Combating the True “Back Alley”: Closure of Pennsylvania Abortion Clinic Dramatically Underscores Need for Medically-Appropriate Regulation
By Denise M. Burke

Since the 1960s, abortion proponents have argued that legalized abortion is beneficial to the health and well-being of American women.  In support of this assertion, they have often put forth a litany of purported advantages.  A primary advantage they often cite is increased medical safety for women undergoing abortions.

When their campaign to legalize abortion began, abortion proponents argued that if abortion was legal the procedure would be safer for women because it would become an accepted part of mainstream medical care, proper surgical procedures and standards for pre- and post- surgical care would be followed, and skilled and reputable gynecologists and surgeons would perform the procedure.  Simply, unskilled and incompetent butchers would no longer perform abortions.

These were the promises.  But has it proven to be the reality?  Has 37 years of legalized abortion eliminated these problems from our national consciousness?  No, it has not and a case out of Pennsylvania last week aptly demonstrates that abortion clinics across the nation have become the true “back-alleys” of abortion mythology.

On both February 18 and February 23, 2010, federal agents raided the Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic in Philadelphia and found “deplorable and unsanitary” conditions including blood on the floors, parts of aborted children stored in jars, and post-operative recovery areas that consisted solely of recliners.  During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that the clinic’s director, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, typically did not arrive at the clinic until 6 pm each day and sanctioned the performance of gynecological exams and the administration of controlled substances and prescription medication by non-licensed staff at the clinic.

Gosnell’s license to practice medicine was immediately suspended and the clinic was closed down.  In its order, the Pennsylvania Department of State’s Medical Board specifically cited to a November 20, 2009 case where a woman died after being given two rounds of painkillers and anesthesia prior to an abortion, but did not mention the dozens of medical malpractices suits filed against Gosnell.

Sadly, the Philadelphia clinic is not an aberration.  Substandard and unsafe abortion clinics are currently operating across the nation.

Enacting comprehensive abortion clinic regulations is a critical and sensible solution to the problem of unsafe, “back-alley” abortions in America.  These regulations are designed to safeguard against unsanitary conditions, inferior equipment, and the employment of unsuitable and untrained personnel.  They are also intended to put an end to substandard medical practices that injure and kill untold numbers of women each year.

For the last 10 years, AUL has worked to remedy the epidemic of substandard conditions at the nation’s abortion clinics, advocating for medically-appropriate and comprehensive health and safety regulations at abortion clinics and defending such laws when they are challenged in court by abortion providers more concerned with plying their trade without legitimate oversight and protecting their “bottom-line” than with women’s health and safety. 

Specifically, AUL has developed both “The Abortion Patients’ Enhanced Safety Act,” mandating that abortion clinics meet the same exacting standards as ambulatory surgical clinics, and “The Women’s Health Protection Act,” prescribing minimum health and safety regulations (based, in part, on internal – but not mandatory — treatment protocols from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation).

AUL’s model legislation for regulating abortion clinics is available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

And for more information on the need for abortion clinic regulations and more examples of substandard care at abortion clinics, please see http://dl.aul.org/abortion/abortion-clinic-regulations-combating-the-“true-back-alley”

Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Martha Coakley— a current Democrat candidate for the late Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat—strongly criticized the House health care bill for prohibiting federal funding of abortions.  The Boston Globe reported her saying that “fighting for a women’s access to abortion was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its [other] aims.”  

Apparently, AG Coakley is willing to compromise all for a women’s access to abortion—despite its inherent and realized harms to women.  In her opinion, access to abortion trumps the possibility of health care reform, but more importantly constitutionally-protected speech.  AG Coakley is the same AG who interpreted the Massachusetts Buffer Zone Law as criminalizing the mere presence of pro-life advocates around abortion clinics.  In her interpretation of the Act and guidance to law enforcement, she unconstitutionally silences any expression of opposition to abortion within a 35-foot radius around “reproductive health care” facilities. 

In relation to health care, Coakley says she will not compromise on abortion rights.  She makes evident that nothing is of more importance to her than protecting mere access to abortion (as opposed to women’s health and safety).   She criticizes fellow Democrats for not being principled on the issue of abortion, claiming that they are “selling one set of constitutional rights for another.” 

What she seems to forget (or it simply does not bother her) is she willingly “sold” explicit First Amendment rights for the Court-declared abortion right.  It is a good thing she is not expressing these views within 35 feet of an abortion clinic in MA, otherwise she would be handed a “go to jail “ card.   But then again, she would not have to say a word.  If she simply put on the abortion clinic’s volunteer vest and escorted women into the clinic for an abortion, the law exempts her and her viewpoint—actions speak louder than words. 

