2003 Archives - Thomas More Law Center

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 Kevorkian, now Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, delivered two emergency letters to Florida Governor Jeb Bush Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, outlining the constitutional authority of the Governor to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, including a factual basis for initiating a criminal investigation. The letters were prepared hours after a feeding tube was removed from Schiavo, depriving her of food and water, leaving her to starve to death unless immediate action is taken.

Recognizing the emotional and political issues involved, the two letters explain that the Florida Governor has authority under the Florida Constitution to intervene, and urged him to initiate a criminal investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement based on a growing list of facts which suggest criminal wrongdoing and a conflict of interest on the part of Terri Shiavo’s husband and guardian Michael Shiavo.

Joining Thompson in the letters were former federal prosecutors Edward White III and Robert Muise. White served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and Muise served as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Both now work under Thompson at the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI. Based on the extensive law enforcement experience of the attorneys involved, the letters set forth facts and steps upon which a formal criminal investigation should be initiated.

The letters assert that the facts of the case clearly establish probable cause to initiate a formal criminal investigation, and call on the Governor to direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct a full investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case, including securing search warrants, interviewing witnesses and medical experts, and to take measures to prevent future harm to Ms. Schiavo pending the outcome of the investigation.

Thompson noted in the supplemental letter that he was responsible for the initial prosecutions of Jack Kevorkian, and that in at least one case of physician-assisted suicide, the wife was a victim of domestic violence, and her death was used as a cover-up for the husband’s wrongdoing.

In a statement Thursday morning, Thompson urged the Florida Governor to review the letters, and take immediate steps to intervene in the case. “It seems prudent under the circumstances that the presumption for life should prevail and a formal “time-out” should take place, allowing for a formal criminal investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and allow Terri’s parents to administer the necessary rehabilitation services to determine if Ms. Schiavo is able to ingest food on her own.”

Woman Continues 3 Year Battle To See Her Court File Dealing With Abortion Request
Mon, Aug 11, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a brief with the Michigan Court of Appeals in its continued efforts to permit a young women to obtain access to her own court file relating to the “judicial bypass” proceeding she went through as a fifteen year old to obtain an abortion without her parents’ consent.

At the time of the bypass proceeding, she was suffering from a mental illness and was undergoing medical treatment and taking prescribed drugs for her mental condition. As a consequence, she continues to have only a vague memory of what occurred during the proceeding, and now wants to examine her file to learn whether the court was informed about her mental condition and to learn such things as whether she actually agreed to the judicial bypass and the abortion.

The young woman’s request to see her file was denied by a Michigan Probate Court Judge in early 2000. After several appeals to various courts during the last 3 years, on June 12, 2003, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the Michigan Court of Appeals to render a decision in the case.

According to Edward L. White III, Associate Counsel with the Law Center, “This case presents issues of significant public interest and involves legal principles of major significance to the State’s jurisprudence. Our client not only seeks access to her own court file, but the establishment of legal principles that will instruct lower courts in ruling on future requests by women who want access to their own court files that deal with the judicial bypass proceedings they went through to obtain abortions without parental consent.”

Tension High in Hawaii Courtroom Over Aerial Pro-Life Banners
Mon, Jul 21, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – A packed Honolulu courtroom heard arguments Monday concerning a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance enacted by the City and County of Honolulu banning aerial banners over Honolulu beaches. The case will have far reaching implications, according to federal district judge Aiken, who presided over the hearing,

Robert Muise, Associate Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, argued that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it represents a total ban on a certain form of speech, and it completely forecloses an effective medium of communication for the Law Center’s pro-life client, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Muise further contended that recent changes to FAA regulations make clear that municipalities such as Honolulu lack authority to enact such laws because they would interfere with federal objectives.

Tensions have been high in the Hawaiian capital recently as residents and city officials have complained that the pro-life banners carried by airplanes would disrupt the pristine character and natural beauty of the island habitat.

Acknowledging the controversial nature of the banners, Muise maintained that they are protected by the Constitution, “The First Amendment protects speech even when it stirs people to anger and creates unrest. Graphic images of injustice have long been a part of social reform, and it is no different for the pro-life movement. These pictures provide irrefutable visual evidence that abortion causes the death of an innocent human life and is therefore contrary to the common good.”

