Federal Judge Orders Fort Myers, Florida, to Stop Enforcing Permit Ordinance Targeting Pro-Life Advocates
Wed, Dec 22, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — As a result of a lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, a federal district court judge has ordered the City of Fort Meyers, Florida, to stop enforcing a city permit ordinance that threatened pro-life sidewalk counselors with arrest and fines every time they appeared on the sidewalks in front of the city’s only abortion facility, the Fort Myers Women’s Health Clinic.

Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “We are pleased that our clients and other pro-life advocates will no longer have their First Amendment rights violated in Fort Myers. They are now free to pray and pass out literature without unconstitutional restriction as they try to save the lives of unborn children.”

The City required pro-life advocates to obtain a permit under the City’s parade ordinance before more than two of them could engage in First Amendment activity and prohibited them from approaching people and distributing informational literature under a separate City policy. As a result, if two sidewalk counselors appeared in front of the abortion facility and then were joined by an unexpected third pro-lifer, all three were subject to arrest and fines. Because of this continuous threat of arrest, some pro-life counselors had abandoned their sidewalk counseling in front of the Fort Myers Women’s Health Clinic.

The Law Center filed the lawsuit in early November on behalf Judith Minahan, Edward and Marilyn Melone, and John Vetter, all of whom are Christians motivated by their faith to expose the evils of abortion. They sought to pray on the public sidewalk outside the Fort Myers Women’s Health Center and counsel expectant mothers in a non-confrontational manner to find alternatives to abortion.

The lawsuit claimed that enforcement of the ordinance and policy violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their freedom of speech, and sought $1.00 in nominal damages for each of the plaintiffs and the repayment of the $5.00 permit fees they were required to pay over the years as well as the Law Center’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Federal District Judge Steele ordered the City of Fort Myers to stop enforcing its permit ordinance and its policy prohibiting the distribution of literature, to pay $124 to the Law Center’s clients, and to pay the Law Center $25,889.20 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Woman Wins 5-Year Legal Battle To See Her Court File Involving Her Abortion Request When She Was a Minor
Tue, Nov 30, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI – When 15 years old and suffering from a mental illness that required her to take prescribed medication, FG found she was pregnant. Instead of telling either one of her parents, she went to a Washtenaw County Probate Court Judge for a judicial bypass to get an abortion without informing or getting her parents’ permission.

In February 2000, a few years after her abortion, FG, through the Thomas More Law Center, requested to see her court file. She wanted to learn whether the probate court had been informed about her mental condition, to learn whether she actually agreed to the judicial bypass and to the abortion, and to see whether any of her rights had been violated. Because of her medical condition, FG had only a vague memory of what had taken place during the probate court proceeding. Nevertheless, a Washtenaw County Probate Judge denied her request.

After a series of appeals lasting 5 years, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled last week that FG had a right to see her file. In a November 23, 2004 opinion written by Judge Thomas Fitzgerald, and joined by Judge Joel Hoekstra, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. Judge Jessica Cooper dissented.

Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “Not only were we able to obtain the proper relief for our client, but we have established legal principles that will guide courts when ruling on requests by women who want access to their own court files that deal with the judicial bypass proceedings.”

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “Most parents don’t realize that a court in a secret hearing can authorize an abortion for a minor without the knowledge, input, or consent of her parents. Until the ruling in this case, court bypass proceedings were even kept secret from the girl who went through the proceedings.”

Fort Myers, Florida, Sued For Restricting Pro-Life Speech of Christian Sidewalk Counselors
Wed, Nov 10, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Fort Myers, Florida, and several of its officials for policies and practices curtailing the free speech rights of pro-life sidewalk counselors to pray and handout pro-life informational literature.

The Law Center filed suit on behalf of Judith Minahan, Edward and Marilyn Melone, and John Vetter, all of whom are Christians motivated by their faith to expose the evils of abortion. They seek to pray on the public sidewalk outside a Fort Myers abortion clinic and counsel expectant mothers in a non-confrontational manner to find alternatives to abortion.

The City of Fort Myers and its officials, however, require pro-life advocates to obtain a permit before more than two of them may engage in such activity. They are also prohibited from approaching people and distributing informational literature. As a result, if three pro-life advocates pray on the public sidewalk without a permit and hand out literature, they are subject to arrest.

According to Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, “Our clients simply want to peacefully pray and present a pro-life message on a public sidewalk without fear of arrest. We are seeking relief from the federal court to allow them and other pro-life advocates to do so freely without being subject to further violations of their constitutional rights.”

The Law Center has requested the federal court grant immediate relief to its clients so that they may engage in peaceful First Amendment activities on the public sidewalks of Fort Myers without being subjected to unconstitutional restrictions and threats of arrest.

Kentucky Supreme Court Unleashes Power of the State to Kill its Own Citizens
Wed, Sep 1, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Kentucky Supreme Court issued a stunning decision on August 26th granting legal authority to the state of Kentucky to end the life of a totally innocent ward of the state. The case involved a mildly retarded black male, Matthew Woods, who was placed on a ventilator after suffering cardiac arrest at the age of 54. The state requested permission to remove his life support, contrary to the wishes of Woods’ guardian ad litem.

Although Woods died of natural causes during the litigation process, the Court agreed to rule on the legality of the state’s request because of the legal questions involved. Prior to his natural death, Woods had never expressed whether he wanted life-supporting measures removed.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This decision is another step down the slippery slope toward a culture of death where the government decides which lives are worthy to be lived. Kentucky should protect the welfare and rights of all of its citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable. The state Supreme Court has now declared that the lives of some of its citizens are not worthy of protection.”

The Thomas More Law Center and cooperating attorney Robert Cetrulo, submitted an amicus brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court, urging the Court to apply Kentucky’s guardianship for disabled persons statute, which would prohibit the state from authorizing the removal of a ward’s life support without his consent.

