Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 18, 2024, 06:51:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
286890 Posts in 27569 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  Theology
| |-+  Prophecy - Current Events (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  Abortion news
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Abortion news  (Read 18075 times)
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #90 on: August 11, 2006, 10:10:35 AM »

Abortion clinic won't be sanctioned for frivolous suit
'Instead of suing the picketers, they sued their attorneys'

A state appeals court Wednesday declined to sanction an Englewood abortion clinic that was accused of filing a frivolous lawsuit against an antiabortion group.

Metropolitan Medical Associates -- known for dramatic protests it attracted in the 1990s -- sued the Legal Center for Defense of Life two years ago, saying the group organized pickets who intimidated patients and blocked public access to the clinic.

The clinic also sued the city for not enforcing ordinances against obstructive sidewalk activities, and sought a protest-free buffer zone around the Engle Street facility.

A state Superior Court judge in Hackensack dismissed the lawsuit, saying the claim should have been made in federal court, where the clinic was tangled for years in litigation with protesters represented by the Morristown-based center.

The center, a law firm of volunteer lawyers representing clients in abortion, euthanasia and other right-to-life cases, then filed a complaint alleging that the clinic's lawsuit was frivolous and filed in bad faith, costing the center nearly $20,000 in legal fees.

Now-retired Superior Court Judge Gerald C. Escala dismissed the center's claim, but an appellate panel reversed the decision, saying the judge did not articulate the reasons for the dismissal. Escala then issued a procedural explanation, which the center challenged on a second appeal.

The three-judge appellate panel ruled Wednesday that the judge applied proper procedural rules in dismissing the center's claim. Steering clear of any precedent-setting, the four-page opinion did not address the issue of whether the clinic's lawsuit was frivolous.

"It seems the judges are going out of their way to avoid saying that," said Richard Collier, president of the center. "They are coming up with all sorts of reasons to avoid a hot issue."

Collier called the clinic's lawsuit clearly frivolous.

"Instead of suing the picketers, they sued their attorneys," he said. "That's like suing the attorney for an insurance company after you get in a car accident."

That's not even a close comparison, said Lawrence Kleiner, the attorney for the clinic.

Despite the center's denial, there is evidence that the firm went beyond representing demonstrators in court, he said. "The organization instructed picketers how to picket more effectively," he said.

The battle between the clinic and the center dates back to the mid-1990s, when the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office charged several demonstrators, some of whom entered the clinic and chained themselves. The charges were dismissed after a Superior Court judge in Hackensack struck down a 1974 consent order that required protesters to remain across the street from the clinic.

The protesters, who were represented by the legal center, were then allowed to picket outside the clinic as long as they didn't block the entrance.

The two clashed again when the federal government sued 29 antiabortion protestors in 1997, seeking a 60-foot buffer zone around the clinic. Again represented by the legal center, the demonstrators invoked their right to free speech.

A federal judge did not approve the buffer zone but prohibited protesters from blocking access to the clinic.

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #91 on: August 11, 2006, 12:52:09 PM »

Abortion Advocates File Supreme Court Brief in Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Case

Leading abortion advocates, including the ACLU and a trade group for abortion businesses, filed a legal brief with the Supreme Court Friday asking it to reject the Congressional ban on partial-birth abortions. They said the gruesome abortion procedure, opposed by as many as 80 percent of Americans, should stay legal.

The ACLU and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) said the court should uphold appeals court rulings striking down the ban because they claim partial-birth abortions are necessary to protect women's health.

That's despite numerous doctors and medical groups have said the three-day long abortion procedure is never medically necessary.

Vicki Saporta, NAF president and CEO, claimed the partial-birth abortion ban "prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women’s health."

“We hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this ban poses to women’s health and allow doctors to continue to make appropriate medical decisions," she said in a statement LifeNews.com obtained.

However, when the American Medical Association convened to study the issue of partial-birth abortions, an expert panel “could not find ‘any’ identified circumstance” where partial-birth abortion “was ‘the only appropriate alternative’” to preserve the health of the mother."

In its brief defending the partial-birth abortion ban, the Justice Department also points to Congressional findings indicating that partial-birth abortions may pose health risks for women. Such risks include cervical incompetence, trauma to the uterus, and lacerations or hemorrhaging.

