U.S. Supreme Court Brief Highlights Unconstitutionality of Obamacare

February 14, 2012 By

Tuesday, February 14, 2012: Today, Life Legal Defense Foundation and four other pro-life law firms filed a friend of the court brief in the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACT) on Free Exercise and First Amendment grounds. The brief, written by attorneys with the Bioethics Defense Fund, was filed on behalf of several religious and pro-life medical associations, such as the Christian Medical and Dental Association and Physicians for Life.

Some of the primary arguments in today’s filing with the Supreme Court are as follow:

  • The ACT contains a hidden “Abortion Premium Mandate” that compels enrollees in certain health plans to pay a separate abortion premium from their own pocket, while denying enrollees the ability to decline abortion coverage based on moral objection.
  • The ACT and its individual mandate violate the Free Exercise Clause by imposing this “Abortion Premium Mandate” without regard to religious objection.
  • Our nation has a long and deeply-rooted history of respecting and protecting the conscience rights of individuals to not be forced into the practice or funding of elective abortions.
    Our founders’ protection of individual liberty, including religious liberty, is directly undermined by the ACT’s transgression of the constitutional limits on congressional power.

“This ACT and President Obama want citizens to have their choices impermissibly limited by being forced to choose between their conscience and a health insurance plan that requires an abortion premium,” said Cody. “How could Congress allow for this ACT to make pro-life individuals pay for a pro-abortion agenda?”

Arguments on the constitutionality of the Act will be heard at the Supreme Court in March.

Read the Amicus Curiae Brief.

Filed Under: In The Public Square

Supreme Court to Tackle IVF in Social Security Benefits Case

February 8, 2012 By

LLDF Weighs in on “the Rest of the Story” on IVF

What do a filmmaker, a board member of NOW, a reproductive endocrinologist, two bloggers, and a pro-life legal group have in common? They all teamed up on a filing Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF). The friend-of-the-court brief the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) filed is designed to educate the Court about the “array of serious dangers” IVF poses to women, children, and society at large. Read more here.

The Supreme Court is hearing a case, Astrue v. Capato, No. 11-159, in which a widow seeks Social Security survivor benefits for the twins conceived by IVF and born after her husband’s death. Lower federal courts are divided on the question whether such posthumously conceived children are entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, and the Supreme Court is expected to settle the question in a ruling this spring. And while the case presents fairly dry and complicated legal questions of statutory interpretation, the context of the case – children conceived and born through IVF technology after their father had passed away from cancer – makes this the first case in which the Supreme Court will confront this new reproductive technology.

“We felt this was an educable moment for the Court,” said Catherine Short, counsel of record on the brief. “There’s a huge dearth of appreciation for the ugly underbelly of IVF. This case presents a unique opportunity to educate the Court on this issue, lest the Court in ignorance bestow some unqualified praise upon IVF as a practice.”

Continued Short: “The Court benefits greatly from hearing points of view that might not otherwise be expressed. Here, neither the mother of the IVF twins nor the DOJ have any reason to speak ill of IVF. That’s where we provide a key supplemental voice.”

The brief emphasizes that children conceived by IVF are fully human and entitled to love and respect just like any other children. But the brief also cautions the Court that IVF comes with a package of very significant downsides, including physical and emotional risks to both the IVF child and the genetic mother, the routine creation and destruction or freezing of untold numbers of “spare” human embryos, the deconstruction of the family, and the unleashing of an exploitative industry that can prey upon vulnerable women.

The five friends of the court appearing on the brief are:
(1) Jennifer Lahl, documentary filmmaker and producer of Eggsploitation, an exposé of the IVF industry’s exploitation of human egg providers;
(2) Kathleen Sloan, NOW board member and veteran activist for women’s rights;
(3) Kathleen R. LaBounty, conceived by donor sperm, blogger on donor conception;
(4) Stephanie Blessing, also conceived by donor sperm and blogging on her situation; and,
(5) Anthony J. Caruso, M.D., MPH, a former IVF practitioner who oversaw more than 1,000 IVF procedures but has since renounced the practice.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on March 19, with a decision likely to follow in June.

Read the LLDF brief.

Filed Under: In The Public Square

Scalise leads bipartisan letter calling on the Obama Administration to reverse contraceptive mandate

February 6, 2012 By

“Mandate is an attack on religious freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights”

Washington, D.C.:  (Feb . 6, 2012) Congressman Steve Scalise (R-La.) today led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its unconstitutional mandate forcing religious organizations to include abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilizations in the health care plans of their employees.

