In July 2008, court observers were stunned when a unanimous 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision and held that pro-life activists had a constitutional right to display large graphic photos of aborted babies on the public streets adjacent to the Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes, California.  The case involved a 75-minute police detention of two members of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. (CBR), a California-based pro-life organization.  The CBR members had been driving a box-body style truck that displayed large photos of first-term aborted babies on its sides. 

School officials and the LA County Sheriff’s Department claimed that the photos were “disruptive” in violation of a California penal statute.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that deputy sheriffs violated the pro-lifers’ First Amendment right to Free Speech and their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable police seizures when they halted the peaceful demonstration.

In the opinion, which was written by Judge Harry Pregerson, who is considered by many to be one of the most liberal judges in the Ninth Circuit, and supported by Judges William A. Fletcher and Marsha S. Berzon, the Court ruled that “the government cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear, or even anger.”  Click here to read the entire opinion.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, brought the case on behalf of CBR.  The mobile billboard truck is part of CBR’s effort to expose as many people as possible to the horrors and realities of abortion.

Robert Muise, trial counsel for the Law Center who handled the case, commented on the decision, “This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and the pro-life movement.  The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the Ninth Circuit’s ruling undisturbed, ensuring that there is no double standard for pro-life speech and affirming the fundamental principle of the First Amendment that government officials cannot prohibit silent, peaceful, non-obstructive, political speech on the public streets simply because certain listeners or viewers find the speech offensive.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Illinois Supreme Court Allows Pharmacies' Right Of Conscience Case To Go Forward

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that pharmacies have legal standing to challenge an administrative rule requiring pharmacies to dispense 'Plan B (the so-called “morning after pill”)', which abortion activists call “emergency contraception,” regardless of their religious, moral, or conscientious beliefs.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich reversed two lower courts that had previously ruled pharmacy owners did not have legal standing to challenge the rule.

Thomas More Law Center attorney Kim Daniels, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Illinois Pharmacists Association and American Pharmacists Association, stated, “Since Governor Blagojevich promulgated this rule, Illinois pharmacists have been in  legal limbo regarding whether the state can force them to violate their consciences despite long-standing legal protections against just such government coercion.  This ruling clears the way for Illinois courts to determine whether the plain language of state and federal law protects the rights of these professionals not to be forced to act against their most deeply-held beliefs.” 

Governor Blagojevich, in referring to his executive order, infamously stated, “Rather than try to get the legislature to pass something – because we attempted to and they didn’t do it – on my own, through executive order action, I forced these guys to fill prescriptions for birth control for women who come in with prescriptions from their doctors.”  The Governor went on to say that pharmacists and pharmacy owners either had to dispense the abortifacient pill or leave the profession.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated, “Pharmacy owners should not have to stock ‘Plan B’ against their conscience.  These types of rights to conscience cases are blossoming all over the country due in large part to efforts of the pro-abortion lobby to force medical professionals to act against their moral and religious beliefs.”

As part of the court settlement, the ticket against Dr. Miller was dismissed with prejudice and the City of Detroit agreed to pay costs to the Thomas More Law Center in the amount of $1,593.00.

The Law Center filed the lawsuit in the Detroit Federal District Court in September 2006, after the Detroit police issued Dr. Miller a ticket, told her to go home, and threatened her with arrest while she was engaging in peaceful pro-life activities. 

At the time, Dr. Miller and others were engaged in a peaceful counter-demonstration near a pro-life pregnancy center that was being picketed by pro-abortion protestors.  Miller called for police assistance when she witnessed pro-abortion protestors assaulting a pro-life protestor.  When the police arrived, they told Dr. Miller she had to march in a circle in the same area as pro-abortion demonstrators and that her pro-life poster violated Detroit’s sign ordinance.  When Miller objected, she was ticketed for violating the sign ordinance and “failing to obey a lawful order.” 

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “Monica Miller is one of those courageous Christian women imbued with the spirit of the Gospel and unafraid to proclaim her pro-life convictions regardless of the situation.”

Brandon Bolling, the Law Center’s attorney who represented Dr. Miller before the Federal District Court, commented, “Dr. Miller is pleased that the Law Center was able to protect her First Amendment rights to protect life. Our lawsuit put the Detroit Police Department on notice that there are consequences for disregarding the First Amendment rights of those who speak out on behalf of the unborn.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

The sixth grader, referred to in the lawsuit as “K. B.” because of his age, is a Christian who wore several different pro-life t-shirts to school to proclaim his belief that abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent life and a grave offense to the Law of God.

However, the principal and several teachers, on over a dozen occasions during April 2008, told “K. B.” not to wear the t-shirts, publicly singled him out for ridicule in front of his classmates, removed him from class, sent him to the principal’s office, forced him to turn his pro-life t-shirt inside out, and threatened him with suspension if he did not stop wearing the offending pro-life t-shirts.

As a result of the School District’s actions, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public-interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit against the school in June of this year alleging that the sixth grader’s constitutional rights had been violated. 

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This young Christian was not afraid to stand up for his pro-life beliefs despite ridicule and threats from school officials.   We are pleased we were able to vindicate his Constitutional rights. ”

During the period in question, “K. B.” wore three different t-shirts, produced by the American Life League, a national pro-life advocacy group.  The t-shirts contained such pro-life messages as, “Abortion… growing, growing, gone” (pictured above), “What part of abortion don’t you understand?” and “Never Known – Not Forgotten.”