A majority of the Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed with the Law Center’s position and determined that the “Kentucky Living Will Directive Act” constitutionally permits the Commonwealth to authorize the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from an incompetent ward of the state without any evidence of the ward’s desires regarding such treatment.

Two justices of the Court however agreed with the position of the Thomas More Law Center. Justice Wintersheimer, joined by Justice Stumbo, strongly dissented from the majority’s decision: “It is deeply disappointing that this Court would decide to allow an agency of this State to end the life of a totally innocent ward of that very same State. It is even more shameful to realize that the State would seek to terminate the innocent human life of a person entrusted to its care and protection.”

Justice Wintersheimer warned, “Today, this case involves a mentally deficient ward of the State. Who knows whom it will involve in the future? Only by making the mistaken assumption that it could never happen, the power of the State has been unleashed to kill its own citizens.”

Woods was a mildly retarded black male with an I.Q. of 71 and with the intellectual capacity of an 8 to 10 year old child. When he was 54, he suffered a cardiac arrest, fell into a permanently unconscious state, and was placed on a mechanical ventilator. About 3 weeks later, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as his limited guardian, requested permission to authorize the removal of his life support. Woods’s guardian ad litem challenged the request. Based on the Kentucky Living Will Directive Act, the Kentucky District Court, Circuit Court, and Court of Appeals approved the request.

Virginia School Backs Down: Allows Student To Wear Clothing Expressing Her Pro-Life Views
Thu, Jun 10, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Osbourn Park High School, a public school in Manassas, Virginia, backed down from its policy prohibiting students from wearing pro-life clothing after threat of a lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center.

On April 16, 2004, Heather Holbrook, a senior, was told by her assistant principal that she could no longer wear her sweatshirt to school. The sweatshirt displayed the message: “Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.”

The assistant principal’s reason for prohibiting the clothing kept on changing. First, the assistant principal claimed the shirt displayed a message the school did not want to promote. Later, when questioned by Heather’s mother, the assistant principal claimed the shirt expressed a political message, the same as a Confederate flag. Finally in a letter to Heather’s family, the assistant principal claimed Heather’s pro-life message was “offensive.”

The Holbrook family then contacted the Thomas More Law Center, which does not charge for its legal services. In a letter sent last week to school officials, the Law Center explained that Heather has a First Amendment right to express herself on campus, even on such controversial subjects as abortion, and requested immediate written assurance that Heather’s First Amendment rights would be restored. School officials were warned that if they continued to silence Heather, the Holbrook family had the right to file a federal lawsuit to restore Heather’s free speech rights.

Two days later, the school district provided written assurance that Heather would be permitted to wear her pro-life sweatshirt to school.

After hearing the news, Heather commented, “I am happy that I can once again express my pro-life views in school. God’s message will not be silenced, and to God be the glory.”

According to Edward L. White III, Associate Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, “We handle these cases across the country at no charge because we believe in the pro-life messages advanced by these students, and we will not tolerate the silencing of those messages.”

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “This is another example of a school attempting to silence a student’s pro-life message. Students are not required to express only those messages that the school approves. Heather and her family should be applauded for having the courage to stand up to the school.”

The S.D. Abortion Bill Reveals the Future of the Pro-Life Movement
Tue, May 25, 2004

The following editorial was written by Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School. The editorial was published in The Wanderer newspaper on April 29, 2004.

Recent events in South Dakota provide further empirical evidence that the National Right to Life Committee has become, in net effect, a barnacle on the pro-life ship of state.

On February 10, 2004, the South Dakota House of Representatives passed HB 1191 which provided: “The legislature finds that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm…

“The guarantee of due process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings and …there is no justification for the taking of a guiltless human life by the state or by any person…

“Any treatment, or administration of any drug to a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being is a felony.”

HB 1191 was consistent with Catholic teaching on abortion, including the principle of the double effect. It provided: “Any licensed physician who provides health care to a pregnant woman shall, in all cases, make every effort to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child. Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.”

HB 1191 was sponsored by pro-life Rep. Matt McCaulley, assisted by the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. Richard Thompson, president of the Law Center, said: “Immediately after the bill was announced, National Right to Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time…State Sen. Jay Duenwald, an officer in both the state and National Right to Life organizations, led behind-the-scenes opposition when the bill reached the [Senate]. Together with pro-abortion senators, Duenwald’s lobbying efforts succeeded in removing the ban and replacing it with an informed consent measure, something already covered by South Dakota law. “However, the ban was reinserted on the Senate floor through a compromise measure that created an exception for the life of the mother and if there a was a serious risk if substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

That watered-down and defective substitute was vetoed by Gov. Mike Rounds who insisted on technical changes in style and form. The bill failed to pass over his veto. “There is something horribly wrong,” said Rep. McCaulley, “when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue.” NRLC, as an organization, has rarely met a compromise it didn’t like. In this case the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no-compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives.

The essential holding of Roe v. Wade, is that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.” The court so ruled without deciding whether the unborn child is a living human being: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” In various cases since Roe, the court has declined to decide that question. Instead, the court has rested on the basic holding of Roe that, whether or not the unborn child is a human being, he is a nonperson for purposes of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court, however, has recognized in numerous situations “the authority of the state…to adopt in its own constitution individual liberties more expansive that those conferred by the federal Constitution” – Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980). A state therefore can expand, but not contract, the protection given to a constitutional right by the Supreme Court. HB 1191 affirmed, as a matter of South Dakota law, that unborn human beings are entitled to the protections of the South Dakota Bill of Rights. It provided to them greater protections under South Dakota law than are provided by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment. HB 1191 was not merely a restriction of the abortion right. It extended to the unborn the right to life which the South Dakota Bill of Rights guarantees, as a matter of state law, to human beings.