“This radical mandate by the Obama Administration is an attack on the religious freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights,” Scalise said. “Religious organizations and hard-working taxpayers should not be forced by the federal government to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, or sterilizations in their health care plans. This is an offensive example of Obamacare’s violation of the conscience rights of American employers just so this Administration can force their radical agenda on hard working taxpayers. We are calling on the Obama Administration to reverse this offensive mandate in order to allow any employer that opposes mandated coverage of abortion-inducing drugs and other contraceptives to seek an exemption out of respect for their religious rights. I’m proud to stand with the vast majority of Americans who respect religious freedom in demanding that this mandate be reversed, and I will continue working tirelessly with other Members of Congress to prevent this attack on the Bill of Rights.”

Scalise is also a cosponsor of H.R. 1179, a bill by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) to reverse the contraceptive mandate. Read letter (PDF), see list of signees.

 

 

Filed Under: In The Public Square

Judge Finds Clinic Manager Not Guilty of Battery Against Pro-life Sidewalk Counselor

January 31, 2012 By

A judge found the Central Family Medicine abortion clinic manager accused of attacking pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary Anne Sause not guilty. Despite the fact that witnesses close by called the police to report the incident, at trial these same witnesses testified that they did not see the initial contact between Mark Pederson and Ms. Sause.  This isn’t the first time someone from Central Family Medicine has tried to bully and intimidate sidewalk counselors in front of their abortion clinic.  In November 2009, a clinic worker rammed into a pro-life counselor who was 6 months pregnant at the time.  Read more here.

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/pregnant-pro-lifer-attacked-by-abortion-worker-outside-kc-abortion-clinic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OperationRescue+%28Operation+Rescue%29

http://fox4kc.com/2012/01/25/man-found-not-guilty-of-attack-at-abortion-clinic/

Filed Under: In The Public Square

Judge Strikes Another Blow to Justice Department’s Targeted Persecution of Pro-life Advocates

January 29, 2012 By

In a hearing held on January 26, 2012, attorneys with the U.S. DOJ asked a federal district court judge to order Ken Scott to remain more than 25 feet away from the entrance of a Colorado abortion clinic. Judge Brimmer denied the DOJ’s request, striking a significant blow to the government’s case against Scott.  Scott is a peaceful pro-life advocate who hands out literature and counsels women on the public sidewalks outside abortion clinics.

These actions are constitutionally protected and Scott’s lawyers will vigorously fight to ensure these freedoms are not stripped away by an overzealous Justice Department seeking to silence the pro-life voice in America.  Read more about the Scott case here.

Filed Under: Freedom Of Access To Clinics, In The Public Square

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Decrees Insurers Cover Contraceptives “Next Year”

January 24, 2012 By

On Friday January 20, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a one-year reprieve for some insurers to the controversial “contraceptive mandate” issued last August. The mandate requires that all insurance providers cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, including those that can be used post-conception to destroy existing human life.

The reprieve was aimed at a narrow group of insurers: groups that do not already carry contraceptives and who do not already meet the definition of “religious employer.” Those who are allowed to avail themselves of the reprieve will still be forced to tell their employees where to obtain contraceptives.

“Although couched in terms of compromise, this postponement simply adds insult to injury since it protects a mere fraction of those impacted by the mandate, and it does not address the core objections to the mandate: the rule’s evisceration of rights of conscience,” states Dana Cody, Life Legal Defense Foundation’s President and Executive Director. “Waiting a year shifts some of the impact of the mandate down the road, allowing the Obama Administration to appear sympathetic to the American value of freedom of conscience in this election year. The Obama administration shows again that it can play politics well, but has little interest in protecting the sincerely held conscientious beliefs of Americans.”

Numerous groups, including Life Legal Defense Foundation, submitted comments on the contraceptive rule to HHS in September, arguing that the narrow exemption provided for “religious employers” was essentially meaningless. For instance, the exemption would potentially cover places of worship, but would not cover religious groups that provide social services, education or engage outreach to people of different religious faiths, nor would it cover religious health insurance companies, religious health care providers, or individuals.

Legal analysts have suggested that the mandate not only violates existing conscience protections on abortion such as the Hyde/Weldon Amendment (in that drugs that can act as abortifacients are covered, such as Plan B and Ella), but also violates the principles of the Church Amendments which protect the conscience rights of those who object to medical services on moral or religious grounds.