The Thomas More Law Center was assisted by Minnesota attorney Paul Taylor, an affiliated attorney with the Law Center.

In addition to the permanent injunction prohibiting the school from banning the pro-life t-shirts, the School District agreed to pay the sixth grader nominal damages, as well as $12,500 to the Law Center in attorney fees.

Brandon Bolling, the Law Center attorney assigned as lead counsel stated, “This is a great victory for freedom of speech and the pro-life movement.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

School officials and the LA County Sheriff’s Department claimed display of the photos were “disruptive,” in violation of a California statute.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that deputy sheriffs violated the demonstrators’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech and Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable police searches and seizures.

The opinion written by Judge Harry Pregerson and supported by Judges William A. Fletcher and Marsha S. Berzon, all considered liberals, stated that “[T]he government cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear, or even anger.”   (Click here to read the entire opinion.)

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, brought the case on behalf of CBR.  The mobile billboard truck is part CBR’s effort to expose as many people as possible to the horrors and realities of abortion.

Robert Muise, trial counsel for the Law Center who handled the case, commented on the ruling, “This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and the pro-life movement.  The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirms that there is no double standard for pro-life speech under our Constitution.  In its ruling, the Court upheld the fundamental principle of the First Amendment that government officials cannot prohibit silent, peaceful, non-obstructive, political speech on the public streets, a traditional public forum, because certain listeners or viewers find the speech offensive.”

The Thomas More Law Center is widely recognized as the most aggressive pro-life public interest law firm in the nation.  It has represented CBR in several lawsuits across the country, the American Life League’s program to distribute pro-life t-shirts to public school students, as well as participated in several citizen initiatives to enact Human Life Amendments in state constitutions. 

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at http://www.thomasmore.org/.

The sixth grader, referred to in the lawsuit as “K. B.” because of his age, is a Christian who believes that abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent life and a grave offense to the Law of God.

School officials, including the principal and several teachers, on over a dozen occasions during April 2008, told “K. B.” not to wear the t-shirts, publicly singled him out for ridicule in front of his classmates, removed him from class, sent him to the principal’s office, forced him to turn his pro-life t-shirt inside out, and threatened him with suspension if he did not stop wearing the offending pro-life t-shirts.

During the period in question, “K. B.” wore three different t-shirts, all produced by the American Life League, a national Pro-Life advocacy group.  The t-shirts contained such pro-life messages as, “Abortion… growing, growing, gone,” “What part of abortion don’t you understand?” and, “Never Known – Not Forgotten.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This courageous young Christian was ridiculed and threatened by teachers for expressing his deeply held beliefs.  These school officials clearly violated the U. S. Constitution and the school’s own written Dress Policy which specifically states it is not intended to abridge the rights of students to express political or religious messages.”

The Thomas More Law Center is being assisted by Minnesota attorney Paul Taylor, an affiliated attorney with the Law Center.

Brandon Bolling, the Law Center attorney assigned as lead counsel stated, “The Supreme Court has held it permissible for public schools to limit student speech only when there is an actual and substantial disruption of school activity.  That is not the case here.  The only people who took issue with the Pro-Life t-shirts were the school’s employees — in fact, if any one caused any disruption, it was the school’s employees, by their constant public harassment of our client because they disagreed with his pro-life message.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

In addition to this effort in Oregon, the Thomas More Law Center has been working with pro-life leaders in Georgia, Colorado, and Montana to pass similar state constitutional amendments that would provide legal protection to all human beings from the moment of fertilization.

These proposed amendments would achieve two fundamental purposes essential to the pro-life movement.  First, they would establish that these states are “pro-life” states that protect all human life from the moment of fertilization as a matter of constitutional law.  Second, they would provide a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade.  As the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in the Roe decision, if the personhood of the fetus could be established, the abortion right “collapses.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, reiterated his criticism of those in the national pro-life movement who fear challenging the Roe decision head on: “For too long the national pro-life movement has been dominated by a strategy of “wait,” too fearful of losing to risk winning.”

The oral argument will be heard at 2:00 pm on Monday, March 10th in the Marion County Circuit Court in Salem, Oregon.

Last fall, the Law Center filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court against the Secretary of State and the Attorney General of Oregon, alleging that these government officials violated the state and federal rights of Ms. Kelly Le Claire by improperly denying her request to circulate the state initiative petition that would amend the Oregon Constitution to protect the unborn.

The lawsuit alleges that by improperly denying her the right to initiate a petition to amend the state constitution, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General violated several state and federal statutory and constitutional rights, including rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and several provisions of the Oregon Constitution.

The essential issue at this hearing will be whether the proposed constitutional amendment violates the State’s “separate-vote requirement,” which prohibits proposed amendments from making multiple substantive changes to the Oregon Constitution that are not closely related.  The Law Center will argue that the proposed amendment does not violate this constitutional requirement.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, stated, “Every private citizen and elector in the State of Oregon, including our client, has a right to initiate a petition to amend the state’s constitution.  By denying her this fundamental political right, state officials have violated her civil rights protected by the United States and Oregon Constitutions.”