The Thomas More Law Center successfully sued the City of Huntington Beach, California last year on a similar ordinance. Shortly after the Law Center’s legal action was filed Huntington Beach repealed the ordinance and paid the Law Center $10,000 in attorney fees. Judge Aiken indicated that she will issue her ruling in the Hawaii case within the next three weeks.

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.

Federal Judge Orders Municipality to Pay Over $44,000 in Michigan Pro-Life Case
Tue, May 13, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – Ending a lawsuit that had drawn national attention last year, Federal Judge Paul V. Gadola has ordered the City of Royal Oak, Michigan, to pay $44,707.17 in damages and attorneys’ fees, and has permanently prohibited police from interfering with the rights of California resident, Ronald Brock, when he displays his pro-life and Christian messages on the public streets of that city.

The lawsuit grew out of police action during the 2001 Woodward Dream Cruise, an annual event that celebrates the cars, music, and memories of “cruising” during the 1950s and 1960s and draws more than a million people. The Dream Cruise turned into a nightmare for Brock, as he was driving his motor home through Royal Oak during the celebration, because the sides of Brock’s motor home displayed Christian Crosses, Bible quotes, and photographs of aborted babies and of the Nazi Holocaust.

Because of the display, Royal Oak police ordered him to pull over, searched his vehicle, confiscated his personal property, and impounded his vehicle as evidence in a charge of “obscene literature.” Brock contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Law Center filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Brock.

As alleged in the lawsuit, in an attempt to justify their stop, police tested the lights, brakes, turn signals, and tire treads of the motor home. They searched the motor home and personal belongings. When Mr. Brock attempted to record the police conversation with his tape recorder, the police seized the recorder. When he attempted to have a citizen photograph the police in action, the police seized his camera. Despite finding no evidence of a crime, the police towed away Mr. Brock’s motor home, and left him stranded on the streets of Royal Oak with a few personal belongings in a duffel bag. The Law Center obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enabling Brock to drive his motor home displaying his messages during the 2002 Woodward Dream Cruise weekend. As a result, Brock was able to display his messages on the public streets of Royal Oak and adjoining cities during the 2002 Dream Cruise without police interference.

On April 30, 2003, Judge Gadola signed a stipulated consent judgment awarding damages and attorney fees amounting to $44,707.17. The judge ruled that the First Amendment protects the symbols, messages, and signs, including those depicting images of aborted babies, displayed on Brock’s motor home, and that Brock’s constitutional rights had been violated during the 2001 Dream Cruise. The judge permanently enjoined the City from interfering with Brock when he is peacefully displaying his pro-life, Christian, and political symbols, messages, and signs in the City, and permanently enjoined the City from stopping, searching, and seizing Brock’s motor home and his other property without probable cause, a warrant, or consent.

According to Edward L. White III, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, who handled the case, “We are pleased with the result we obtained for Mr. Brock, especially because Mr. Brock is now free to peacefully display his messages in public without fear of further interference from the police.”

Thomas More Law Center Fights Political Correctness in Public Schools
Wed, Apr 30, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI —April 28th was designated “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day,” and many students across the country proudly wore their shirts to school, expressing their opposition to abortion. However, despite a student’s clearly established constitutional right to express his or her views in this manner, some students were denied this right, so they sought the assistance of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Attorneys for the Law Center sent demand letters to offending school officials in New Hampshire and Michigan, outlining the law in this area. These demand letters had the desired effect: the students were allowed to express their pro-life message free from harassment.

In New Hampshire, a high school freshman was told that her “abortion is homicide” shirt was offensive to some students and faculty and so school officials threatened her with suspension should she not find a more “positive” way of expressing her beliefs. This same school, however, actively promoted just weeks earlier the pro-homosexual “National Day of Silence,” where students and teachers expressed their pro-homosexual views by wearing rainbow ribbons during school. School officials apparently did not find this politically correct view “offensive.” Shortly after the Thomas More Law Center got involved, school officials agreed that the student had a right to wear her pro-life shirt, even if they didn’t like it. The student proudly wore her shirt this past Monday and says that she will continue to wear it to make her point.

