that precedent does not support the Kansas statute is inappropriate, misapplied, and out of date according to Smith. “From all accounts,” says Smith, “Tiller is focusing on outdated cases and is ignoring that states have substantial interests in the unborn once those children reach viability.”

Smith adds, “A second physician requirement ensures that a woman receives an accurate medical evaluation from a physician other than the one who stands to benefit financially from her abortion. Tiller has been evading the law for years. Now that he has been brought up on criminal charges, he is still trying to evade the law. Fortunately, the law is not on his side.”

Read the full text of the brief (PDF)
About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’s Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

Media Contact:
Matthew Eppinette, Communications Director
312-568-4701 office
matthew.eppinette@aul.org