On a related note, Oregon is the only state that currently allows assisted suicide.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at TMLC before the Georgia Legislature's Judiciary Subcommittee
February 20, 2008
Brian Rooney, attorney and spokesman for TMLC, spoke at the GA legislature's second day of hearings on the proposed Georgia Human Life Amendment.  The first day of hearings is also available here.

The other day I spoke with Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, an organization of lawyers on the front lines of First Amendment litigation involving a host of issues, not the least of which is abortion.  On the one hand, the picture is bright, in that abortion is a straightforward political issue and its opponents (and proponents), whether in actual speech or in pictorial substitutes, are indeed protected by the First Amendment, a principle which has been upheld again and again by various courts at all levels of jurisdiction....

Read the rest of this story, featuring TMLC's President and Chief Counsel, Richard Thompson, on American Thinker...

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Kelly Le Claire, with assistance of local counsel, in the Circuit Court for Marion County after state officials refused to approve Le Claire’s petition.  The proposed human life amendment would extend constitutional rights, including the right to life, to all human beings from the moment of fertilization.  If adopted by Oregon voters, the amendment would provide a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v Wade by establishing personhood from the moment of fertilization as a matter of state constitutional law.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Frustrated by lack of action to confront Roe head-on at the national level, there is increasing pressure by grassroots, pro-life activists to initiate such action state by state.  This initiative petition is one such example.  The Thomas More Law Center is committed to supporting such efforts.  After 34 years of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, resulting in over 45 million dead babies, ‘wait’ is not an option.”

The lawsuit alleges that by improperly denying her the right to initiate a petition to amend the state constitution, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General violated several state and federal statutory and constitutional rights, including rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and several provisions of the Oregon Constitution.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, stated, “Ms. Le Claire, like every other elector in the State of Oregon, has a right to initiate a petition to amend the state’s constitution.  It appears that her petition was denied because it was a measure that could end abortion.  By denying her this fundamental political right, state officials have violated her civil rights protected by the United States and Oregon Constitutions.”

In addition to this effort in Oregon, the Thomas More Law Center has been working with pro-life leaders in several other states to get similar state constitutional amendments passed.

The proposed amendments would achieve two fundamental purposes that are essential to the pro-life movement:  First, they would establish and affirm, without question, that these states are “pro-life” states that protect all human life from the moment of fertilization as a matter of state constitutional law.  And second, they would provide a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade.  As the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in the Roe decision, if the personhood of the fetus could be established, the abortion right “collapses.”

The national debate on pro-life strategy, including the strategy to initiate state human life amendments, is being featured online on the Human Life Amendment website.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organiz]]> ANN ARBOR, MI -The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is urging pro-life supporters to engage in a national debate regarding the direction of the http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=103 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=103 ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is urging pro-life supporters to engage in a national debate regarding the direction of the pro-life movement.  The Law Center’s active support to end abortion, including the actual drafting of state constitutional amendments that provide legal protection to the unborn, has been criticized by some national pro-life leaders.  These leaders shun efforts to attack the central holding of Roe v. Wade in favor of an “incremental” approach that seeks to enact legislation that might reduce the number of abortions, without eliminating abortion all together.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney who prepared a Memorandum challenging the national pro-life movement’s lethargy head on, bluntly stated, “After 34 years of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, it is time to rethink pro-life strategy.”  Muise stated further, “While seeking to decrease the number of abortions performed in this country is a laudable endeavor and should continue, we must never forget that ending all abortions is the ultimate goal.”  Muise added, “It would be a tragic mistake to be content with a strategy that makes ending abortion secondary to other regulatory efforts, or worse yet, a strategy that avoids it altogether.”

The Thomas More Law Center has been working with pro-life leaders in Georgia (Georgia Right To Life) to get a state constitutional amendment passed that would provide legal protection to all human beings from the moment of fertilization.  The proposed amendment would achieve two fundamental purposes that are essential to the pro-life movement.  First, it would establish and affirm, without question, that Georgia is a “pro-life” state that protects all human life from the moment of fertilization as a matter of constitutional law.  And second, it provides a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade.  As the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in the Roe decision, if the personhood of the fetus could be established, the abortion right “collapses.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “After 34 years and over 45 million babies killed in the womb, some national pro-life leaders still say ‘the time is not right.’  Martin Luther King Jr. had to contend with the same kind of argument opposing his direct action in the civil rights movement.  His response from the Birmingham Jail is one that pro-lifers should take to heart: ‘Wait’ has always meant ‘Never.’  Moreover, as the famous hockey player, Wayne Gretzky, once said, ‘You miss 100 % of the shots you don’t take.’  His advice is relevant to the debate over strategy we are now engaged in—we must have national pro-life leaders who are willing to take the shots on behalf of the unborn.”

The national debate on pro-life strategy is being featured online on the Human Life Amendment website at http://personhood.net/legalconsiderations.html.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corpo]]> ANN ARBOR, MI -The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to review a case that seeks http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=21 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=21 ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to review a case that seeks to establish the right of a State to define the moment when a human being is born and therefore a person under the law.  This law, known as the Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act, was proposed by initiative petition and drew the support of nearly 460,000 Michigan citizens.  The Act is an alternative approach to banning the grisly partial-birth abortion procedure, and it reaffirms the right of a State to defend human life. 