Filed Under: In The Public Square

FACE Prosecution Against Susan Pine Dismissed (Fla.)

January 17, 2012 By

Justice for one prolife advocate gives hope to others being persecuted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Susan Pine was accused of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. A Florida judge dismissed all charges against her pointing out that the government had a complete lack of evidence to prove all three elements required under the FACE claim. The court went so far as to question whether the charges brought by the DOJ were the product of a collaboration between the government and the abortion clinic to violate Ms. Pine’s free speech rights rather than an effort to protect those purportedly injured by Ms. Pine’s actions. In light of the court’s comments in the Pine case, one has to wonder what the motivation is behind other FACE prosecutions like Mr. Retta, Mr. Hamilton, and Ms. Parente.

Filed Under: Freedom Of Access To Clinics, In The Public Square

Pro-Abortion Street Banners Called Out by Life Legal Defense Foundation as Illegal

January 11, 2012 By

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 10, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — It goes without saying that “politics happen” — but they should not happen on the taxpayer dime on lampposts along Market Street in San Francisco. The Life Legal Defense Foundation has challenged the City of San Francisco with a blatant violation of its own city code. This month, inflammatory political statements promoting a Ms. Magazine-initiated pro-abortion campaign now waft over foot and auto traffic, as this municipal local marketing tool is abused, allowing feminist rhetoric to take the place intended for promotion of farmers’ markets and neighborhood festivals.

The city regularly authorizes the display of banners to promote “city-sponsored,” “city-funded,” or “city-wide” events or “series of related events of interest to a significant portion of the residents of San Francisco and/or tourists.” San Francisco does allow some non-event banners to be posted on city-owned utility poles, but they are restricted to “city convention facility banners” and “city neighborhood banners.” A typical non-event banner would be the non-controversial San Francisco State University banners urging San Franciscans to “Support Public Higher Education: The Future Depends On It.”

The offending banners, issued by the Trust Women Silver Ribbon Campaign, bear blatantly political statements, including “U.S. Out of My Uterus,” “Reproductive Rights are Human Rights,” and “San Francisco is Pro-Choice,” slogans which are clearly designed to provoke the ire of those who do not share the printed sentiments. The authors of the Silver Ribbon Month website reference a 2011 pro-abortion Ms. Magazine blog as the impetus behind the project, which is actually an event only in the virtual sense.

“The city minions who ‘approved’ these illegal banners might have thought that the public would ignore the challenge, but they are in error,” said Dana Cody, Executive Director, Life Legal Defense Foundation. “We also believe this puts a stick in the eye of pro-life advocates who will be marching down Market Street on January 21 for the annual Walk for Life.”

A copy of the letter from the Life Legal Defense Foundation attorneys to San Francisco officials is available here.

See photos of the banners here.

Read here to view LLDF’s letter to the Permit Manager of the San Francisco Department of Public Works reiterating that the permit for banners for the “Trust Women Silver Banner Campaign” was issued in violation of the city code. LLDF’s Legal Director, Catherine Short, again requests that the banners be removed.

Filed Under: In The Public Square

“Cash-for-Eggs” Program Raises Ethical Concerns

December 5, 2011 By

San Francisco, Calif.: $10,000 cash. That’s what a young woman in New York could walk away with after donating her eggs for stem cell research purposes. Egg donation compensation in New York was originally limited to donations for “assisted reproduction” programs, like in vitro fertilization. But in 2009, the Empire State Stem Cell Board loosened restrictions to include compensation for women who donated their eggs for scientific research.

But this type of compensation only adds to the growing concern about the ethical implications of cash-for-eggs programs. Many fear that current programs which seek egg donations for reproductive purposes may lead to the exploitation of young women, while turning human eggs into a marketable commodity. Eggsploitation, a new documentary produced by the Center for Bioethics and Culture, highlights the shocking stories of three egg donors whose experiences turned into nightmares. “Their disturbing testimonies about their experience with egg donation are a wake-up call to a highly unregulated, multi-billion-dollar industry that is jeopardizing young women’s health at the expense of fulfilling another’s desire to have a baby,” said an initial press release about the film.

