Pro-Life Student Fights Discrimination at Her University – and Wins

May 17, 2013 By

Living consistently with one’s personal pro-life convictions takes courage, and sometimes comes at significant cost.

Katie, a veteran of the United States Military, returned to school as a surgical technician student at a university in Virginia. She was looking forward to graduation in June 2013; all she had left was completion of her clinical phase of study. Three days into clinicals, she was discharged from the school because she dared to express a personal pro-life conviction.

Before going into their assigned hospitals, surgical technician students were instructed to let hospital staff know if they had a problem with the performance of any surgical procedure. Following these instructions, Katie brought up a personal religious conviction related to a specific medical procedure sometimes used as a method of abortion. This led to a conversation with her on-site instructor regarding accommodation of this belief, and the effect taking such a position might have on potential career options. The instructor expressed her opinion that such a position would render Katie “unemployable.” Katie disagreed since she had already researched several career options that she felt would prevent any conflict with her convictions. After the conversation, Katie had no reason to believe that it would not be possible to fulfill her clinical requirements; and she was not instructed to seek an alternate clinical site.

Two days later, however, Katie’s program supervisor at the university called her in for a meeting and informed her that the hospital would not allow her to continue in the program. The reason given was that she had expressed no desire to seek employment at the hospital following the completion of her training. The “reason” appears to have been cooked up for the occasion since there was never an obligation for students to seek employment at hospitals where they performed clinical studies. Rather than requiring the hospital to abide by its commitments as a provider of practical training, the university expelled Katie without further explanation.

Katie’s attempts to resolve the matter informally were met with no response from school administrators. Katie realized that as more time passed, it became more unlikely that she would be able to complete her course requirements. She was going to lose 15 weeks of study, as well as the time to prepare again for her clinical phase. She also stood to lose her livelihood, because she was going to school on a GI bill that provided financial aid only while she was enrolled in a program of full-time study.

Left without explanation from the school, Katie was upset and unsure what to do. It was at this point that she talked to her mother who had an idea: she sent an inquiry to LLDF asking if there were any way to help her daughter.

LLDF attorneys were able to respond quickly to provide guidance to Katie. They assisted Katie in filing an internal complaint with the university. The complaint pointed out that it was a violation of the school’s own policies, as well as the law, to exercise this type of discrimination. “Based on Katie’s experience, we held out little hope that the internal complaint would ultimately be effective,” states LLDF staff counsel Rebekah Millard, “but we encouraged Katie to try to settle the matter internally if possible. Meantime we were preparing for a legal battle.”

But the complaint succeeded in getting the attention of school officials, and after discussion with Katie, they promised reinstatement in her program, as well as the needed flexibility to complete her clinical studies. “For a time it was touch-and-go as to whether the school would follow through with their commitment, but in the end, they did the right thing,” explains Ms. Millard. After wading through the inevitable red tape, Katie was able to resume her studies and is well on her way to graduation.

“Here at LLDF, we like to say that no case is too small,” comments Dana Cody, Executive Director of LLDF. “Although this ended up to be a small matter, it made a big difference for a courageous student who was willing to stand up for her beliefs. We commend Katie for her courage and for being willing to live her convictions, even when there was a cost.”

 