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, “Not content with doing their killing inside the womb, abortionists want the right to kill a child that is in the process of being born.  However, States have the right to draw a line between abortion and infanticide.  The Legal Birth Definition Act defines the point at which a child is a person under the law and therefore entitled to rights, including the most basic right to life.”

The ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others filed a federal lawsuit against the Act, claiming that the law violates a woman’s right to abortion.  The Act was struck down by a federal judge in Michigan, and that decision was upheld by the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.  In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Law Center is representing Standing Together To Oppose Partial-birth-abortion (“STTOP”), the ballot question committee formed by Michigan Right to Life, which played a crucial role in enacting this citizen-initiated legislation. 

In October 2003, pro-abortion Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature to ban partial-birth abortion.  In response, the citizens of Michigan, through the efforts of STTOP, gathered nearly 460,000 signatures, 200,000 more than needed to adopt the legislation without the governor’s approval.  The Legal Birth Definition Act was subsequently passed by a simple majority vote in both the Michigan House and Senate.  STTOP’s petition drive was one of the most successful petition drives in recent Michigan history. 

On March 1, 2005, the ACLU and other abortion proponents filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, against the Michigan Attorney General and others, seeking to overturn the will of the people of Michigan, claiming that the Legal Birth Definition Act violates their right to have and perform abortions.  The Law Center sought to intervene in the federal case on behalf of STTOP, arguing that STTOP has a substantial interest in upholding the constitutionality of this law and further noting that STTOP represents the voice of the citizens of Michigan who have a substantial interest in the protection and preservation of human life. 

In September 2005, Clinton-appointed, federal judge, Denise Page Hood, denied the Law Center’s request to intervene on behalf of STTOP and declared the Act unconstitutional, claiming, in part, that it placed “an undue burden on the woman’s right to reproductive choice” by banning “safe” abortion procedures.  Both STTOP and the Attorney General appealed the judge’s ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently affirmed.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The constitutional right to abortion is an abhorrent mark on our nation affixed by the courts.   The intentional killing of innocent babies will never be acceptable to us, and we will do everything we can to stop it.”

The Thomas More Law Ce]]> Michigan Governor Jenifer Granholm's office confirmed that it has removed their petition supporting embryonic stem cell research from the Governor's publicly funded website http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=17 Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=17 ANN ARBOR, MI – Michigan Governor Jenifer Granholm’s office confirmed that it has removed their petition supporting embryonic stem cell research from the Governor’s publicly funded website.  The Governor’s action came less than a week after the Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit asking the court to either ban the petition or allow pro-life groups to place their own petition supporting the ban on embryonic stem cell research on the website as well. 

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “The battle is not yet over.  She has not yet answered our lawsuit.  It’s important to keep in mind that the website in question is paid for and owned by the people of this State; it is not Governor Granholm’s personal property.  Yet, she only allowed people who supported her position to use the website to petition the leaders of the legislature -- a clear case of discrimination against citizens who are pro-life.”

On July 6, 2007, Thompson sent a letter to the Governor asking that she immediately revise the portion of the website addressing restrictions on stem cell research to include an enclosed petition so that citizens who disagreed with her position could have the same opportunity to have their views communicated to the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House when she communicated the views of those who agreed with her. 

The Governor’s office did not respond to the letter or to a phone call from one the Law Center’s attorneys.

Law Center spokesperson, Mallary Hernly, commented, “This is a question of fundamental fairness.  It is not about Governor Granholm voicing her opinion.  It’s about only allowing persons who agree with her position to use a publicly funded website to communicate with their legislative representatives.” 

The Thomas More Law Center filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Lansing on behalf of the Lansing Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, Flint-Area Right To Life, and Right To Life – Lifespan

While the governor’s actions are a step forward in ceasing this discriminatory practice, the lawsuit also seeks a declaration that Granholm’s policy violated the constitutional rights of those citizens who were denied equal access to, and use of, the website.  Further, it has yet to be shown whether this is a principled end to the discrimination or simply an attempt to put the lawsuit to rest. 

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm for discrimination against citizens who oppose embryonic stem research. The Governor currently allows private citizens to use the Office of the Governor website to submit a petition posted on the website addressed to Michigan’s legislature leaders to lift Michigan’s legal restrictions on stem cell research.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of three pro-life organizations, the Lansing Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, Flint-Area Right To Life, and Right To Life - Lifespan, after the governor refused their request to place a petition to the legislative leaders on the Governor’s official publicly funded website, opposing efforts to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Governor Granholm’s decision to use public funds to discriminate against citizens who disagree with her on the issue of stem cell research violates our clients’ constitutional rights of speech, association, equal protection, and petitioning. Her support of embryonic stem cell research demonstrates a callous disregard for human life.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Lansing, seeks a declaration that Granholm’s policy violates the constitutional rights of those citizens who were denied equal access to, and use of, the website, as well as injunctive relief ordering Granholm to cease discriminating against citizens based on their views about legal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research in Michigan.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Law Center attorney handling the case, observed that “Granholm’s use of government resources to favor citizens who agree with her views on public policy violates First Amendment and equal protection rights. It is a dangerous precedent which, if unchallenged, would enable public officials to drown out the voice of dissenters.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Today, proponents from Colorado for Equal Rights appeared before the Legislative Council and answered several questions about the intent and the legal ramifications of their pro-life constitutional amendment. In attendance were Mr. Meuser and Miss Burton from Colorado for Equal Rights as well as four members of the Legislative Council. Also observing the meeting were eight anti-life advocates taking vigorous notes on the discussion of the amendment.