AG Coakley makes very clear she will use her position and power to promote abortion at any price.

On Tuesday we reported that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) would be considering whether to once again delay implementation of the Illinois parental notification law.  For a short while on Wednesday, pro-lifers felt victorious: rather than further delay enforcement, as we expected, the IDFPR allowed the law to go into effect.

Unfortunately, the ACLU was able to convince a state court later Wednesday afternoon that the parental notification law is unconstitutional under the state constitution—despite the fact that abortion itself was still illegal in Illinois at the time the constitution was put into place.

So once again, minors in Illinois are left unprotected from the harms of abortion, and parents are left helpless and without knowledge when abortionists perform procedures on their daughters that carry substantial short-term and long-term physical and psychological risks.

But the ACLU’s claims, and the state court’s acceptance of their false claims to date, will be potentially disastrous to all women in Illinois—not just minors.  What the ACLU is arguing is that any commonsense regulation of abortion is unconstitutional under the Illinois constitution.

Pro-abortion forces were unsuccessful this year in passing a state Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) in Illinois.  Had FOCA passed, it would have enshrined abortion on demand into Illinois law, making it nearly impossible to protect women through informed consent laws, parental notification laws, or abortion clinic regulations.

So the ACLU has apparently shifted its strategy.  Rather than working through the legislature—where such decisions belong—the ACLU is using the court system in Illinois to block a law that the majority of Americans and Illinoisans desire.

Today Family Research Council released its report, A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life, highlighting the contributions of pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) over the last 40 years.  The release comes at an interesting time—the President is attempting to make abortion a recognized form of “health care,” and we are seeing increasing attacks on PRCs each legislative session in the form of draconian legislation regulating the activities of PRCs and sometimes even attempting to force them to present information on abortion.

The report released today offers a great rebuttal to those efforts: real health care protects women.  Real health care involves caring guidance to women in need, focusing on both her physical and psychological health.

In a press conference broadcast live over the internet, a panel of speakers—including physicians, clients served by PRCs, and the presidents of three national pregnancy center networks—discussed the impact of PRCs on women’s, adolescent, maternal, and child health and how the movement’s growth is driven by the public’s desire to support abortion alternatives.

This desire is also demonstrated each legislative session.  While we are seeing increasing bills targeting PRCs, those bills are far out-paced each year by bills providing funding and state support to abortion alternatives.

During the press conference, co-author of the report Chuck Donovan, Senior Research Fellow at Heritage Foundation, stated that abortions were reduced by tens of thousands last year through the work of PRCs, and that this work results in enormous healthcare savings.

Co-author Moira Gaul, Fellow and Director of Women’s and Reproductive Health at FRC, added that these volunteer-run PRCs assist over 5,000 Americans on a daily basis, providing a “substantial public health benefit to our nation.”

Ironically, as I drafted this blog entry, AUL received word that the Senate Finance Committee voted down important pro-life amendments that would have prevented the federal funding and coverage of abortion and protected the conscience rights of healthcare providers.

In AUL’s press release, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, said that the defeat of these amendments illustrates the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:

“President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform.  Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action.  The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform.”

Obama’s claim that he wants to reduce abortions is mere rhetoric.  The amazing work of PRCs on a daily basis in truly reducing abortions is reality.

A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life is available at http://www.apassiontoserve.org.  AUL will be posting an in-depth analysis of the report’s findings.

A so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) in Illinois (IL House Bill 2354) is scheduled for a hearing at the State House at 8:00 AM on Wednesday, March 4.

Like the federal FOCA introduced in the 110th Congress, and state versions that have recently been introduced in other states such as New Mexico, the Illinois FOCA would authorize a nurse, in any public school in the state, to do an abortion on a minor girl, at any time of pregnancy, without any parental knowledge.  The bill then specifically immunizes such a nurse from any civil or criminal claim by any parent in Section 25(a).

The Illinois FOCA would repeal Illinois physician-only law and all other Illinois limits on abortion by virtue of declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right” and by prohibiting (in Section 15) any “interference” with the fundamental right and by prohibiting “discrimination” in funding in Section 20.

The FOCA would also eliminate the Illinois prohibition on partial-birth abortion and repeal other existing abortion regulations.

The declaration of abortion as a “fundamental right” would extend from conception to birth and thereby strike down any regulations of abortion throughout pregnancy.