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Uncategorized

Protect Rights of Conscience

May 15, 2013 By

Imagine that you are a healthcare professional who is convinced that life begins at conception. Imagine that your employer insists that you offer women counseling regarding abortion options and requires you to prescribe contraceptive drugs–whether or not they have an abortifacient effect. Imagine that you are being forced to dishonor your faith or give up your profession and your livelihood. Now stop imagining and realize that this scenario is actually being played out every day in the United States as people are forced to violate their sincere beliefs out of fear of losing their employment and jeopardizing their careers.
Freedom of conscience and religious beliefs lies at the very heart of our Constitution. Yet this core freedom—the ability to hold personal religious beliefs and to live in accordance with those beliefs—is being threatened as never before.
Medical professionals are facing increased pressure to provide abortions, contraceptives and other forms of so-called health care, even when this would violate their consciences. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been tasked with accepting complaints from employees forced to participate in abortion (if their employer is a recipient of specific federal funding). Waiting for action from this federal agency has hardly proved an adequate safeguard of religious freedom.
Ironically, it is this very same Department of Health and Human Services that has eviscerated rights of conscience for so many employers through the Contraceptive Mandate. In the name of “preventative health care,” insurers are required to provide coverage without co-pay for contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and sterilization. Faced with violating their consciences or paying crippling fines, many employers have filed suit to block application of the mandate. LLDF has been active in these cases, submitting amicus briefs to argue that forced funding of contraceptives, far from promoting women’s health, will have a deleterious impact on women’s health.
The attacks on religious liberty have spurred some in Congress to action. In the House, Representatives Black and Fortenberry have  introduced H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act. The Act would affirm a commitment to religious liberty by amending specific provisions of Obamacare “to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services,” and would provide a private right of action for employees who are wrongfully forced to participate in abortion, among other things.
Action Item: For this important bill to pass, more support is needed. Your representative needs to hear how much you value your religious freedom. Contact your Member of Congress and urge him or her to stand up for religious freedom by becoming a co-sponsor of H.R. 940. Post your message in support of religious freedom on your social media page and urge your friends to join you in standing up for our first freedom. (Twitter users: join the Twitter campaign with the hash tags #ConscienceProtection #ReligiousFreedom.)

Filed Under: In The Public Square

Verdict: Gosnell Guilty 5/13/2013

May 14, 2013 By

Former abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of first degree murder of three babies who were born alive following attempted abortion. Dana Cody, Executive Director, Life Legal Defense Foundation released the following statement regarding the verdict:

“It is our hope that this will be the first step in seeing prosecutors, nationwide, enforce the law when children born alive after surviving abortion are murdered.  There are too many clinics that, like Gonsnell, endanger women and children every day.  Exposure of the horror of this clinic may lead to the recognition that abortion is murder both inside and outside the womb.

We are also hopeful that government agencies will begin to better scrutinize abortion clinics and shut down more of them before more women are killed and babies murdered.” Cody added, “We know this type of abortion facility too well from our battle to shut down the New Woman All Women abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. Our legal work led to an inspection of the clinic by the Alabama Department of Public Health. When over 75 health code violations were reported, the clinic’s license to provide abortions was revoked. Yet the battle continues because, despite a consent order, it was recently discovered that NWAW was still in operation.”

The three infants who were murdered by Gosnell have been given names: Baby Adam (A), Baby Alex (C) or Baby Chris (D). Cody concludes, “May this tragedy open our eyes to see the value of life that there may be no more victims of the abortion industry, whether inside or outside the womb.”

Filed Under: Featured, In The Public Square, Legal Abortion is Not Safe

Gosnell: the Tip of the Abortion Iceberg

May 10, 2013 By

As the evidence mounts, one is left wondering whether Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” is unique, or whether his clinic is merely a very ugly tip of a very ugly iceberg—the abortion industry?

Due in no small degree to continued pressure from pro-life advocates, there has been an increase in media coverage of the unfolding story of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. (LLDF and many other groups strongly condemned the media silence on this “trial of the century.”) Now more than a month into the trial, the jury has completed its second week of deliberations on charges against Gosnell and his employees. The number and variety of crimes charged and the amount of evidence before the jury combine to create a lengthy deliberation process. (See the Grand Jury Report.)

Simultaneous to the trial, evidence is surfacing that Gosnell may not have been an outlier in his practices. He is not alone in running a shoddy, substandard clinic. He is not alone in ignoring basic health and safety regulations. He is not alone in endangering the lives of the women who come to him as patients. And he is not alone in his willingness to kill “unwanted” children – whether or not they are living and breathing outside their mothers’ wombs.

On April 10, 2013 a Delaware Planned Parenthood clinic was forced to close after employees blew the whistle on the conditions in which it was operating. The employees stated that the clinic was “ridiculously unsafe.” Practices included reuse of surgical instruments without cleaning between patients. At least five women have been injured in the past five weeks alone at this clinic.

Currently, the state of Alabama is suing an abortion clinic in Birmingham for operating without proper licensure – this same clinic was shut down a year ago for failure to follow basic health and safety regulations. LLDF continues to work with local Pro-Life advocates to expose the truth about this unsafe clinic.