A recurring theme in our answers to the Council was that the intent of this amendment is to protect all human beings. The Legislative Council asked why the term fertilization was used rather than conception. Mr. Meuser responded that fertilization is a well-defined term used to refer to the moment the sperm and the egg unite, whereas conception is a term currently used when implantation takes place. He states, “Our purpose is to protect all life and thus, we want to start at the moment life actually begins.”

The Legislative Council also asked what the effect of the amendment would be on the “undue burden” test as established in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Meuser responded that, in Roe, the Court created the “undue burden” test because they could not find that “person” was defined for state or national Constitutional purposes. Because our amendment defines life as beginning at fertilization, it makes the “undue burden” test a moot issue.

Also, immediately after the Legislative Council hearing, Colorado for Equal Rights filed the amendment with the Secretary of State’s office. A meeting was scheduled for July 18th. At that meeting, Colorado for Equal Rights will work with the Titling Board to select the amendment’s proper title for the November ’08 ballot.

The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Today’s Supreme Court decision may very well signal the willingness of the Court under Chief Justice Roberts to revisit its infamous Roe v. Wade decision and end legalized abortion in this country. Its immediate effect is to overrule the ‘undue burden’ test for facial challenges to abortion restriction statues.”

At issue in the case was the constitutionality of the 2003 Federal law that bans a particularly barbaric and gruesome abortion procedure used in the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy where the unborn child is removed from the mother’s womb except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child from the mother.

Immediately after the 2003 Act was signed into law by President Bush, pro-abortion groups filed federal lawsuits in New York, San Francisco, and Lincoln, Nebraska. Lower federal trial courts and appellate courts found the ban unconstitutional in all three cases and enjoined its enforcement. Those rulings have now been reversed by the Supreme Court, and the 2003 Act goes into effect.

The Supreme Court’s decision was authored by Justice Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer dissented from the decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her bitter dissent from the bench.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, explained, “In our brief, we argued that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was constitutional and permissibly regulates abortion. We explained to the Supreme Court that to abandon this legislation would herald a new era in which the value of any pre-born human life would no longer be protected by our courts or our Constitution. I am glad the Supreme Court decided to support the culture of life and reject the culture of death that is spreading across this nation.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Using language provided by the Thomas More Law Center, an advocacy group for pro-life causes, H.R. 536 states, “Paramount right to life: (a) The rights of every person shall be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person. (b) With respect to the fundamental and inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed in this Constitution, the word 'person' applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization.” (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/search/hr536.htm)

“It is time that the citizens of Georgia be able to speak decisively to this most fundamental right” says Caryl Swift, President of Georgia Right to Life (GRTL). “When is a person a ‘person’ under the laws of our State and therefore entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Let’s let Georgians decide... not the state Supreme Court. I commend this bi-partisan effort to protect all of Georgia’s citizens... all the time.”

“Two important pro-life objectives would be effected by this amendment to our state constitution,” says Daniel Becker, Vice President of GRTL. “It establishes and affirms in principal that Georgia is a “pro-life” state that seeks to protect all human life from fertilization as a matter of constitutional law; and it provides a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade.” 410 U.S. 113 (1973). “In the Roe v. Wade decision, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that, ‘(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.’” Becker concludes, “Thus, the personhood of the preborn child is the single point on which the entire debate turns.”

Georgia law requires two thirds of both chambers to place a constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot. “Building on the 116-54 victory yesterday of the passage of the GRTL endorsed Ultrasound Bill, we feel that we are within striking distance of the four votes needed to pass this common sense resolution out of the Georgia House. Our pro-life Senate bill “Saving the Cure Act,” passed today 39-15... two votes more than the 37 needed to pass this Resolution,” said Becker. “This landmark piece of legislation will be the centerpiece of our legislative efforts in the 2008 legislative session,” said Becker.

Georgia Right to Life is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nonsectarian organization of diverse and caring people united to engage in actions that will restore respect and effective legal protection for all human beings from the moment of fertilization until natural death.

This past January, without Forro’s knowledge, the director of the clinic obtained a personal protection order against Forro, claiming he was harassing her. According to the terms of the order, Forro was no longer permitted to appear at the clinic to engage in his pro-life ministry, which includes sidewalk counseling and praying for the end of abortion.

As soon as Forro learned about the personal protection order, he contacted the Thomas More Law Center, which agreed to represent him. Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, appeared at three hearings on Forro’s behalf. On March 19, 2007, the court entered an order terminating the personal protection order. Forro is now again permitted to engage in his peaceful pro-life ministry outside the clinic.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, “People in the abortion industry often use the court system to intimidate and silence pro-life advocates. Here, we are pleased we had the opportunity to successfully represent Mr. Forro and at no charge to him.”