Section 35 of the Illinois FOCA also tramples on conscience rights.

It would also require public funding of abortion from conception to birth by requiring that abortion be treated equally with childbirth.

Over the last two weeks, there has been much debate over the conception and premature birth of the California octuplets.  This debate and the outrage it has provoked have primarily been directed at the choices of the mother, Nadya Suleman, and the actions of her doctor, Dr. Michael Kamrava of the West Coast IVF Clinic.  Just this week, the Medical Board of California announced that it was investigating Dr. Kamrava in an attempt to “substantiate if there was a violation of the standard of care.”  The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has express interest in assisting in this investigation.

ASMR guidelines recommend that a woman of Suleman’s age only have 2 or 3 embryos implanted in any one in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycle.  In this case, Dr. Kamrava is reported to have implanted 6 embryos – two of which divided and became two sets of twins, resulting in eight babies.

While an investigation of Dr. Kamrava’s actions and medical judgment certainly seems warranted, most of the numerous news stories and commentaries have failed to address a critical contributing factor to this controversy: the lack of any meaningful regulations of artificial reproductive technologies (ART), specifically the IVF industry.  However, this is a discussion that we must have as more and more women and families turn to ART as a means of having biologically-related children.

Currently, there is little data about the nature and growth of ART and very little federal or state regulation of it.  ART needs to be regulated, in large part, to protect the health of mothers and the children conceived and to preserve parental relationships and the dignity of human procreation.

A March 2004 report by the President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility, constitutes the most in-depth review and analysis of the fertility industry in the United States since 1978.  The report’s critical findings and conclusions include:

• There is no uniform, comprehensive, and enforceable system of data collection, monitoring, or oversight for the biotechnologies affecting human reproduction.
• There is minimal direct governmental regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction.
• There is extensive professional self-regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction, but compliance with the standards invoked is purely voluntary.
• There is no comprehensive, uniform, and enforceable mechanism for oversight of how the new reproductive biotechnologies affect the well-being of the children conceived with their aid, the egg donors, or the gestational mothers.
• There are no nationally uniform laws or policies relating to access of assisted reproduction.
• Given the present framework of regulation, novel technologies and practices that are successful move from the experimental context to clinical practice with relatively little oversight or deliberation.  Once in practice, these techniques are used at clinicians’ discretion, with little or no external oversight.

Clearly then, it is important that we move forward and seek to provide meaningful oversight and regulation of ART and the IVF industry.  AUL already advocates such regulation and has produced model legislation entitled “Assisted Reproductive Technologies Disclosure and Risk Reduction Act“.

For more information about ART and IVF, the lack of current regulation, and the need to regulate these industries, see Clarke Forsythe, “Preserving Human Dignity:  Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).”

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

 
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America.

Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

On January 6, Senator Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act (S. 21) (“the Act”), which disingenuously claims to be aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and abortion.  What it in reality does is provide continued (and elevated) funding to family planning programs that provide and counsel in favor of abortion, mandates health coverage of contraception, miseducates the public on emergency contraception, and forces religiously-based hospitals to provide emergency contraception.  It also contains a number of inaccuracies.

First, the Act provides elevated funding for family planning services and “teen pregnancy prevention programs” that counsel in favor of abortion.  The Act does not exclude abortion providers or other entities that counsel in favor of abortion from receiving funds.  Thus, entities like Planned Parenthood (which gains incredible profits every year from the provision of abortions) will be eligible for these increased funds.  And not only can such entities receive the funds, but there is nothing in the text of the Act itself that prohibits the use of the funds for the referral or counseling in favor of abortion.  This failure to exclude abortion providers demonstrates that the Act is not truly aimed at reducing abortion.

Thus, this Act diverges from the views of the majority of Americans who want to see abortions decrease.  It is an irresponsible use of federal money in this economic crisis.

Second, the Act mandates health coverage of contraception.  Group health plans and health insurers that provide coverage in connection with a group health plan may not exclude prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, or outpatient contraceptive services if the plan covers other drugs and services.  Similarly, such plans must cover experimental contraception if other types of experimental drugs are covered.  The Act would preempt any state laws that limit the coverage of contraception.

What is most troubling about this section is its failure to exclude religiously-affiliated entities or institutions from this contraceptive mandate.  Thus, if a church provides a group health plan for its employees, that health plan must cover contraception if it covers other drugs.  There is no room for conscientious objection, and churches will be forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs or refraining from offering heath coverage at all.  Again, for a nation already facing a healthcare crisis, this kind of federal ultimatum is either irresponsible, at best, or demonstrates a maliciousness toward religiously-affiliated entities, at worst.