Contrary to the NRLC, HB 1191 was not a futile exercise. It was an affirmation not only of the rights of the unborn child under South Dakota law but also of the reserved power of the state of South Dakota to define, as a matter of state law, the meaning and scope of the South Dakota Bill of Rights. HB 1191, as passed by the House, would have served an educational and legal purpose. It is important to present repeatedly to the Supreme Court laws which affirm the conviction of the American people that Roe v. Wade is totally wrong and that all human beings, including the unborn, are entitled to the protection of the law.

With respect to Roe v. Wade, it makes sense to adopt the approach taken by Abraham Lincoln on the Dred Scott case. That case similarly denied the personhood of innocent human beings – the slaves. In his Chicago debate with Stephen A. Douglas, on July 10, 1858, Lincoln said:

“If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of that Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should…. [W]e will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we mean to reverse it, and we meant to do it peaceably."

Richard Thompson summed up the lesson that can be learned from this episode: “It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is a betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro-life cause.”

The NRLC is too frequently an embarrassment to the pro-life cause. The Thomas More Center (734-827-2001; www.thomasmore.org) is a fighting force. Its lawyers, in addition to Dick Thompson, are Pat Gillen, Rob Muise, and Ed White.

The future of the pro-life movement belongs to warriors like these.

Pro-Life Leader's Blistering Attack on the National Right to Life Committee
Tue, May 25, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — A “barnacle on the pro-life ship of state,” “frequent embarrassment to the pro-life cause,” and an organization that “has rarely met a compromise it didn’t like,” were some of the words used to describe the National Right to Life Committee by Notre Dame Law Professor Emeritus and respected national pro-life leader, Charles E Rice.

Rice’s unflattering descriptions of NRLC were part of a recent commentary published by The Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly focusing on the behind the scenes efforts by NRLC to defeat South Dakota legislation intended to ban abortion and challenge the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. The legislation, HB 1191, was introduced earlier this year, falling one vote shy of passing after representatives of the National Right to Life Committee and its state affiliate advocated its defeat by arguing that the time is not right.

“Contrary to NRLC, HB 1191 was not futile exercise,” said Rice. The legislation “would have presented to the Supreme Court a two part question it has not yet resolved: Is the unborn child in fact a living human being? May a state so find as a matter of state law and extend to that human being the protections of its state constitution so as to protect that unborn person’s life to a greater extent than the protections afforded to it by the 14th Amendment?”

In his April 29th commentary, Rice explained, “HB 1191 was consistent with Catholic teaching on abortion, including the principle of double effect.” Rice noted however that immediately after the bill was announced, NRLC spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time.

The legislation, making abortion a crime with no exceptions, was passed by the South Dakota House of Representatives 54-14, only to be upended in a series of political maneuvers in the Senate by NRLC Board Member and South Dakota State Senator Jay Duenwald, who urged legislators to abandon the ban on abortion arguing that the time was not right to challenge Roe v. Wade.

Rice explains, “NRLC, as an organization has rarely met a compromise it did not like. In this case, the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives.”

In closing, Rice noted, “The NRLC is too frequently an embarrassment to the pro-life cause." “The Thomas More Law Center is a fighting force," continued Rice. “The future of the pro-life movement belongs to warriors like these.”

Students Take Pro-Life Message Into Public Schools With Legal Backing
Mon, Apr 26, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Marking the second annual “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day,” thousands of students across the country are preparing to bring the pro-life message to America’s public schools on Tuesday. In addition to the pro-life messages on their clothing, students will also bring the legal backing of the Thomas More Law Center. The Law Center has pledged to defend the free speech rights of these pro-life students from any attempt by school officials to force them to remove their t-shirts.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “Abortion advocates are losing their grip on the American public, and are turning increasingly to public schools to indoctrinate our children into accepting abortion. Pro-life students from across the country are standing up for the rights of the unborn, and are bringing this message to their schools. We are proud to defend these courageous pro-life students.”

Each year the Thomas More Law Center receives numerous calls from students across the country whose rights have been violated by public school officials. This past February a student at Denbigh High School in Newport News, Virginia was censored for his sweatshirt that read, “Abortion is Homicide” and on the back stated, “You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.” The student was prevented from wearing the shirt because, according to the Assistant Principal, it violated school policy prohibiting profane or obscene language.

The Law Center immediately sent a letter to the school demanding that the student be permitted to wear his pro-life sweatshirt, threatening a federal lawsuit if necessary. Within two days, attorneys for the school agreed that the student had a constitutional right to wear his pro-life sweatshirt.

The Law Center has defended students in similar cases in Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, New Hampshire, New York, and Maine.

“We anticipate that during this year’s National Pro-Life T-shirt Day that some school officials will again attempt to silence the pro-life messages of students. And again, we will assist these students and their families without charge,” continued Thompson.

The “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day” is a national event organized by the American Life League and its affiliate Rock for Life. Information and materials can be found at www.rockforlife.org.

Report Regarding NRLC Role in Defeat of South Dakota Legislative Effort to Ban Abortion and Challenge Roe v. Wade
Wed, Mar 31, 2004

TO: CONCERNED PRO-LIFERS

DATE: March 31, 2004

FROM: Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel, Thomas More Law Center

RE: REPORT REGARDING THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE’S ROLE IN THE DEFEAT OF SOUTH DAKOTA’S LEGISLATIVE EFFORT TO BAN ABORTION AND CHALLENGE ROE V. WADE
INTRODUCTION

Over the past week, the Thomas More Law Center has received numerous inquires questioning National Right to Life Committee’s (NRLC) role in the defeat of South Dakota’s House Bill 1191 (HB1191), designed to ban abortions, and described by major pro-abortion groups as “… the most sweeping anti-abortion state law enacted in our nation since before Roe v. Wade.” These calls of inquiry have related to a public statement from the Thomas More Law Center designed to inform the public about NRLC’s actions with respect to HB 1191.