Forro commented, “I am glad I can continue my pro-life ministry.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

The case arose out of an incident that occurred on June 10, 2002, while the demonstrators were driving box-body style trucks displaying images of first-term aborted babies in the Dayton, Ohio area. Thirteen officers, including officers from the City of Springboro, Clearcreek Township and the FBI, were involved.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, brought the case on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., a California-based, pro-life organization, and three of its members.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Trial Counsel handling the case, successfully argued that the lengthy detention - so that the FBI could “gather intelligence” on the pro-life demonstrators - violated the demonstrators’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable police searches and seizures. He further succeeded in showing that the police violated the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights by targeting them for disfavored treatment because they were “anti-abortion.”

Muise commented, “This is a huge victory for CBR and other pro-life demonstrators who simply want to engage in First Amendment speech activity free from unlawful police harassment and interference. ”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

On Monday, a panel of judges sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments pertaining to a case involving pro-life activists, an overzealous police force, concerned parents and a squeamish school administration. The question presented by the case asked the court how far a society can go in its quest to quash speech it finds distasteful or views unfavorably.

In the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, et al. v. L.A. County Sheriff's Department, et al., the case presently before the Ninth Circuit, the First Amendment practices of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. (CBER), a California pro-life organization, were placed under the judicial microscope. CBER routinely exercised its First Amendment freedoms by driving a truck on the streets of Los Angeles County. The truck, however, was not your ordinary truck.

According to Robert Muise, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, a pro-family public interest law firm, the truck was sporting pictures of "first-term aborted fetuses." "The pictures usually show a coin next to the fetus, and people can see that this fetus has hands and other defining characteristics," stated Muise. The word choice is written above the images.

The pictures did not become an issue until CBER began to drive its truck on a public street that passed by a school. Parents, neighbors and school officials took a dislike to the images, as well as CBER's pro-life message, and it was not long until the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department had its hands in the constitutional cookie jar.
The deputies, who responded to a dispatch call that read "anti-abortion vehicle driving with offensive pictures," arrived at the school and were at a loss as to what charges could be used to eradicate the pro-life problem. "The deputies detained (the pro-lifers) for 75 minutes," stated Muise.

Muise argues that the deputies used that time to "figure out how to stop the pro-lifers." And when the deputies stumbled across California Penal Code Sec. 626.8, they had found the means needed to remove the pro-life message from the area. California Penal Code Sec. 626.8 is a statute that was drafted, designed and enacted to prevent gang activity outside California's schools. The statute essentially prevents disruptive conduct outside schools and if a school administration stumbles across such activity, they can order the individual or group to leave; failure to comply results in a pair of handcuffs.

The deputies got the go-ahead from school officials and ejected CBER, and its truck, from the public streets outside the school on the basis the pro-life message was disruptive. CBER was forced to leave and this lawsuit followed. The fate that befell CBER on the streets of the Golden State, though, is reflective of a popular trend detailing the growing persecution of Christian/pro-life speech. Christian and conservative activists are now discovering that if they chose to engage the marketplace of ideas, they are ultimately met with a decision to be silenced or be sentenced.

To support claims that Christian speech, i.e. speech dealing with abortion, homosexuality, and/or salvation, has become a second-class citizen in the marketplace, pro-family attorneys point to a laundry list of examples where police have erred on the side of censorship, not caution. Last month, the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel intervened when informed officials in Altamonte Springs, Fla. were infringing on the rights of pro-life advocates. Police officers had approached the pro-lifers and told them to muzzle their message, put down their signs or go to jail. Liberty intervened and Altamonte Springs backed off.

In Alabama, street preacher Matt Bourgault was accosted by Montgomery police officers for standing on the corner preaching a Gospel message. Bourgault was charged with disorderly conduct an]]> http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=68 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=68 ANN ARBOR, MI — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena, California, will hear oral argument in a case seeking to defend the constitutional rights of pro-life demonstrators. The case involves a police detention of peaceful pro-life demonstrators by several deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who claimed that the demonstrators’ display of pictures of abortion were “disruptive,” in violation of a California statute. The demonstrators were engaging in their pro-life speech activity on the public streets.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, will present oral argument on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., a California-based, pro-life organization. The organization claims that its constitutional rights were violated during the police detention, which occurred in March 2003.

Robert Muise, trial counsel for the Law Center, will argue that it is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment that government officials cannot prohibit silent, peaceful, non-obstructive, political speech on the public streets, a traditional public forum, because certain listeners or viewers find the speech offensive.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

ANN ARBOR, MI — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, heard oral argument in a case involving a three-hour police detention of law-abiding, pro-life demonstrators, who were detained because they were “anti-abortion.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, presented oral argument on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., a California-based, pro-life organization.

The organization claims that its constitutional rights were violated during the lengthy police detention that occurred on June 10, 2002, in Ohio. Thirteen officers, including officers from the City of Springboro, Clearcreek Township and the FBI, were involved.

Robert Muise, trial counsel for the Law Center, argued that the lengthy detention - so that the FBI could “gather intelligence” on the pro-life demonstrators - violated the demonstrators’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable police searches and seizures. He further argued that the police violated the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights by targeting them for unwarranted treatment because they were “anti-abortion.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Partial Birth Abortion Cases This Week
Mon, Nov 6, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — The day after the November 7th general elections, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the 2003 federal ban on partial birth abortions in two cases: Gonzales v. Carhart, an appeal from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Nebraska, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, submitted a friend of the court brief in the Carhart case supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s efforts to uphold the ban. Their brief was filed on behalf of the Law Center, the National Pro-Life Alliance, a nonpartisan coalition of over 600,000 pro-life Americans, and the Catholic League, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.