Third, the Act advocates the use of emergency contraception (“EC”), ignoring the risks involved in using EC as well as blatantly misrepresenting how EC works.  For example, in a section delineating Congressional findings, the Act states that EC is a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and that research confirms that easier access to EC does not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”).  However, EC is inherently unsafe in that its current over-the-counter access makes EC available to a larger population of women than any trial has tested upon.  Moreover, if the hormones in regular birth control pills render such drugs unsafe for non-prescription status, the higher amounts found in EC cannot be safe, either.  In addition, EC is only 75-89 percent effective—in other words, it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases.

The claim regarding sexual risk-taking and the transmission of STDs is also untrue.  As we report in Defending Life:

Studies reveal that emergency contraception does not reduce pregnancy and abortion rates.  In one study, abortion rates increased by nearly 6,000 in a one-year period, jumping 3.2 percent.  Once EC became available without prescription in the United Kingdom, use among teenage girls doubled from 1 in 12 to 1 in 5.  In fact, one study reported that 4 out of 12 women were influenced to have unprotected sex because of the easy access to EC.  With the increased rate of sexual activity and the substantial failure rate of EC, the over-the-counter availability of Plan B cannot be expected to reduce the number of pregnancies or abortions.  Furthermore, in those areas with easy access to EC, the number of sexually transmitted diseases has skyrocketed.

See The Deadly Convenience of RU-486 and Plan B, available at http://www.aul.org/Deadly_Convenience (including references to the sources cited). 

The Act also completely misleads as to the way in which EC works, stating that EC “prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus.”  What the Act purposely avoids stating is that it is not an egg that is prevented from implanting—it is a fertilized egg.  In other words, conception has occurred, and a new human being has been formed.  Scientifically speaking, it cannot be disputed that a new human organism, with its own genetic information, has been formed.  Even the drug manufacturer’s label states that a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting.

Moreover, the Act provides for the dissemination of information to the public and healthcare providers that EC is safe and effective—and it does not require the dissemination of information on the risks of EC.  As already demonstrated above, this information is misleading and puts women’s health and lives at risk.  Ironically, another section of the Act requires that any information about contraception be “medically accurate.”  But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the Act’s own discussion of EC. 

The Act also requires the information to include “a recommendation regarding the use of such contraception in appropriate cases”—placing the federal government in a position where it is actually advocating the use of EC.

Finally, the Act states that no federal funds will be provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides oral and written information about EC, offers EC, and provides EC to sexual assault victims.  There is no exemption within the Act itself for religiously-affiliated hospitals that conscientiously object to the provision of EC.  Thus, this provision also further exacerbates the ongoing healthcare crisis by forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals to choose between violating their moral beliefs or accepting federal funding.

If a hospital chooses to accept federal funding, it must inform women that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.”   But this runs contrary to the ongoing debate within the medical community, and also ignores the fact that the drug manufacturer itself confirms that EC prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., after conception has occurred).  It also runs contrary to the religious and ethical beliefs of numerous individuals and healthcare providers that life begins at conception—and thus that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is in fact an abortion.  It may represent the misinformed ideology of Senator Reid and his co-sponsors—such as Senator Boxer—but it certainly does not represent the beliefs of a vast number of women and healthcare providers across the nation.  Women and healthcare providers who will be purposely misled by the government if the Act is passed.

And again, the information provided to women must explain that EC is effective in most cases—ignoring the fact that it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases, and failing to inform women of the risks of EC.

Conclusion

What is clear from the face of this Act is that it is not at all about the reduction of abortion, but the funding of abortion providers and the purposeful miseducation of the American public.  It is bad for women—and well as for the healthcare industry and the economy.

While the Presidential election has naturally garnered the majority of the media’s and the public’s attention, there are also critical races and issues being considered in the states.  Five states, California, Colorado, Michigan, South Dakota, and Washington are considering ballot initiatives that directly implicate important life issues:  abortion, biotechnologies, and the end-of-life.

California Proposition 4: Parental Notice

Proposition 4, or the “Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative” (also known to its supporters as “Sarah’s Law”), will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California.  Proposition 4 proposes a new amendment to the California Constitution that would ensure that parents are notified (and involved) when their minor daughters are considering abortion by requiring abortion providers to notify the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative family member.  Once the parent or guardian is notified, the provider may not perform an abortion on the minor for 48 hours.
In addition, the initiative mandates that abortion providers report statistical information about all abortions (including abortions on minors) to state officials, requires the minor’s non-coerced consent for an abortion, and authorizes monetary damages against physicians if any portion of the new law is violated.