All should know that HB 1191 caused a national alarm among pro-abortion groups. According to the March 2nd issue of the Argus Leader, Sondra Goldschein of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, speaking from her New York office, said that many states have attempted to limit abortion but none in the fashion of South Dakota: “I think we are just shocked by what the State Legislature is doing,” she says. “It’s the most extreme example I can think of, and it’s a real example.”

HB 1191 had the support of the Catholic Bishop whose Diocese covers the state capitol. It had the endorsement of nationally renowned pro-life constitutional scholars, Notre Dame law professors Charles Rice and Gerard Bradley. And it had the support of rank and file pro-lifers, many of whom braved a South Dakota snowstorm to demonstrate for the bill during the legislative sessions.

On March 22, 2004, we issued a public statement regarding HB 1191 because we believe that pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLC’s lobbying efforts aligned with those of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation. In our view, such conduct raises important questions about NRLC’s claim to represent the interests of the unborn.

In response to our public statement, NRLC issued a two-page form letter, which confirmed NRLC’s opposition to HB 1191 and defended its decision to oppose this legislative effort to outlaw abortions and directly challenge Roe v. Wade. It is necessary to provide this additional and more detailed statement because NRLC’s letter misstates the facts of this important matter.

ANSWER TO NRLC’S LETTER

The Time is Not Right

In its response, NRLC admits to speaking with one state senator whom they do not name. The unnamed state senator is Jay Duenwald, a board member of the NRLC Educational Trust Fund, and the leading opponent of the abortion ban legislation (HB 1191). Senator Duenwald actively lobbied pro-life legislators on behalf of NLRC and South Dakota Right to Life (SDRTL) to oppose the bill.

From the very beginning of this process, Senator Duenwald argued that HB1191 should be rejected because it was untimely. Senator Duenwald was quoted by Bob Mercer, reporter for the State Capitol Bureau as saying “It would be a good bill if the timing was right. The timing is just flat wrong.” Likewise, The Los Angeles Times, February 29, 2004 article, describing HB 1191 as the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortions reported “….[The] National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group says it’s too soon to attempt an all-out abortion ban.”

It has been 31 years and over 40,000,000 unborn babies killed, and NRLC says it is not the right time to directly challenge Roe v. Wade.

The Thomas More Law Center believes that this assertion concerning “untimeliness” is speculative and shortsighted. Nobody, including NRLC, can predict how the Court may rule, or who may be on the Court in the future. Indeed, a legal challenge in South Dakota would probably have taken several years to reach the highest court. Given the fact that changes in the make-up of the Supreme Court are widely anticipated, South Dakota’s timing might have been perfect. In contrast, the “wait and see” approach with regard to the make-up of the Supreme Court is simply unreasonable. What if changes in the Court are for the worse? What if a certain pro-life majority on the Supreme Court does not come about for another 31 years? Can we afford to wait?

NRLC’s claim that HB 1191 was untimely is fatuous for another reason: South Dakota’s effort was unique both in form and substance. The proposed legislation would have presented the Court with several very significant findings. These findings included the considerable advances in medical science which definitively establish that life begins at conception. In addition, the case would have presented the Court with unprecedented evidence concerning the harm to women caused by abortion, a stated basis for banning abortion that was supported by studies and world-class experts who had agreed to testify in support of the legislation. The extensive basis for the legislative findings may well have convinced some of the Justices that the ban on abortion was justified given the record of harm to women and children that has followed from its decision in Roe v. Wade. Thus, it is highly presumptuous for NRLC to conclude that the case was destined to lose.

More fundamentally, TMLC disagrees with NRLC’s defeatism with regard to the Supreme Court. We believe that efforts to challenge the Roe v. Wade decision should not be dismissed simply because some pro-life strategists believe the Court is not ready. The challenge to Roe posed by South Dakota HB 1191 would have forced the Court to again confront its lawless decision. The case would have thrust the abortion issue into the national spotlight, and would have created the public pressure and political momentum that any successful repeal of Roe will require.

Here it is instructive to consider the tactics of the homosexual interest groups. Recently, many homosexual activists argued that it was a mistake to bring a constitutional challenge to Texas laws barring homosexual sodomy because it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would reverse its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 decision which held that there was no constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. But we all know what happened in that case. Just last year, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law, overruling a decision it rendered just 17 years ago. Now homosexual activists are using that decision to press for homosexual marriage.

The lesson here is simple. Nobody can know with any real certainty the ideal time to challenge any given decision. Under those circumstances, NRLC should demonstrate humility and respect for the efforts of those who differ with their judgment concerning the right time to ban abortion and challenge the Roe v. Wade decision. In the spirit of unity, it should not take it upon itself to publicly oppose any effort it regards as untimely.

In another great human rights struggle Martin Luther King Jr. had to contend with the same argument opposing his direct action in Birmingham, Alabama. In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, here’s how he responded to the “wait” argument:

“Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was ‘well timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

And so what would be the response of the unborn child awaiting the fate of abortion to NRLC’s “Wait” argument?

Finally, it should be noted that NRLC’s effort to justify its opposition to HB 1191 based on “untimeliness” is inconsistent with its stance on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. NRLC supports the PBA ban, reasoning that it serves as a way to educate the country regarding the inhumanity of this method of abortion. But in Stenberg v. Carhart, decided in 2000, the Court rejected the first effort to ban this procedure.  The prohibition of partial birth abortions does not save one baby from abortion, but merely prevents doctors from using a particular abortion technique. Nevertheless, the Thomas More Law Center supports the PBA ban, and will defend it in court because it is the right thing to do regardless of the ultimate legal outcome.