“Decisions involving pregnancy and medical care are among the most serious a woman will make in her life,” Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said about the brief. “These are personal decisions for a woman, her family, and her doctor to make and such decisions should not be mandated by politicians.”

After President Bush signed the partial-birth abortion ban, pro-abortion groups launched three lawsuits against it and federal appeals courts in Nebraska, New York and California declared the ban unconstitutional.

Pro-life groups are hopeful the Supreme Court would take a new position on partial-birth abortion thanks to new Justice Samuel Alito, who replaces Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in the 2000 case saying that a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion was unconstitutional because it lacked a health exception.

The high court is expected to hold hearings this fall and announce a decision in early 2007.

The California case is Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the high court will likely combine the cases into one. The Nebraska case is Gonzales v. Carhart.


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: August 12, 2006, 02:04:23 AM »

Teens Cope With Unwanted Pregnancies Better Than Abortions, Study Shows

A new study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence refutes a long-standing contention that teenagers are better able to handle an abortion than dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. The study finds that adolescent girls who have an abortion are five times more likely to seek help for psychological and emotional problems than those who keep their baby.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a research psychologist at Bowling Green State University, led the study.

Coleman also found that teenagers who have abortions instead of carrying the pregnancy to term were also over three times more likely to report subsequent trouble sleeping, and nine times more likely to report subsequent marijuana use.

To factor out other reasons that may have prompted the need for psychological help, sleep difficulties or drug use, Coleman examined 17 other variables such as prior mental health history and family factors.

That helped narrow down the study to make sure it focused only on the results after the abortion or birth decision.

Data for the study came from a federally-funded longitudinal study of adolescents from throughout the U.S. who participated in two series of interviews in 1995 and 1996.

About 76 percent of girls who had abortions and 80 percent of girls who gave birth were between the ages of 15 and 19 during the survey and the rest were younger teenagers.

Previous studies have found that younger abortion patients may be more likely to experience difficulties coping after abortion compared to older women. That may be because they are more likely to be pressured into unwanted abortions or to undergo abortions later in the pregnancy, leading to more physical and emotional risk.

A 2004 survey of American and Russian women published in the Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American women reported that they felt pressured into abortion.

Coleman said that for teens, the pressure probably comes from the fact that they are more likely to be perceived as unready to be parents and that abortion is often seen by those around them as the best solution.

"When women feel forced into abortion by others or by life circumstances, negative post-abortion outcomes become more common," she wrote. "Adolescents are generally much less prepared to assume the responsibility of parenthood and are logically the recipients of pressure to abort."

Coleman pointed out that, while having a child as a teen may be problematic, "the risks of terminating seem to be even more pronounced."

"The scientific evidence is now strong and compelling," Coleman said. "Abortion poses more risks to women than giving birth."

In a statement LifeNews.com obtained, Dr. David Reardon, the director of the Elliot Institute, said that Coleman's study was particularly important because it examines pregnancy "wantedness."

"Over the last six years, numerous studies have conclusively linked higher rates of mental illness and behavioral problems associated with abortion compared to childbirth," Reardon, who has contributed to more than a dozen studies examining psychological outcomes after abortion, said.

"But abortion advocates have generally dismissed these findings, insisting that while women who abort may fare worse than women who give birth to planned children, they may fare better than the important subgroup of women who carry unintended pregnancies to term," Reardon explained. "Coleman's study addresses this argument and shows that the facts don't support abortion advocates' speculations."

The results of the study are also important because about one-fourth of the abortions that take place annually in the United States are done on teenagers, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a Planned Parenthood affiliate.

As such, the study shows that teenagers should be advised to not have an abortion in order to avoid both short and long-term emotional and psychological complications.

Source: Priscilla K. Coleman, "Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy During Adolescence Through Abortion Versus Childbirth: Individual and Family Predictors and Psychological Consequences," Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2006).

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #93 on: August 18, 2006, 06:04:25 PM »

6 abortion clinics
forced to close 
Florida, Alabama health boards cite
illegal late procedure, drug violations

Half-dozen abortion clinics shut down
Claims include 3rd-trimester procedure, rule, drug violations

Half a dozen abortion clinics in Florida and Alabama have had their doors locked after state health boards became concerned by alleged rule and drug violations, including claims of an illegal late-term procedure in Florida.