For more information, click here.

Colorado Proposition 48: Human Life Amendment

Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to define “person” to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”  This definition of “personhood” would apply to specific sections of the Colorado Constitution and would inform future actions take by the State, the state government, and state officials.

For more information, click here

Michigan Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

The “Stem Cell Initiative,” also known as “CureMichigan,” will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposal 2.  This amendment would allow unregulated and unrestricted destruction of human embryos for research purposes.  It would also allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics and could open the door for the legalization of human cloning.

Proposal 2 would drastically alter existing Michigan law.  Michigan currently prohibits “nontherapeutic research” on a “live human embryo, fetus, or neonate,” fetal experimentation, and human cloning.

For more information, click here (PDF, pages 14-16).

South Dakota Initiated Measure 11: Abortion Ban

An abortion ban initiative, known as “Initiated Measure 11,” will appear on the November 2008 ballot in South Dakota as a constitutional amendment.  If voters approve it, the South Dakota Constitution would ban all abortions except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health.  Anyone performing an abortion in violation of the amendment could be charged with a Class 4 felony, which in South Dakota carries a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail and a $20,000 fine.

For more information, click here (PDF, page 8).

Washington Initiative 1000: Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Washington Initiative 1000, also known as “I-1000,” purports to give “mentally competent, terminally ill adults, medically-predicted to die within six months,” the legal choice to request and self-administer a lethal overdose of medication prescribed by a physician.  The measure requires two oral and one written requests by the patient, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of the patient decision.  Physicians, patients, and others acting in “good faith compliance” with the measure would not face criminal or civil liability.

For more information, click here.

Kansas legislators won a significant victory today over notorious abortionist George Tiller. Tiller, who has been charged with 19 misdemeanors for violating the state’s late-term abortion law, had argued that certain provisions of the law were unconstitutional, and that therefore the case against him should be dismissed. Judge Owens denied that motion today.

With the help of AUL, 20 Kansas legislators filed an amicus curiae brief last summer demonstrating that Kansas’ late-term abortion law—and particularly the provision requiring a physician unaffiliated with the abortionist confirm the medical need for the abortion—is entirely constitutional.  The legislators established that, under United States Supreme Court precedent, the state’s interest in life is substantial after viability; that extra cost or delay do not constitute undue burdens; and that abortion may be treated differently from other medical procedures.  The legislators also demonstrated that physicians’ rights are not paramount, and that Tiller misrepresented court decisions in making his arguments.

Now that Tiller’s motion has been denied, the case should proceed—meaning that one of the nation’s most notorious abortionists will finally stand trial.

The brief filed by AUL can be read here (PDF). AUL filed the brief on behalf of Kansas Senators Karin Brownlee, Les Donovan, Sr., Mark Gilstrap, Tim Huelskamp, Phillip Journey, Julia Lynn, Peggy Palmer, Dennis Pyle, Ralph Ostmeyer, and Susan Wagle and KAnsas Representatives J. David Crum, Owen Donohoe, Benjamin Hodge, Steve Huebert, S. Mike Kiegerl, Lance Kinzer, Ray Merrick, Rob Olson, Virgil Peck, Jr., and Arlen Siegfreid.

Two physicians providing medical evaluations and second opinions for late-term abortions performed by George Tiller at the Kansas Wichita Clinic discontinued their services on Monday, according to a local newspaper.

Kansas law requires that any abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy be performed only if two independent doctors determine that carrying the pregnancy to term would cause “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

In 2007, notorious late-term abortionist, George Tiller was charged with 19 misdemeanors for failing to abide by this law. Specifically, Tiller failed to abide by the provision requiring that an unaffiliated physician confirm the medical necessity of a late term abortion procedure by enlisting second opinions from doctors, including Dr. Burt Odenheimer, who work for the Wichita Clinic, where Tiller performed the abortions.
 
Tiller immediately challenged the constitutionality of the state’s late term abortion restrictions. AUL filed an amicus brief in the state trial court on behalf of numerous state legislators seeking to have the legislature’s intent in enacting the law carried out (To see the brief, please click here).