In the meantime, concerns about cash-for-eggs programs are reflected in restrictions that currently exist in ten states. The limits, however, of those restrictions are varied. According to the Bioethics Defense Fund, only one state, Louisiana, prohibits any type of compensation for egg donors, for either reproductive or research purposes. Four states (Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) prohibit the sale of eggs derived from human fetuses. California is among five states (others are Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maryland) that specifically regulate egg donation programs for scientific research. California prohibits researchers funded by the state stem cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), from using eggs whose donors have received a profit from their donation.

Restrictions like California’s have presented roadblocks to cloning for research purposes (“therapeutic” cloning). At a workshop CIRM co-sponsored in June of 2010, stem cell researchers met to discuss the current state of somatic cellular nuclear transfer (SCNT), a technique that clones an embryo in order to produce stem cells. Researchers are presently attempting to use SCNT with human embryos. The trouble is that in order for SCNT to work, researchers need human oocytes (eggs). Available eggs are in short supply, in part because of the prohibitions on the payment of additional compensation for egg donations.

But cash-for-eggs regulations haven’t stopped stem cell researchers from searching for ways around these legal roadblocks to obtain the research “material” that they need. At the SCNT workshop, alternatives to egg donation programs were introduced. One method, being used in the United Kingdom, is “egg sharing,” where women seeking infertility treatment through IVF receive a discount on the treatment if they donate some of their “excess” eggs for research. Another potential source of human eggs are “oocyte precursors” taken from fetal ovarian tissue. And in a project currently being funded by CIRM, dormant eggs in ovarian fragments are being recovered from patients with benign ovarian tumors.

LLDF supporters can expect that the bioethical battlegrounds will only continue to multiply as techniques like SCNT are pursued in the medical research world. As seen in the case of cash-for-eggs program restrictions, one set of regulations may only drive the stem cell industry to find other ways to obtain what they want. LLDF encourages its supporters to be vigilant, and to keep themselves informed about the current status of the controversies in the bioethical world. To learn more about the hazards of cash-for-eggs programs, supporters can start by visiting the Eggsploitation movie website at www.eggsploitation.com

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Uncategorized

Complaint Leads to AG Lawsuit – Two Clinics Closed

November 21, 2011 By

A former LLDF client made a grisly discovery when, early last year, he pulled a trash bag from a common dumpster used by an abortion clinic in Lansing, Michigan. Chris Veneklase, a friend and client of LLDF in the past, was shocked to discover that a red biohazard bag within the trash bag contained the remains of 17 aborted children in med-sacs, along with the date and name of their mother on each individual zip locked bag. This discovery was the first link in a chain of events leading to the closing of two abortion clinics.

Chris was advised to contact Monica Miller of Citizens for a Pro-life Society (CPLS), a local pro-life leader who had experience in documenting and bringing charges against clinics with similar practices. Chris and Monica documented their findings while gathering more evidence from this clinic and another associated clinic in Saginaw. They alerted Ed Rivet of RTLM (Right to Life of Michigan), and then jointly met with the proper local authorities and political representatives in order to file a formal complaint against the abortion clinic, Health Care for Women, and its sister abortion clinic, WomansChoice of Saginaw. From that point in April 2010, it was a long wait with various twists and turns as the local sheriff, prosecutor, and state attorney general’s office coordinated their own investigation to determine the validity of the complaint.

Based on their own investigations and the evidence gathered by detectives, they determined that no law existed to prevent the disposal of aborted babies in the common trash as long as the bodies were treated with strong chemicals such as formaldehyde. However, the AG’s investigation determined that the company running the abortion mill never had legal permission to do so as it had never been incorporated as a professional corporation nor had it been licensed to offer or perform medical services. Moreover, the owner of the clinic had been notified of this by the State of Michigan a decade earlier, in January 2000. The AG’s office also discovered the improper disposal of medical records and possible violations of other State statutes.

As a result, on November 7, 2011, Michigan State Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit against the corporations that run both clinics, Health Care Clinic, Inc. and Women’s Choice Clinic, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in the 56th Circuit County Court in Eaton Rapids, Mich. On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, the Honorable Judge Calvin E. Osterhaven signed a TRO temporarily closing both clinics, and on November 21 paperwork was filed dissolving the corporation running these abortions clinics and closing them down. Furthermore, those on the board of the now dissolved corporation are forbidden to reincorporate a business that would provide similar services.

“Thanks to the invaluable help of Monica, (CPLC), Ed Rivet (Right to Life Michigan), Senator Rick Jones and those involved with the Attorney General’s investigation, we can all be thankful today that these killing centers have closed their doors,” said Chris.

Filed Under: In The Public Square
« Older Posts