Surely litigation concerning HB 1191 would likewise draw public attention to the continued evil of abortion, including the harm caused to women. Why does NLRC think such efforts would not have raised public awareness of the evils of abortion, including the harm to women caused by this terrible act? More importantly, why was NRLC unwilling to give HB 1191 the benefit of its doubts considering that it would certainly have stopped abortions in South Dakota unless and until ruled unconstitutional? NRLC needs to answer this question; it has not.

The “Health” Exception

NRLC and Senator Duenwald have also seized on an exception added to HB 1191 during the legislative process as another reason for their opposition to the bill. The National Catholic Register has reported Senator Duenwald’s claim that “the bill’s health exception is too subjective and provides too great a loophole.” Darla St. Martin, NRLC’s Associate Executive Director, made this same claim.

Such claims are disingenuous for two reasons. First, it was NRLC’s opposition to HB 1191 that caused a health exception to be added to the bill. Second, the health exception added to HB 1191 was narrow and meaningful.

This is how the health exception came to be included in HB 1191. On February 5, 2004, the SD House State Affairs Committee held a hearing on HB1191 for nearly 5 hours, eventually passing by a vote of 11-2, a sweeping ban on abortion with NO exceptions. In the days leading up to this hearing, South Dakota Senator Jay Duenwald, who serves on the Board of the NRLC Educational Trust Fund, was widely quoted opposing the legislation. The bill was then sent to the full House for a vote.

On February 10, 2004, the South Dakota House of Representatives held an emotional floor debate on HB 1191, voting down several efforts to amend the legislation with rape, incest, and various health exceptions, and eventually passed the “no exceptions” legislation 54-14. The bill left the House of Representatives with great momentum and was sent to a Senate committee for review. House bill sponsor Matt McCaulley confirmed that securing approval from the Senate would be more difficult, however he believed that enough votes were solidly committed to passing the legislation.

The Senate State Affairs Committee took up the abortion ban on February 21st. For several days prior to this hearing, Senator Jay Duenwald, using his reputation as a leading pro-life legislator and his high profile position with the National Right to Life Committee, actively lobbied fellow Senators to gut the legislation arguing again and again that the time was not right to pass such a law.

Duenwald’s efforts proved successful as Senate Committee members voted 5-4 to fundamentally alter the legislation. The result was a wholly new bill that did not prohibit any abortions, but simply required abortion doctors to properly inform women of the risks and options associated with the abortion procedure.

The new bill was attributed to Senator Duenwald, who actively lobbied and endorsed the replacement bill. On February 22, 2004, The Aberdeen News reported on Duenwald’s efforts to gut the abortion ban:

“An unusual coalition of five committee members came together to use that language to replace the proposed ban on abortion. They included at least two pro-choice senators and at least two-pro-life senators who think it’s the wrong time because of the court’s current membership.”

The Argus Leader published a report dated February 23, 2004 addressing the Senate State Affairs Committee removal of the sections that outlawed abortions in South Dakota. The paper reported: “Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven, was instrumental in drafting the new language.” And Rapid City Journal reported that Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, said “I’m extremely disappointed that somebody representing South Dakota Right to Life has taken a step this drastic to knock the wheels off HB 1191”.

Even so, the full Senate decided to abandon Duenwald’s newly crafted “compromise” legislation, and instead reinstated the original comprehensive ban on abortion. During the floor debate to reinstate the “no exceptions” version of the bill, NRLC’s representative once again spoke out against the legislation as ill timed, and joined pro-abortion Senators in voting against it. It was only then that the “substantial and irreversible bodily harm” exception was added, i.e. after the “no exceptions” position lost momentum due to NRLC’s opposition.

Two critically important points must be noted here. First, this exception was added after NRLC officials publicly opposed a “no exceptions” version of the bill. NRLC officials including its local representative, Senator Jay Duenwald, were quoted heavily in the press opposing the legislation, and lobbied the Senate State Affairs Committee members to toss out the “no exceptions” version passed by the South Dakota House of Representatives in favor of an informed consent measure. As Senator Lee Schoenbeck, the Senate sponsor of the legislation put it, the health exception was the result of "the divided efforts of the pro-life community.”

Second, and more fundamentally, the “health exception” actually included in the bill is not broad, vague, or subjective. Quite the contrary, the final version of the bill included a narrowly defined exception in the case of “any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of the pregnant woman.” Further, the bill continued to require that doctors “make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child.”

NRLC’s claim that this exception leaves everything to the subjective judgment of the abortionists, and Duenwald’s claim that “the bill’s health exception is too subjective and provides too great a loophole,” are untenable. The plain language of the exception calls for a medical diagnosis. That diagnoses must be based on appropriate medical tests and reported in the medical records. According to South Dakota law, falsifying a medical record regarding any phase of the medical treatment of a patient is unprofessional conduct that not only jeopardizes the doctor’s medical license, but also subjects him to possible criminal prosecution. Moreover, the hospital’s license may be revoked if it permits or aids and abets in the commission of an unlawful act, and abortion would have been unlawful if HB 1191 had been allowed to pass.

Further, NRLC’s argument proves too much. If the test of the effectiveness of any law criminalizing abortion is whether someone could lie to escape its provisions, then abortionists could avoid the proscriptions of virtually any ban on abortions by merely claiming that the death of the unborn child was caused by a spontaneous miscarriage. The fact remains that if a doctor is charged with violating this law, a trial will ensue in which evidence will be presented, including expert medical evidence regarding his medical diagnosis and procedures. It would be no different if a doctor were charged with murdering his patient by use of some other medical procedure.