What makes the situation even more interesting is the fact that the Judge sitting on the case is running for re-election. Given the local disaccord with Tiller’s late term abortion procedures and the pressure placed on the clinic to stop them, it remains to be seen how the ruling in the case will affect the Judge’s re-election.

Last year before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama told pro-abortion activists:

“The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

With a single stroke of the pen, Barack Obama would wipe away virtually every state law on abortion nationwide. Instantly, it will undo thirty-seven years of legal work, research, and educational successes that AUL has accomplished in the 50 states. Put another way: Barack Obama will undermine the very reason we exist — to protect human life state by state.

Sen. Barack Obama has co-sponsored this “Freedom of Choice Act” legislation with 18 other Senators. The bill has the support of 110 Members of Congress, too. The stated aim of this legislation is to “end the abortion wars.”

Let me be clear: to these legislators, “ending the abortion wars” means allowing abortion-on-demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason and without any restrictions nationwide. This would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support — such as requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, fully-informed consent, and parental involvement — and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke has prepared an analysis of the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which we’ve just posted on our website. Please click here to read Denise’s analysis of this horrendous legislation.

On June 30, AUL’s fiscal year comes to a close. In order to end the year with the funds necessary to fight this looming threat, we must raise $269,000 by June 30. AUL, like many organizations, experiences a dip in donations in the summer time. Please, if you are in a position to give a substantial gift, even a sacrificial one, don’t delay.

In the May issue of Christianity Today, Stan Guthrie addresses those who wish to “move on” from abortion, telling them, “We’re Not Finished.”

In other words, these [Jim Wallis, Ron Sider] and other voices seem to be saying that fighting legalized abortion—the deliberate, state-sanctioned taking of 50 million unborn human lives from their mothers’ wombs since 1973 (and the accompanying national guilt)—should simply be one item among many on an ever-expanding evangelical to-do list. I agree that we have multiple responsibilities as Christians, and different callings. But if everything is a priority, then nothing is. While no one is saying that defending unborn human life is optional, the way we sometimes talk about our broader agenda appears to minimize the importance of abortion.

Pressing the case, Guthrie adds:

And faltering now would be doubly tragic, because the tide is turning. According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate has dropped to its lowest level since 1974. The number has also fallen, from 1.6 million abortions in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2005. While that’s still far too many, and the prospect of actually overturning Roe seems distant, it’s real progress nevertheless.

And he concludes:

No, we will not all be called to picket or pray in front of an abortion clinic or pass legislation or support an unwed mother or adopt a child or write letters to the editor. But we all can do something.

Opposing abortion is not simply another agenda item for evangelicals. It is our sacred duty. Whatever other good deeds we are called to do—and there are many—we cannot say abortion is someone else’s business. It’s our business.

In an unexpected move by the Kansas Supreme Court today, several formerly-sealed documents in the cases involving Planned Parenthood and Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline were unsealed.  Importantly, that Court rejected Former Attorney General Paul Morrison’s letter clearing Planned Parenthood of any wrong-doing.  In fact, the unsealed documents prove that Morrison tried to return evidence back to Planned Parenthood—an entity that gave him campaign money to have him hide evidence of its criminal activity.

Significantly, all judges that have reviewed the evidence against the local Planned Parenthood affiliate have found probable cause that crimes have been committed.

Phill Kline has now been given proper clearance to be in possession of those redacted records.  He has and will continue to protect the identity of women who had abortions.  All patient records have been redacted, and there is no privacy concern that the women who had abortions will ever be indentified. 

While a victory for Kline and the pro-life community, these redacted records now need to receive proper review in a court of law.  Once that review occurs, the true nature of Planned Parenthood will come to light.

Gonzales v. Carhart: One Year Later
Letting the People Decide

By Denise M. Burke
Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life

One year ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably altered. In the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as the “National Abortion Control Board.”

In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt attempts by abortion extremists to use the courts to unilaterally impose their radical agenda on the American public, and an increasing willingness to let the people decide abortion policy. The immediate reaction of activists, state legislators, and the public confirmed this critical shift.

While abortion extremists hastily recycled the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 1970s, legislators and the public increasingly considered prudent responses to the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion on women. [more]

New Yorkers for Parental Rights (NYPR) (http://www.nyfpr.com/) have been spearheading the efforts in opposition to ex-Governor Spitzer’s radical abortion bill, “The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act”(RHAPP), also known as the NY “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). The group has posted anti-RHAPP billboards on 14 major roadways around the State of NY, and released a 30-second commercial and a 4-minute educational video opposing the bill. Both the commercial and educational video can be viewed on www.abortionbill.org.