The 2003 law bans a particularly barbaric and gruesome abortion procedure used in the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy where the unborn child is removed from the mother’s womb except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child for the mother.
Immediately after the 2003 Act was signed into law, pro-abortion groups filed lawsuits in New York, San Francisco, and Lincoln, Nebraska. Lower courts and appellate courts found the ban unconstitutional in all three cases.

However, Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, is optimistic that the High Court will uphold the constitutionality of the ban because of the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito. “I believe we will have Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy voting to uphold the ban. The Justices will give greater deference to the findings o]]> http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=86 Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=86 Thomas More Law Center Defends Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act In Supreme Court
Thu, Oct 20, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court of the United States supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s efforts to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Nebraska had previously found the Act to be unconstitutional.

The Act bans the abortion procedure wherein an unborn baby, generally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is removed from her mother’s womb, except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the child’s brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child from the mother.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome procedure. It is nothing other than infanticide and must be prohibited in this country.”

In the brief, the Law Center exposes the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement, which is designed to distract the public and the courts from the reality that each time an abortion is performed, a human life is destroyed. As medical science demonstrates, life begins at the moment of conception, and abortion advocates have tried to blur this reality in an attempt to sedate the public into believing that the atrocity of abortion is acceptable.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, explained, “In our brief, we request that the Supreme Court find the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to be constitutional. We also request that the Supreme Court take this opportunity to reconsider and reject its ‘abortion rights’ decisions. The time has come for the Supreme Court to prevent the grave injustices, which have resulted from those decisions, from continuing.”

Federal Appeals Court Slashes Multi-Million Jury Award to Abortion Doctors
Thu, Sep 8, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI -- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Portland, Oregon, cut a $108.5-million punitive damages award imposed against pro-life advocates to $4.7 million. Billed as the “Nuremburg Files” case, many constitutional law experts consider it to be one of the most important First Amendment cases in the nation.

The case is based entirely on the publication of two Old West style wanted posters and a non-party’s website (the so-called “Nuremberg Files”) alleged to be “threats” against the named abortionists in violation of FACE and RICO. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, entered the case on behalf of several of the defendants after the 1999 jury verdict. The American Catholic Lawyers Association represents the remaining defendants.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Although we consider the decision a good first-stage victory, the Law Center will continue its appeal. The entire case should be dismissed based upon the Free Speech rights of these pro-life defendants to speak out on the controversial issue of abortion regardless of how uncomfortable it makes abortion doctors.”

The case has had a long history in the courts. After the original 1999 jury verdict, an appeal was taken to the Ninth Circuit and in 2001 a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit set aside the verdict because the First Amendment protected the pro-life advocates’ speech. The unanimous decision, however, was overturned in 2002 by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which voted six to]]> http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=87 Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=87 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 Fit]]> http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=88 Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=88 Partial Birth Abortion Ban - An Important First Step Toward Ending Abortion in America
Wed, Nov 5, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The signing of the long awaited ban on partial birth abortion represents a small but important first step toward ending abortion in America, according to Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center. The bill signed by President Bush prohibits doctors from partially delivering a baby, and then killing the baby by puncturing its skull.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented on the significance of the legislation. “The ban on partial birth abortion is significant in that it represents an important first step towards providing legal protection for innocent human life at its earliest stages. I applaud the President and Congress for enacting this important first step toward ending abortion in America.”

Thompson continued, “We must keep in mind that this law prohibits only the medical procedure used to kill approximately 5,000 of the 1.3 million babies aborted each year. These babies can still be killed using other medical procedures while in the womb. And these unborn babies are being killed by procedures no less horrific and barbaric. We have a long way to go.”

Law Center attorneys have been carefully monitoring the legislation, and are now preparing for a legal battle likely to end up in the Supreme Court. “We have reviewed this legislation carefully, and believe it properly addresses the problems the Supreme Court found in its decision three years ago,” said Thompson. “We have been in regular contact with members of the United States Senate and are prepared to represent them in defending this law all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Governor Bush Has Legal Authority, But Lacks Political Will To Save Terri Schiavo's Life
Fri, Oct 17, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI - According to Richard Thompson, former prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian, Florida Governor Jeb Bush has the legal authority to act in the case of Terri Schiavo, but lacks the political will to do so. Responding to the Governor’s statements that he cannot intervene in the civil case, Thompson claimed Bush is confusing the public on what is being asked of him.

“Nobody is asking the Governor to intervene in the civil case. We are asking him to initiate an independent criminal investigation based on a list of facts that suggest criminal wrongdoing,” said Thompson. “We have outlined for the Governor some of these facts, and confirmed his Constitutional authority to act. The fact that he has chosen to confuse the public by referring to the civil case, completely ignoring the request that we presented, reveals a lack of moral courage and political will. We expect the Governor to do the right thing, and so far, he has refused to do so.”

“If Governor Bush does not act quickly, I expect Terri will be killed by an overdose of morphine. She is being starved and denied fluids, and the Governor needs to act now before it’s too late,” said Thompson.