The Florida Department of Health issued a notice confirming that there was an emergency suspension of the license for James Scott Pendergraft, who runs clinics in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, for allegedly doing an abortion in the third trimester.

"Temporarily, women are a little bit safer," Linda Bell, with Florida Right to Life, told WorldNetDaily.

And in Alabama, the state Board of Health suspended the license for Reproductive Health Services of Montgomery because the business lacked a physician with admitting privileges at a local acute care hospital.

It's been a difficult August for the abortion industry, with an investigation into what appears to have been a homicide at an abortion clinic in Hialeah, Fla., going on, and the pro-life group Operation Rescue taking possession of a Wichita, Kan., building that for decades was used as an abortion business.

Now come the latest complaints over the dangers of abortion businesses.

In Florida, Bell said Pendergraft is known well to those in the pro-life movement.

"He obviously has performed two late-term abortions without getting a second doctor to sign off or doing them in the hospital," Bell said. "Sadly enough, this is nothing unusual. This is an industry that is based on pure finance. It is big, big money. The later the abortion, the more money the abortionist makes."

She said the state "thankfully" is doing its job to protect the women of Florida.

John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, had a similar response to the situation in his state.

"The action taken today confirms that the abortion industry is only interested in profits, and not the healthcare of women before or after an abortion. In fact, women leave abortion facilities all over this state and report the buildings look as if they are furnished from a second hand store and resemble a third world medical facility," he said.

He told WND that a hearing on the admitting privilege issue is scheduled Sept. 18, when health officials will ask the clinic to defend its actions regarding the regulation.

There, the state order said the abortion clinic did not have any physician with admitting privileges or any contractual arrangement for those services, despite a state requirement for that.

"The failure … is not only a violation of State rules, but also constitutes conduct or practices detrimental to the welfare of the patients of RHS, and constitutes a danger to public health and welfare," the state said.

Giles said his group and others have been meeting regularly with the health department about improving standards, increasing inspections and enforcing regulations.

He also said the Summit Clinic, in Birmingham, had been closed several weeks ago after a nurse allegedly administered the abortion drug RU-486.

In the Florida case, a report said health officials alleged Pendergraft performed an abortion on a woman seven months pregnant in 2005. The state also alleged he gave her drugs without the proper license.

In a statement, Pendergraft said the procedure was medically necessary and he would fight the state decision, according to a report on WESH2 News.

The report said state investigators concluded the emergency suspension was needed because, "Dr. Pendergraft demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the laws of the state of Florida and a willingness to endanger the lives and health of pregnant patients by performing third-trimester abortions."

In Florida, those abortions only are legal within a hospital.

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #94 on: August 21, 2006, 08:36:03 PM »

Bush okays over-the-counter Plan B 
Abortion opponents say approval contradicts president's pro-life stance

President Bush Approves Over the Counter Early Abortion Pill, Pro-Life Base Decries Move

WASHINGTON, August 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - For his pro-life supporter base, President George W. Bush stepped into one of the biggest political landmines of his Presidential career today with his approval of over the counter status for the abortion-causing morning after pill Plan B.

A press release by Human Life International underscored the seriousness of the move as it was titled, "President Bush Files for Divorce with Catholic Base."  Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International commented, "President Bush's implied support for the abortion-causing drug Plan B is completely inconsistent with his recent veto of the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) funding bill. What the president apparently fails to realize is that Plan B kills the same innocent unborn children that the ESCR process does."

At a White House press conference this morning, the President was asked by Bill Sammon a reporter from the Washington Examiner about Plan B and his new FDA commissioner who supports its over the counter status.  "Mr. President, some pro-life groups are worried that your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve over the counter sales of Plan B, a pill that, they say, essentially can cause early-term abortions," said the reporter.  "Do you stand by this choice, and how do you feel about Plan B in general?"

The President replied, "I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors, is what I believe. And I support Andy's decision."