One of the most shocking revelations of the past few weeks is that leaders in the abortion industry are willing to kill children born alive following attempted abortion. The investigative journalists at Live Action have released new undercover videos showing that Gosnell is far from alone in his callous disregard for human life—even of lives unequivocally protected by law.

The list of abuses from the abortion industry could go on and on.

Even Congress has taken notice: two House Committees have launched nationwide investigations of the “regulatory collapse” that allowed Gosnell to go undetected for decades. These investigations are seeking evidence from other states as to what is being done to ensure such regulatory collapse does not continue to occur.

These investigations are a welcome response from lawmakers. Even  as events of the past few weeks indicate, although Gosnell may have been a step more barbaric than his counterparts throughout the nation (such as snipping babies’ necks and keeping fetal remains—including severed feet— throughout his clinic), his house of horrors at 3801 Lancaster in West Philadelphia is but the tip of the iceberg. The industry itself is built of barbarity, cruelty and disrespect for both women and children.

 

Filed Under: Featured, In The Public Square

Free Speech, San Francisco-Style

May 3, 2013 By

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering an ordinance to curb free speech activities outside of – you guessed it – abortion clinics. San Francisco currently has a “bubble zone” ordinance that restricts the free speech activities of pro-life advocates. The new measure would expand this into a “speech-free zone,”  a permanent 25-foot buffer zone around an abortion clinic’s “entrance, exit or driveway.” The ordinance would be enforced through criminal sanctions, including jail time, as well as a private right of action.

LLDF’s Legal Director, Katie Short has written a letter of opposition to the Board of Supervisors, urging them to reject this repressive ordinance. The letter, set out in full below, focuses on the constitutional infirmities from which this measure suffers.

 

thumbnail of letter

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Speech Free Zones / Bubble Zones

Pro-Life Advocates Unconstitutionally Prohibited from Offering Help to Women

April 26, 2013 By

Life Legal Defense Foundation Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down Discriminatory Massachusetts Ruling

This week Life Legal Defense Foundation is urging the United States Supreme Court to review a First Circuit decision which severely limits free speech of pro-life advocates. In McCullen v. Coakley, seven Massachusetts residents who engaged in pro-life counseling outside of abortion clinics sued the state for violation of their right to free speech through enactment of a “buffer zone” law. The statute created a thirty-five-foot fixed buffer zone around driveways and entrances of abortion clinics. The law prohibits everyone—except clinic patients or employees—from “entering or remaining” in the zone. The lower court upheld the buffer zone despite its prejudicial intent and application. Life Legal Defense Foundation has filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief arguing that this buffer zone is unconstitutional.

“This is clearly a case of viewpoint discrimination,” stated Dana Cody, Executive Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation. “Activists who make disturbances at military funerals, animal rights protests, and ‘occupy’ demonstrations are not bound by the sort of restrictions applied to peaceful pro-life witnesses who invite women to learn about abortion alternatives,” Cody explained, “It’s a true double standard and an unbelievable violation of First Amendment rights.”

Adding insult to injury, the First Circuit justified singling out pro-life speech for disfavored treatment by analogizing it to sexually oriented businesses. Just as “adult” bookstores and theatres have harmful “secondary effects” that allow cities to impose special zoning restrictions, so too, according to the First Circuit, pro-life sidewalk counseling and picketing have harmful “secondary effects” that governments can mitigate by imposing buffer zones and other restrictions. In fact, what governments most fear about pro-life speech is not any “secondary effect.”  It is that women heading into clinics are hearing the truth about abortion.

Life Legal Defense Foundation frequently defends the civil rights of pro-life advocates. The majority of the time, due to these efforts, the discriminatory charges are dismissed, the discriminatory application of the law is set right, and the pro-life advocates’ rights are vindicated. One such case is that of Rev. Walter Hoye, who joins Life Legal Defense Foundation on the brief. Pastor Hoye was convicted of violating Oakland, California’s “bubble zone” ordinance, though no patient or person seeking access to the clinic complained of his conduct. After Hoye served 30 days in jail and paid a large fine, his conviction was overturned as a result of Life Legal Defense Foundation’s efforts.