The RHAPP would wipe out all safety and health abortion regulations, and authorize non-physicians to perform abortions. The bill would violate parental rights by allowing abortion providers to perform abortions on minors without parental notification. The bill would also force Catholic physicians and other healthcare professionals to lose their licenses if they refuse to participate in abortions, even if they refuse on moral or religious grounds.

Dr. Alveda King (http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/index.htm), niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and founder of King for America has come out in support of NYPR’s efforts against the abortion bill, stating:
“We require parental notification and permission for minors for everything from ear piercing to dental work, and in most legal proceedings; yet abortion, a dangerous and devastating procedure, too often remains in a category apart, protected from parents who will often have to pay for the damages and consequences their children suffer through abortion.”

Americans United for Life applauds the defeat of Maryland House Bill 690 and Senate Bill 1146, virulent and baseless attacks on pregnancy resource centers instigated by the local chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

AUL worked alongside officials at Care Net, a leading trade group of pregnancy centers, and a coalition of centers, former clients, medical professionals, and others to help defeat the measures. AUL provided expert advice and counsel that was used to develop legislative testimony discrediting the biased and inaccurate information being offered by abortion advocates in support of the bills.

Abortion advocates had argued that pregnancy centers were providing women with misleading information on the health risks of abortion and should, therefore, be required to affirmatively state that they were “not required to give medically accurate information.” Centers would have been required to give this disclaimer in initial meetings with all potential clients.

In March, the bills received hearings in the Senate Finance and the House Health and Government Operations committees, but never received committee votes before the legislative session adjourned this week.

Maryland is just the latest in a small number of states that have considered measures seeking to undercut the mission and effectiveness of pregnancy centers. Other states to recently consider similar measures are New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, and West Virginia.

Clearly, there is no better indicator of the positive impact that pregnancy resource centers are having by supporting women emotionally and financially, by protecting women from the adverse health consequences of abortion, and by helping to reduce the number of abortions performed each year than the vitriol directed toward these centers by pro-abortion advocacy groups and their allies. However, even they, in their zeal to promote abortion-on-demand, cannot ignore the very real, positive, and increasingly powerful impact pregnancy resource centers are having on women and on public opinion about abortion.

For more information about the work of pregnancy resource centers, see Pregnancy Resource Centers: On the Frontline in the Cause for Life

For information about the Maryland legislation, go to http://www.lifenews.com/state3102.html.

In what is shaping up to be a pivotal and unpredictable election year, abortion and its negative impact on women have only infrequently been mentioned as important issues in the Presidential campaign.  However, they remain critical and divisive issues in Congress where competing bills were recently introduced.

On April 2, Senators David Vitter (R-LA), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act.

The measure would require that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a hospital in close vicinity to the abortion facility; that abortion providers notify women of the location of a local hospital where they can receive follow-up medical treatment in the event of post-abortion complications; and that any abortion center receiving federal funding be licensed and comply with current requirements for ambulatory surgery centers.

“It is time that we took the appropriate steps to provide for the safety of the women who undergo abortions,” commented Senator Vitter.

Senator Sam Brownback, a former Republican presidential candidate, added that, “The Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act will provide oversight of the abortion industry, which is badly in need of improved supervision.  Too many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions, and too many women’s lives are at risk.”

In considering this measure, Congress is following the lead of 27 states that currently license and regulate, to varying degrees, facilities providing abortions.

Conversely, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), with the support of national abortion advocacy groups, introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act, targeting the work of thousands of crisis pregnancy centers that offer real alternatives to pregnant women.

The measure would mandate that the Federal Trade Commission create and enforce rules to prohibit deceptive practices that pregnancy centers deny they are using.  Prior versions of this measure never moved past introduction.

“What’s clear in these attacks is that the multi-million dollar abortion industry is growing increasingly frustrated with the success of pregnancy centers, which, unlike abortion providers, offer a wide range of free services to men and women facing unplanned pregnancy and sexual health-related concerns,” remarked Kristen Hansen of CareNet, a national advocacy groups for pregnancy centers.

Peggy Hartshorn, the president of Heartbeat International, argues that, rather than unnecessarily and unfairly targeting the work of pregnancy centers, Congress should instead be looking into problems at abortion centers like Planned Parenthood, which are also federally funded.  Interestingly, this is exactly what the debate over the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act could accomplish.