Andy, as the President referred to him, is the new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach.  Pro-life groups last week called for von Eschenbach's resignation over his deal with a drug company to make a high-dose of a drug (Plan B, a morning-after pill) available without a prescription to women 18 year of age and older.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) blasted the decision noting that it is ludicrous to allow Plan B without medical supervision when a low-dose of the same drug (birth control pills) requires medical oversight to protect women from serious health complications.

"It is deplorable that the head of the FDA would put his career ambitions and a drug company's interests above women's health," said Wendy Wright, CWA's President. "CWA provided legal and regulatory evidence that the FDA does not have the authority to do what it is proposing and medical evidence that any dose of the drug requires medical oversight to protect women's health. The drug is known to cause serious complications such as blood clots and stroke."

Rev. Euteneuer added, "The president must demonstrate a consistent respect for the sanctity of all human life or he risks provoking a great divorce with the conservative Catholics that compromise a large part of his support base. Human beings in the embryonic stage of development deserve equal protection under the law and the president's position falls far short of that mark."

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2006, 05:25:24 PM »

Plan B backers
fight age limit
Battle shifts to making abortion drug
available without prescription to teens

The maker of the morning after pill, along with women's groups and lawmakers, plans to press its success a step further, seeking to make the controversial abortion drug available without prescription to girls 17 and under.

After a three-year battle, the Food and Drug Administration announced an easing of restrictions yesterday, making it possible for anyone 18 and older to pick up the drug over-the-counter.

"The battleground now shifts to availability for women under 18, and that is likely to prove very contentious since it is tied to strongly held beliefs about abstinence education and parental rights," said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, according to MSNBC.

Advocates of making the drug available to youths argue any restrictions might hinder efforts to curb the estimated 3 million unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. each year.

Abortion provider Planned Parenthood said it's "troubled by the scientifically baseless restriction imposed on teenagers."

"The U.S. has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the Western world," said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. "Anything that makes it harder for teenagers to avoid unintended pregnancy is bad medicine and bad public policy."

The backers of the drug point to studies showing Plan B cuts the chances of pregnancy by 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of gotcha146.

Opponents, including the Family Research Council, fear easy accessibility will promote promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases, along with use by sexual predators.

Some opponents insist the age restriction won't work anyway.

"If the FDA thinks that enacting an age restriction will work, or that the drug company will enforce it ... then they are living in a dream world," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

The FDA is requiring the drug's manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., to use various methods, including anonymous shoppers, to help ensure pharmacists enforce the age restriction.

The White House announced its support for the FDA's move this week.

"The FDA made clear that it will insist on stringent conditions and restrictions on access to reduce both health risks and opportunities for abuse, especially to protect minors," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #96 on: September 23, 2006, 03:47:30 AM »

Abortion Clinic Sued for Posing as a Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Center

WHITE PLAINS, NY  Yesterday, Expectant Mother Care-EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers filed suit against "Dr. Emily's" abortion clinic with sites in the Bronx and downtown Brooklyn citing evidence of deceptive advertising practices.

"EMC is taking the lead in countering a truly deceptive abortion advertiser which pretends to be an alternative to abortion agency advertising under pro-life ad categories in New York City yellow pages," said Chris Slattery, founder and president of EMC, operator of 15 pro-life crisis pregnancy counseling centers and medical clinics in New York City and suburbs.

"To aggressively compete against pro-life centers, we're seen three NY abortion clinics pose as alternative centers to lure confused women who might be seeking help and support, into abortion clinics to possibly undergo abortions they may not want," Slattery added.

"In a year when unfounded charges of deceptive advertising are flying against pro-life alternative to abortion groups from abortion industry advocates like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the National Abortion Federation, we filed a sixteen-count complaint supported by affidavits alleging deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of an abortion clinic's business in violation of N.Y. General Business Law 349," Slattery said.

EMC is seeking an order from the New York Satte Supreme Court in Westchester County preliminarily enjoining the defendant from submitting any "Abortion Alternatives" advertising and compelling it to withdraw any such advertising it may already have submitted.  EMC also seeks, at the conclusion of the case, a permanent injunction and the damages that are statutorily authorized.

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 61034

One Nation Under God

View Profile
« Reply #97 on: September 24, 2006, 09:06:33 PM »


Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs

Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media