Read Life Legal Defense Foundation and Walther B. Hoye II’s Amici Curiae brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Sidewalk Counseling, Speech Free Zones / Bubble Zones

Gosnell Abortion Clinic Murder Trial: Life Legal Defense Foundation has Pursued His Type Before

April 23, 2013 By

Legal abortion is not safe. The Kermit Gosnell trial is not a unique situation. In fact, the Gosnell case explains why abortion clinics go to such great lengths to keep life advocates away from public property surrounding their facilities.

LLDF experienced this first-hand while fighting for the free speech rights of pro-life advocates in Birmingham, Alabama. The New Woman, All Women abortion clinic was able to keep life advocates off the public sidewalk surrounding clinic facilities for years, until LLDF got involved. LLDF worked with local sidewalk counselors to draw attention to an out-of-date, unconstitutional regulation that was being enforced by local police at the behest of clinic management.

LLDF obtained an injunction that allowed life advocates to remain on the sidewalk surrounding the clinic to counsel women before they enter. This led to sidewalk counselors spotting ambulances picking up injured women from the back alley of the clinic. Ultimately, this resulted in an inspection of the clinic by the Alabama Department of Public Health. Over 75 health code violations were reported: the clinic’s license to provide abortions was revoked. Despite a consent order, it was recently discovered that NWAW was still in operation. We are now fighting again to get it closed.

To continue these efforts, LLDF has signed the following letter to draw attention to the Kermit Gosnell trial. This will expose the abortion industry for what it really is, a for-profit industry with total disregard for the lives of the unborn as well as their mothers. Abortion may be legal but it is not safe.

See the Grand Jury report.

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Legal Abortion is Not Safe

Exploitation in the Making?

April 19, 2013 By

California Considers Bill that Would Allow Researchers to Pay Women for Harvesting Their Eggs

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) has introduced a bill, AB 926, that would remove the prohibition on paying women to donate their eggs for research purposes. Certain types of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research require large numbers of oocytes  which are used to create embryos that are later destroyed in the research process. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Human Cloning) is one type of research that will require numerous human eggs. (For further reading, see this piece from the Center for Bioethics and Culture.)

Currently, women who donate their eggs for reproductive purposes may receive compensation for the time and inconvenience associated with the process (note that this is inconvenience can turn into serious health risks). However, by allowing payment for research-destined egg donation, an entire new industry is created, one that will likely have an disparate adverse impact on low-income women.

“We’re talking about offering women thousands of dollars, ” comments Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation. “Understandably, this would appeal to a lot of women, especially in these economic times. But these women will undergo invasive medical procedures with significant health risks, and for what? To have their eggs harvested for use in research that destroys nascent human life.” Cody concludes: “This bill does not respect life, and it does not respect women.”

Action Item: AB 926 is currently before the California Assembly Appropriations Committee. Call or email members of the committee and urge them to oppose this harmful legislation. View LLDF’s letter of opposition.

Friend of LLDF Wesley Smith has written a post in National Review on AB926

Filed Under: hESCR -- (stem cell) research, In The Public Square

California Considers Expanding Non-Physician Abortion

April 12, 2013 By

Update: LLDF has sent a letter to the California Assembly Health Committee voicing opposition to AB 154, and has also prepared a factsheet detailing reasons for opposing this harmful legislation. AB 154 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Health Committee on April 23. Before that date, it is essential that members of the committee hear from you. Call or email the members of this committee and urge them to oppose this harmful legislation.

On April 9, 2013, by a vote of 9-4, the California Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection approved a bill to expand non-physician abortion in the state.

AB 154 would allow nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform aspiration abortions after completingon a training course. The training is based on protocols developed in the Health Workforce Pilot Project, HWPP No. 171, under which a specific number of non-physicians were trained for abortion. Under AB 154, the training would be expanded to become a regular channel for producing additional abortionists.

Proponents of the bill claim that this is necessary to expand access to abortions, but are apparently undeterred by the very real possibility of decreasing the quality of care for patients.