In Big Rapids, Michigan, a junior honor roll student was similarly warned that her pro-life t-shirt was “offensive” to students, and school officials gave her the choice of changing her shirt or going home. The student chose to go home. The student then contacted the Law Center because she wanted to wear her shirt on “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day.” Law Center attorney Edward L. White III sent a letter to the principal of this Michigan high school, and, as a result, the student returned to school with her pro-life shirt this past Monday. According to Mr. White, “We are pleased that our client was free to wear her pro-life shirt to school on Monday without any further interference from the school. Wearing the shirt on that day and expressing her pro-life views was very important to this student.”

Robert Muise, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center handling the New Hampshire case, commented, “The political correctness police are out in full force in the public schools across this nation, seeking to suppress ideas and messages that they oppose. What is most disturbing about the New Hampshire case is that our client’s brother is presently serving in Iraq with the U.S. Marines. I wonder what he and the other servicemen fighting to free the Iraqi people from tyranny would think about the way in which his younger sister was treated here in the United States. I doubt they would approve of it.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, 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. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It 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.

LA County Sheriffs, School Administrator, Sued For Banning Pro-Life Speech
Tue, Apr 22, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — This past March, Los Angeles County sheriff deputies, citing a California law that prohibits “disruptive” activity on any street adjacent to a school, prevented the operation of a truck displaying pictures of first-term aborted fetuses on the public streets near a middle school. As a result, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit last Thursday alleging a violation of the Free Speech provision of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and two of its members, against the sheriff’s department, the sheriff, several deputy sheriffs, and a school administrator.

Robert Muise, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center handling this case, acknowledged the controversial nature of the pictures and commented, “Regardless of how one feels about these disturbing photos, CBR has a constitutional right to display them. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have embedded themselves in public school systems throughout this country. So long as pro-abortion groups insist on targeting school-age children, it is appropriate that these same students receive at least a modicum of truthful education about abortion. CBR’s photographs do not lie and they show abortion for what it is: the killing of an innocent human life.”

CBR is a California-based, pro-life organization that displays controversial pictures depicting graphic images of first-term aborted fetuses on the sides of box body styled trucks. CBR drives these trucks on public streets and highways throughout the United States, including public streets adjacent to middle schools and high schools. CBR takes its pictures to middle schools and high schools because it believes there are students at these schools who have either had or are contemplating having an abortion without being fully informed of the truth or reality of abortion, and in many cases, without informing their parents. CBR believes that students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see one.

According to the lawsuit, a CBR member was driving one of the trucks on a public street adjacent to the Dodson Middle School in Los Angeles County when he and another pro-lifer who was accompanying him in an escort sedan were pulled-over and detained by several deputies from the county sheriff’s department. The deputies detained the pro-lifers for more than an hour and a half, searched their vehicles, and then warned them that their activity was disruptive and to not return to the school with their pictures, citing the California criminal code. The sheriffs solicited the assistance of a school administrator, who was also named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that it is unconstitutional to use this California law to restrict the operation of CBR’s trucks on public streets, an order enjoining the defendants from doing so in the future, plus nominal damages and attorney fees.

Lawsuit Filed to Allow Pro-Life Speech to Take Flight in Hawaii
Mon, Apr 7, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — The constitutionality of an ordinance enacted by the City and County of Honolulu banning pro-life aerial banners over Honolulu beaches is the focus of a federal lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The lawsuit was filed in U. S. District Court on Friday on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and its executive director Greg Cunningham, against the City and County of Honolulu and the city prosecutor and police chief. CBR is a California-based, pro-life organization that uses controversial pictures depicting graphic images of first-term aborted fetuses displayed on banners towed behind aircraft.

Robert Muise, associate counsel for the Thomas More Law Center handling this case, acknowledged the controversial nature of the towed displays and commented, “We are committed to keeping public forums open for pro-life speech regardless of the controversial nature of the speech, including those forums that are 500 feet above the ground. Many people do not like these aerial banners because they are a window into the abortion industry that reveals the shocking and disturbing truth about first-term abortions.”