For more information about the regulation of abortion facilities, see Abortion Clinic Regulations:  Combating the True “Back Alley”

For more information on the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3834.html

For more information on crisis pregnancy centers, see Pregnancy Resource Centers:  On the Frontlines in the Cause for Life

For more information on Senator Menendez’s attack on the work of crisis pregnancy centers, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3833.html

Former Governor Eliot Spitzer has introduced an extreme abortion bill, the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP), into the New York State Legislature. This bill will do anything but make abortions rare and safe in New York. On the contrary, the RHAPP will increase the number of abortions performed in New York and wipe out all existing health and safety abortion regulations. If the RHAPP is enacted, it would make New York the abortion capital of America.  

To read the full article, please visit http://aul.org/NY_RHAPP

As most people are now aware, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught trafficking in prostitution across state lines. This morning’s news reports indicate that he will step down effective Monday.

What does this mean for the Reproductive Health and Personal Privacy Act (RHAPP) – the radical pro-abortion bill currently pending before the New York legislature?

For those unaware of what this bill will do, AUL staff attorney Maggie Datiles will have an excellent summary on the AUL web site later this week. In short, this bill will remove every abortion regulation that exists in the state and prohibit any new ones from being enacted. It is similar to the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that’s been under consideration for years.

In the NY bill, any female as young as age 12 will be able to get an abortion from any health care provider for any reason in all nine months of pregnancy. Forget laws requiring the abortionist to be a qualified doctor. Your dermatologist would now qualify. In fact, forget needing to be a doctor at all. And forget laws requiring emergency equipment to be present whenever an abortion is performed. Those things aren’t necessary.

And forget about opting out of performing the procedure. With RHAPP, no doctor, nurse or hospital, regardless of moral views or religious affiliation, can decline to perform abortions. Additionally, any and all employers and insurance companies will be forced to pay for them. And that’s not all. Publicly-funded sex-ed programs must encourage abortion and contraception, and state money would be prohibited from being used for abortion-alternative programs.

However, with Spitzer’s personal shenanigans, one of the bills biggest backers is now toast. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the state legislature is no longer functioning. “‘Everyone’s on death watch,’ said John McArdle, spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. ‘We’re trying not to get caught up in it but it’s brought everything to a standstill.’”

The new governor, David Paterson, is reportedly far more liberal than Spitzer. He is known for his support for embryonic stem cell research, and abortion. He’s also more willing than Spitzer to negotiate across the aisle and with opponents in his own party. This means that we are probably less likely to get the full version of RHAPP but could be more likely to get a stripped down version that will cause havoc and destroy women’s lives anyway.

So says Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations at Christian Medical Association, in an op-ed in today’s Washington Times:

The article “Clinic must release abortion data” (Nation, Thursday), which details a Kansas grand jury’s investigation of illegal late-term abortions, exposes the fact that abortion remains one of the most unregulated and unaccountable medical procedures in the country.

As a result of secrecy and lack of accountability, our pets likely are safer at the veterinarian’s office than women are at some abortion clinics.

Occasionally, an intrepid government official, acting on a tip by a patient or employee, breaks through the stone wall of secrecy and uncovers abuses. A Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Johnson County, Kan., is facing 107 criminal counts based on a confidential review of just 29 patient records.

An abortion clinic in Kansas City, Kan., was raided after former employees told of coffee cups full of syringes, medical tools stored near toilets and fetuses stored in refrigerators used by employees for lunches. The proprietor’s license eventually was revoked when the search produced syringes of medication in an unlocked refrigerator and a dead mouse inside the facility.

Just how far abortion clinics will go in violating the law was illustrated by an undercover investigation by the pro-life organization Life Dynamics of 800 Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities. Evidence includes taped conversations documenting the willingness of abortion clinic staff to illegally cover up cases of statutory rape.

According to Americans United for Life, which monitors state abortion legislation, just 23 states have health and safety regulations that apply to all abortions. Virginia only regulates abortion after the first trimester. Maryland is among eight states with abortion clinic health and safety regulations that are enjoined in litigation and/or are not enforced.

Abortion advocates successfully lobbied Virginia state senators to kill a bill that would have subjected abortion clinics to the same regulations as outpatient surgery centers. They argued that requiring such safety measures would force many abortion clinics to shut down. Advocates also contend that health and safety oversight will make abortion access more difficult, relegating abortions to dangerous “back alley clinics.”

The admission that abortion clinics would not meet health and safety standards should spur legislators to act to protect the health and safety of women. Covered up from the light of health and safety oversight and accountability, every abortion clinic remains a “back alley clinic.”