Under the Pilot Project, HWPP No. 171 (the precursor to this bill), reports indicated an increased risk to women. In December 2011, an 80% increase in complications was reported when non-physicians performed surgical abortions. These complications included “incomplete abortion, failed abortion, hemorrhage/excessive bleeding, hematometra, infection, cervical injury, and uterine perforation. The non-physicians had a reported 141 total complications for women while the Physicians had 78 complications. There is nothing in AB 154 to remedy this increased risk of danger for women undergoing abortions by less-than-qualified medical professionals.

“AB 154 is based on flawed and incomplete research and will increase danger to women. It is horrific enough that unborn children are dying in abortion clinics everyday – now women’s lives are put at further risk,” comments Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of LLDF. “My prediction is that this type of ‘training to perform abortion’ will ultimately become a mandate under Obamacare. God have mercy on our nation.”

Bolstering the arguments in favor of the bill, a recent American Journal of Public Health article gives a glowing report on the Pilot Project, concluding that there is not a significant difference in clinical complications between physician and non-physician abortions. However, the paper fails to take into consideration the difference between a controlled environment an and an uncontrolled environment in healthcare. In the Pilot Project, a physician oversaw all the abortions and screened patients for contraindications. If AB 154 becomes law, that cautionary step will be done away with, and patients will be deprived of the care they deserve. “California sees far too many unqualified physicians performing abortions in sub-standard clinical environments,” Cody points out. “Expand that to non-physicians practicing without effective physician oversight, and it is not a pretty picture.”

Action Item: AB 154 has been sent to the Committee on Health. If you are a California resident, contact your member of the California Assembly and members of the Committee on Health and urge them to oppose this harmful legislation.

 

Why Abortion Practices are in need of Reform and Regulation

 

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Legal Abortion is Not Safe

Gosnell Case (Philadephia): At what point does “failure to condemn” become “tacit approval”?

April 8, 2013 By

Today’s news media outlets are not generally known for their deference to delicate sensibilities. Usually the more sensational, inappropriate or grotesque the subject matter, the more newsworthy it becomes. Or so it would seem. Unless, of course, the story reflects poorly on a subject such as abortion. The almost entire failure of mainstream media outlets to cover the Gosnell murder trial is the latest example of the lengths to which the media will go to shield the abortion industry from public scrutiny. Gosnell is facing murder charges for the death of one of his patients, for snipping the spines of newborn infants, and for other crimes committed at his Philadelphia abortion clinic.

Yet not a word have we heard from the large names in the news media such as ABC, NBC, and CBS.

It is outrageous that the media is not giving this trial the coverage it deserves. By ignoring the story, the media are giving the abortion industry a free pass. They are not required to come out in condemnation of the butchery perpetrated by abortionist Gosnell. If Gosnell is not representative of abortionists generally, all abortion providers need to come out and say so. They need to condemn the conditions and practices of this so-called clinic in no uncertain terms. Anything less looks like tacit approval.

Observers of the Gosnell trial report hair-raising accounts of the evidence adduced regarding goings-on in Gosnell’s place of business. Urine and blood saturated furniture, floors and walls. Scissors used to snip the spinal cords of babies born alive. When Gosnell’s patient “flatlined” while she was still in the stirrups for her abortion, he lifted no finger to assist her emergency medical treatment. Paramedics responding to the emergency call discovered conditions of unbelievable filth, and could not get a gurney through the hallways of the so-called clinic. (The patient, Mongar, later died from what was diagnosed as an overdose of Demerol.) Gosnell is facing charges of third-degree murder for her death. Crime Scene Unit officers discovered jars containing the severed feet of aborted babies, which were kept near a sink and garbage disposal where fetal remains were flushed. The list of horrifying conditions seems to grow with each new day of trial evidence.

“There are not strong enough words to express the revulsion such evidence adduces,” commented Dana Cody, LLDF’s President and Executive Director. “But this tragic story must be told, for what it teaches about how abortion, by dehumanizing the unborn, dehumanizes our society as a whole. Those in the mainstream media who are covering up this story have shown that they share Kermit Gosnell’s callous disregard for women and indulgent attitude toward infanticide.”

Action Item: Contact your local media outlet and their national affiliates and ask them to report on this story; further consider contacting Reuters and the Associated Press with the same request.

 

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Legal Abortion is Not Safe
« Older Posts