The truth of the matter is this. NRLC publicly opposed a “no-exceptions” version of the bill, and it was NRLC’s opposition to the bill that made it necessary to add the health exception. While the addition of the exception was an outcome of the legislative process, the exception was narrow and drastically reduced the ability of abortionists to provide abortions based on the health of the mother. It was not a broad and subjective “health exception” such as NRLC implies and, therefore, did not justify abandoning a bill that still would have outlawed the vast majority of abortions and challenged Roe v. Wade. NRLC’s effort to justify its opposition to HB 1191 on this basis is untenable.

NRLC’s Concern About Fee Awards

NRLC also attempts to justify its opposition by arguing that if the legislation were ruled unconstitutional, legal fees would be paid to pro-abortion groups that challenge the law. This argument should give pause to all sincere pro-life Americans for two related reasons. Since when has NRLC cared more about money than unborn babies? And who made NRLC guardian of South Dakota’s tax dollars?

It is true that a successful challenge would result in the payment of legal fees. However, these fees would have been limited to reimbursing the successful challenger for their attorney’s fees. Thus, the recipient would have been a private law firm retained by Planned Parenthood or similar challenger. No award of fees would have gone to Planned Parenthood’s abortion business or resulted in more abortions.

Furthermore, the cost of a legal challenge was not lost on the South Dakota legislature. Much of the debate on the bill involved the question of whether South Dakota taxpayers were willing to fund a challenge to Roe v. Wade. South Dakota legislators, representing the wishes of their constituents, took the bold step of deciding that the challenge was worth the cost. It is the height of arrogance for NRLC to criticize the citizens of South Dakota for choosing to spend their dollars on a challenge to Roe v. Wade. Again one must ask: who made NRLC the guardian of South Dakota’s state finances?

In short, NRLC’s concern for the pennies per person that might have been lost as a result of this effort to save unborn babies rings hollow. We respectfully suggest that one of two things is true; either this is a mere makeweight argument, or NRLC is not the organization it claims to be. Each pro-life American will have to answer that question.

The Set Back For The Movement Argument

NRLC also attempts to justify its opposition to HB 1191 on the grounds that the legislation would inevitably be overturned and that this would prove a setback to the movement. The concern that challenging Roe might further entrench its holding raises a related question: how much more entrenched can abortion become? Here again, this argument does not jibe with NRLC’s support for the partial birth abortion acts. NRLC has supported such legislation. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down Nebraska’s partial birth abortion act, has arguably done more to entrench the holding of Roe v. Wade than any other case. Nevertheless defending Nebraska’s ban at the highest court was the right thing to do. For the same reasons, NRLC should have supported HB 1191.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion we wish to emphasize that we have issued this report concerning the activities of NRLC and SDRTL with respect to HB 1191 out of respect for the sincere convictions and goodwill of pro-life Americans. The events recounted in this letter can be substantiated by press accounts and the testimony of those who participated in the legislative process. For our part, we believe that pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLC aligned itself with Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups to lobby against HB 1191, and that their combined opposition resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation.

Such conduct raises important questions about NRLC’s claim to represent the interests of the unborn, and its right to receive support and allegiance from those who want to serve the pro-life cause. Each pro-life American will have to answer those questions.

Law Center Issues Report Exposing Disturbing Details of National Right to Life’s Efforts to Kill South Dakota’s Abortion Ban
Wed, Mar 31, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — One week after accusing the National Right to Life Committee of betraying the pro-life movement, the Thomas More Law Center has released a seven page Report detailing the role of the National Right to Life Committee and is its state affiliate, South Dakota Right to Life, in opposing and ultimately defeating a South Dakota law that would have banned virtually all abortions and challenged Roe v. Wade.  The Law Center report makes clear that both NRLC national and local officials opposed the legislation from its very beginning because they felt that even after 31 years and 40,000,000 unborn babies killed, the time is not right to confront Roe v. Wade.

The report issued Wednesday was released in response to a two-page form letter from NRLC defending their opposition to the South Dakota legislation. The Law Center report explains, “…pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLC’s lobbying efforts aligned with those of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation. In our view, such conduct raises important questions about NRLC’s claim to represent the interests of the unborn.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the release of the report. “Of course National Right to Life has a right to its opinions, but they don’t have a right to be wrong on the facts. This report has been released in response to NRLC’s misstatement of facts in their form letter response.”

The report counters NRLC’s claim that the “health” exception” was the reason they opposed the bill. The language they complained of did not exist until after NRLC representatives lobbied legislators to abandon the “no exceptions” bill. The resulting “exception” was narrowly crafted, and did not contain the traditional broad “health” language as defined in Doe v. Bolton. The resulting abortion ban, even with the exception would have outlawed virtually all abortions.

Accordingly, the report cites statements made by NRLC officials in multiple national news stories, revealing that the NRLC opposed the abortion ban when the legislation did not contain any exceptions, and criticizes the actions of South Dakota state senator Jay Duenwald, a board member of National Right to Life who lobbied against the bill and even voted with pro-abortion Senators against a no exceptions version of the abortion ban.

The report takes on NRLC and the argument that the time is not right to pass an abortion ban, and that pro-lifers must wait for changes in the Supreme Court. “What if changes in the Court are for the worse? What if a certain pro-life majority on the Supreme Court does not come about for another 31 years? Can we afford to wait?”

The report continues, “Nobody can know with any real certainty the ideal time to challenge any given decision. Under those circumstances, NRLC should demonstrate humility and respect for the efforts of those who differ with their judgment concerning the right time to ban abortion and challenge the Roe v. Wade decision.”