Thompson, now president of the Thomas More Law Center, delivered two emergency letters to Bush Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, asking him to initiate a criminal investigation. The letters outlined the constitutional authority of the Governor to act in the case, including a factual basis for initiating a criminal investigation. Bush has maintained he has no authority to interfere in the civil case that led to the feeding tube being removed.

Former Prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian Delivers Emergency Letters To Governor Jeb Bush in Terri Schiavo Euthanasia Case
Thu, Oct 16, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI –Richard Thompson, responsible for the initial prosecutions of Jack]]> http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=89 Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=89 Supreme Court Seeks Bush Administration Opinion in Major Pro-Life Free Speech Case
Mon, Dec 16, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a rarely used process, the U.S. Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the opinion of the federal government in a major case involving the free speech rights of pro-life activists. The case has been reported by court watchers as one of four major cases to be considered for review this term.

A New York Times December 1st story described the Oregon case as “an important First Amendment case that asks the court to examine the boundary between provocative but legitimate advocacy and unprotected threats and intimidation” against abortion providers. Planned Parenthood and a group of abortion doctors “sued under a provision of the federal law that protects access to abortion clinics and won a $120 million verdict, which was upheld on appeal,” reported the Times.

Abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood have long sought the ability to construe pro-life speech as threatening in order to suppress anti-abortion speech by legal intimidation.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents seven of the fourteen pro-life defendants in the case. Associate Counsel Edward L. White III, who is handling the case for the Law Center noted, “This is a pure free speech case. None of the posters used by our clients contained threats, and no doctor listed on any of the posters was ever harmed.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Law Center provides its services at no charge, and depends on individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Law Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

NY Times Predicts Pro-Life Case Could Create ‘Momentous’ Supreme Court Term
Wed, Dec 11, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – The United States Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to review the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case, identified by the New York Times as one of the top four cases to be considered for review this term. The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents seven of the fourteen pro-life defendants in the case.

The Times December 1st story described the case as “an important First Amendment case that asks the court to examine the boundary between provocative but legitimate advocacy and unprotected threats and intimidation” against abortion providers. Planned Parenthood and a group of abortion doctors “sued under a provision of the federal law that protects access to abortion clinics and won a $120 million verdict, which was upheld on appeal,” reported the Times.

Abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood have long sought the ability to construe pro-life speech as threatening in order to suppress anti-abortion speech by legal intimidation.

Edward L. White III, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, indicated that the Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision whether to hear the appeal on Monday, December 16. A petition for Supreme Court review was filed in October 2002. According to White, “At stake is the question of whether legitimate pro-life speech, specifically posters that do not contain threats yet bear the names of abortion providers, should be restricted.”

Edward White III will be available for comment immediately aft]]> http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=90 Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:00:00 PST http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=18&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=90 Thomas More Law Center Defends California High Schooler’s Right To Wear Pro-Life Shirts To School
Tue, Nov 20, 2001

Ann Arbor, Michigan - A senior at Littlerock High School in Littlerock, California, has asked the Thomas More Law Center to defend her right to wear pro-life shirts to school. At issue is whether the school will change its position and allow the student to wear shirts with messages such as “I’m Pro-Life,” “Abortion is Wrong,” and “Abortion is Killing.”

The student, an ardent believer that abortion is the intentional killing of unborn children, wants to express her pro-life message on her clothing to the same extent that other students are allowed to express various messages including the Playboy Bunny symbol and the rock band Marilyn Manson, among other things.

Thomas More Law Center attorneys, Edward L. White III and Kimberly A. Daniels, sent a letter to the school superintendent and school board members explaining the student’s constitutional right to advance her pro-life views at school and requested immediate written assurance that she would be permitted to wear her pro-life clothing.

According to Richard Thompson, the Thomas More Law Center’s Chief Counsel, “It is a fundamental constitutional principle that students do not lose their right to free speech just because they are in school. Students may express themselves on controversial subjects such as abortion. A school cannot confine a student to expressing only those messages that the school has officially approved.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center provides its services at no charge. The Center’s number is (734) 827-2001 and its website is www.thomasmore.org .

Law Center Gets School To Permit Pro-Life Message
Mon, Nov 5, 2001

Ann Arbor, Michigan - The Thomas More Law Center successfully intervened on behalf of a student who was prevented by her public high school in Malone, New York, from wearing a sweatshirt to school stating on the front "Abortion is Homicide" and on the back "You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life."

This past September, the student wore the sweatshirt to her high school and was told by the school she had to wear a different shirt or go home because the message on the sweatshirt was "offensive." The girl was placed on in-school suspension until her father came to school. The girl, who was visibly upset over the matter, went home rather than wear a different shirt to school that day.

The girl and her family then contacted the Thomas More Law Center. Edward L. White III, one of the Center's attorneys, sent a letter to the Malone Central School District superintendent explaining in detail the student's constitutional right to wear the pro-life sweatshirt, and demanded written assurance that the school would no longer interfere with the girl's right to wear her sweatshirt as well as a written apology to the girl and her father.

The school district continued to prohibit the student from wearing her sweatshirt citing a new reason, namely, that the sweatshirt conveyed a religious message and constituted religious proselytizing. The school's lawyer argued that a student may not proselytize a specific, religious point of view in school, and the district could prohibit a student's religious proselytizing just as the district can restrict a student's promotion of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco slogans.

The school district,]]>