National Right To Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups To Kill South Dakota Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Law Center Accuses Them Of Betraying Unborn
Mon, Mar 22, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI —Shock waves are still reverberating one week after South Dakota’s bill criminalizing abortion was defeated by a single vote over National Right To Life’s complicity with pro-abortion groups to kill the legislation that pro-abortion lobbyists called the most restrictive anti-abortion measure since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The Bill was sponsored by Republican State Representative Matt McCaulley who had asked the Thomas More Law Center to help draft a bill that would directly confront the holding of the Roe decision. As a result, House Bill 1191 banned virtually all abortions in that state and made it a felony punishable for up to 15-years.  Immediately after the Bill was announced, National Right To Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the Bill as not being the right time.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center accused National Right to Life of betrayal, “It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is another thing for them to join forces with pro-abortionists to kill the ban – it is a betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro- life cause.”

The bill passed the state House by an overwhelming majority, 54 to 14. State Senator Jay Duenwald, an officer in both the state and National Right To Life organizations, led behind the scenes opposition when the bill reached the State Affairs Committee. Together with pro-abortion Senators, Duenwald’s lobbying efforts succeeded in removing the ban and replacing it with an informed consent measure, something already covered by South Dakota law. However, the ban was reinserted on the Senate floor through a compromise measure that created an exception for the life of the mother and if there was a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.   Still the doctor was commanded to use reasonable medical efforts to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.

The Senate narrowly approved the compromise measure, 18 to 17.

When the bill arrived on Governor's desk, he sent it back with a "style and form" veto suggesting some technical changes which had to be approved by both houses of the legislature for the bill to become law. Although the House again overwhelmingly passed the bill, Senator Duenwald had a second chance to defeat it. This time, with the help of National Right to Life he succeeded. The bill was defeated by an 18 to 17 vote.

South Dakota Representative McCaulley, observed, “There is something horribly wrong when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue."

Leslee Unruh, a member of Right to Life for 25 years, and Director of the South Dakota Alpha Health Center, an abortion counseling service, whose husband helped start local Right to Life chapters throughout the state, expressed shock as well. “We were shocked, saddened and dismayed that National Right to Life lobbied against this bill. In effect, they aborted the right to life bill.”

After 31 years and over 40 million babies killed, the case of Roe v. Wade making abortion a constitutional right is still the law. Yet, it took homosexual activists only 17 years to overturn the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to criminalize homosexual sodomy. Still, according to National Right To Life - the time is not right.

National Right To Life’s criticism of the timing of the bill is similar to the attack on Martin Luther King’s actions in Alabama. His famous Letter from Birmingham jail answered his fellow clergy:

“Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was ‘well timed’ in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

Concluded Thompson, “One thing we know for sure, Planned Parenthood and NARAL could not be happier with National Right To Life.”

Student’s Pro-Life T-shirt Is Equivalent to Profanity According to School; Thomas More Law Center Enters Fray
Thu, Mar 11, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI – An Assistant Vice Principal at Denbigh High School in Newport News, Virginia, has prevented a student from wearing a pro-life message on his shirt on the grounds that the message violates the school’s rule against using profane or obscene language. The shirt displays the following messages, “Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.”

After the student was prevented from wearing his shirt, he and his family contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which immediately sent a four-page demand letter to school officials.   The Law Center’s letter highlighted its understanding that other students at the school were allowed to display various messages on their clothing, including the display of an image of a marijuana leaf. The Law Center explained that the student simply wishes to continue to peacefully and passively express his firmly held views on the important political, social, and moral subject of abortion just as other students get to express their own messages.

It was noted that by no stretch of the imagination could the student’s pro-life message be considered lewd, vulgar, profane, or obscene. The Law Center defended the student’s constitutional right to wear his pro-life clothing and demanded that the school immediately provide written assurance that he will be permitted to wear his pro-life shirt to school.

The Law Center has requested a response from school officials by March 19, 2004.

Law Center Attorney Urges Maryland Senate To Oppose Emergency Over-The Counter Contraceptive Measure
Wed, Mar 10, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Thomas More Law Center attorney Kim Daniels testified Tuesday March 9th before the Maryland Senate’s Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee, in opposition to Senate Bills 247 and 248, which would make morning-after pills available in drugstores without a doctor’s prescription and without any medical supervision — even to minors, who would not be required to notify their parents.

Daniels, appearing on behalf of the Maryland Catholic Conference, testified that as a mother and attorney she has great concerns about the use and availability of powerful emergency contraceptive drugs. “This powerful drug could be dispensed in my local drug store as if it were a bottle of Robitussin, without any medical supervision whatsoever,” said Daniels.

“We are concerned enough with children’s long-term health to quite rightly prevent that drug store from selling them cigarettes, yet today this body is considering allowing young people to purchase powerful hormonal medications that have many contraindications and side effects,” continued Daniels.

The proposed legislation would permit pharmacists to dispense morning-after pills to the same person any number of times, including to minors, and would not require a doctor to approve the use of the pill. Furthermore, the bill’s purported conscience clause has a large loophole, and would not in effect prevent pharmacists from being forced to dispense the drugs.

“I have to wonder why, if proponents of these bills are not worried about the negative side effects of this drug, they’ve nonetheless limited the liability of pharmacists who dispense it. It seems counterintuitive to talk about helping women on the one hand, while limiting their legal recourse on the other,” Daniels said.

South Dakota Governor Asks Legislature To Make Style Changes Before Abortion Ban Challenging Roe v. Wade Becomes Law
Tue, Mar 9, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI - In a press conference Tuesday, March 9th South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds expressed his support for House Bill 1191 that would ban almost all abortions in the state, but asked the legislature to make minor technical changes to the Bill before it becomes law. The Governor made clear that the changes he is requesting are only for the purpose of insuring that South Dakota's existing laws restricting abortion are not put in jeopardy if the current legislation is successfully challenged in court.

Governor Round's decision to ask for the style changes leaves open the possibility that the House or Senate could choose not to endorse the law. The two legislative bodies will be asked to concur by majority vote on the style changes before he signs the bill into law.

From the beginning, officials with South Dakota Right to Life and National Right to Life have voiced opposition to the Bill stating this was not the right time to attempt a ban on abortions.

Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, that aided in the drafting and legal strategy of the legislation responded to their opposition saying, "When is it the wrong time to do what is right? After 31 years and 40 million murdered babies under Roe v. Wade, it is essential that we continue to confront the Court with their immoral and lawless decision that has no basis in the Constitution, history or traditions of our nation."

"I applaud the South Dakota legislature. House Bill 1191 was designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, protect women, and save unborn children in South Dakota. This bill if signed represents a truly groundbreaking effort to end abortion on the part of the state of South Dakota, and I hope other states will follow," said Thompson.

South Dakota State Representative Matt McCaulley, the main sponsor of the bill, viewed the Governor's decision positively. "Governor Rounds today agreed with a bi-partisan super-majority of the South Dakota Legislature and moved forward landmark legislation that will protect unborn human life in South Dakota. I am pleased that the Governor has agreed to urge Legislators to support his recommendation that HB1191 become law with the changes he has proposed. South Dakota is doing the right thing - fulfilling its duty to protect all human life."

The bill as drafted can be found at: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/bills/HB1191S.pdf.

South Dakota House Passes Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Challenge to Roe v. Wade
Wed, Feb 11, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — After over two hours of emotional debate, the South Dakota House overwhelmingly passed House Bill 1191, 54 to 14. The Bill establishes that life begins at conception and would outlaw abortions in the state making the practice a five year felony. The Bill is designed to have the U.S. Supreme Court reconsider its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade which legalized abortions nationwide.

The Thomas More Law Center worked closely with South Dakota Representative Matt McCaulley, chief sponsor of HB 1191, for the last several months both in the drafting and legal strategy of the bill.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated. “This is new and unique legislation that has never been considered by the Supreme Court. The Law Center and our Associate Counsel, Harold Cassidy are pleased we could be of assistance to Matt McCaulley and South Dakota in their efforts to protect the unborn. While we cannot predict the future, we do know that this legislation establishes significant facts that the courts will not be able to ignore.”

Representative McCaulley agreed. “Abortion is an important moral issue that transcends party lines. Protecting unborn human life is something the vast majority of South Dakota residents support, and Democrats and Republicans joined together and passed a bill that will protect unborn human life in our state. We are ready to fight for the right to life, as opposed to waiting for it.”

In the preamble to HB 1191, the legislature determined that based on the best scientific and medical evidence, life begins at fertilization and that South Dakota’s Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings. The Bill also finds that abortions impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother, including significant risk of suicide, depression and other post traumatic disorders.   Should South Dakota’s pro-life governor sign the bill, the new law would directly confront Roe v. Wade.

The Bill mandates that physicians make every effort to preserve the life of both the mother and her unborn child. However, it is not a violation of the law if the medical treatment provided to the mother results in the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child.

Approval in the full House of Representatives came only days after an emotional and tense hearing in the House State Affairs Committee where members heard testimony from doctors, lawyers and post-abortive women from across the country. With passion and tears, several women recounted their personal grief, severe depression, and thoughts of suicide that came as a result of their abortions. After over four hours of testimony, and strong opposition from Planned Parenthood representatives, committee members passed the bill 11-2, sending it to the House where it was approved on Tuesday.

South Dakota Legislator and Law Center Join Forces to Make Abortion a Crime - Direct Attack on Roe v. Wade
Thu, Jan 22, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — With legal assistance from the Thomas More Law Center, South Dakota State Representative Matt McCaulley today introduced a bill that makes abortion a crime unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. House Bill 1191, which already has the support of a majority in the state house and senate, directly confronts the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which gave women a constitutional right to abort their babies.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, acknowledging the likely court battle that would ensue if the legislation is passed commented, “Roe v. Wade was an exercise of raw judicial power, not based on any reasonable interpretation of the Constitutional text. The Roe decision carries the same moral implications as the Dredd Scott decision that upheld slavery by regarding a segment of our population as non-persons. The Court was wrong then, and the court is wrong now. We have a moral responsibility to confront this lawless decision whenever the opportunity presents itself.”

“I applaud Representative McCaulley and the Legislature of South Dakota for fulfilling their moral and legal responsibilities to the people of South Dakota in attempting to right this wrong,” continued Thompson.

The legislation comes on the 31st anniversary of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision in which the Court overturned laws against abortion in all fifty states. Representative McCaulley cited the limitations of the Roe decision commenting, “Medical and scientific discoveries over the last 30 years have confirmed that life begins at conception, a question the Roe Court said they could not answer.”

The bill provides for exceptions to protect the life of the mother if birth or continued pregnancy constitutes a clear and immediate threat of death to the mother or serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The bill would make the crime of abortion punishable by up to 5 years in state prison.

Support for the legislation has been building during the past few days, with 47 representatives and 18 state senators co-sponsoring the bill. The bill is supported by majority leaders in both the house and the senate including the minority leader in the state senate. With the sponsors alone, the legislature has the majority votes needed to pass the bill. Once approved, the legislation would ultimately be sent to South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds who has previously vowed to protect life under all circumstances.

Representative McCaulley commented, “This is a decision that should be made by the people in each of the states through their elected representatives, not by nine unelected judges in a courtroom 1500 miles from the capitol of South Dakota. This bill puts South Dakota in the forefront of the nation and says we will lead the fight to protect unborn children.” A copy of this bill can be found at http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/1191.htm.