The Thomas More Law Center successfully sued the City of Huntington Beach, California on a similar ordinance. Shortly after the Law Center’s legal action was filed Huntington Beach repealed the ordinance and paid the Law Center $10,000 in attorney fees.

The federal lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of this ordinance on several grounds. Foremost is the allegation that this law violates the free speech rights of CBR and Cunningham. According to the complaint filed, this ordinance is unconstitutional because it is a total ban on a certain form of speech, and it completely forecloses an effective medium of communication for CBR. The lawsuit also challenges this ordinance on equal protection grounds, and it claims that the ordinance violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because Congress, through the FAA, has acted to preempt any state or municipal law that regulates banner towing and aerial advertising flight operations. According to the lawsuit, recent changes to FAA regulations make clear that municipalities such as Honolulu lack authority to enact such laws because they would interfere with federal objectives.

State and Federal Law Enforcement Harass Pro-Lifers In Ohio: Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed Against 21 Defendants
Tue, Feb 25, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — Three men were winding down their peaceful pro-life caravan against abortion and were in the process of parking their two trucks for the night when scores of law enforcement officers from three municipalities, including the county sheriff’s department, and the FBI descended upon them. The men were detained for three hours while their vehicles and personal items were searched, and photographs were taken of their pro-life signs. No charges were ever filed. As a result, a federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Ohio against four state and federal law enforcement agencies and seventeen law enforcement officers.

The lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (“CBR”), a national pro-life organization, and the three men, all residents of Ohio who were working for CBR at the time. Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, stated, “We are hopeful that this lawsuit will remind those in authority that the Bill of Rights applies to pro-lifers. What happened in Ohio is not supposed to happen in this country.”

In the late afternoon on June 10, 2002, approximately fifteen law enforcement officers from the Clearcreek Township and Springboro Police Departments, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, and the FBI stopped and surrounded the three men who had been driving two trucks and an automobile through Dayton, Ohio, as part of CBR’s pro-life project.For the past several years, CBR has used its pro-life trucks in states throughout the country. The trucks display large photographs of first-term aborted fetuses with the word “Choice” inscribed above the photographs.

Despite the controversy often surrounding the display of graphic images of aborted babies, this is the first time law enforcement officers have so interfered with CBR’s constitutional right to publicly express its message. After the long ordeal was over, the police released the men without any legitimate explanation for the stop.

According to the lawsuit, the actions of the law enforcement officials, many identified as “John Does,” violated CBR’s and the three pro-lifer’s constitutional right to free speech and the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that these law enforcement officials were acting pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or practice of “profiling” pro-life demonstrators as criminals. In addition to compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, the lawsuit asks the court to declare unconstitutional the actions of the defendants and to enjoin any further such acts against the pro-lifers.

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. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations. It 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.

Connecticut Pro-Life Advocate Escapes the Clutches of State and Federal Government Attorneys
Mon, Feb 17, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — An array of attorneys, including the Connecticut Attorney General himself, and one of his assistants, plus two U.S. Department of Justice attorneys from Washington D.C. failed last week in their attempt to convict seventy-seven year Stanley Scott of civil contempt. Scott, a retired tollbooth collector, is one of Connecticut’s most prominent pro-life advocates.

The contempt proceedings stemmed from a 1997 federal district court permanent injunction restricting Scott’s pro-life advocacy in front of the Summit Women’s Center, an abortion clinic then located on Middle Street in Bridgeport. Scott has been regularly protesting outside Summit and other area abortion clinics during the past twenty-seven years.

During the two-day hearing, government attorneys introduced videotape evidence and called several witnesses, including an FBI agent who testified that he had spent three months investigating Scott. The government attorneys wanted the federal judge to hold Scott in contempt for numerous alleged violations of the permanent injunction, occurring between May 2001 and May 2002. They also wanted the federal judge to impose a $1000 fine on Scott. Scott left the courtroom victorious.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represented Scott at no charge. Edward L. White III, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case, was elated, “We had a big fight on our hands. We were up against the awesome resources of the United States and the State of Connecticut, not to mention several attorneys. We are tremendously pleased with the result.”

Scott, who had been found guilty of contempt on three previous occasions when he represented himself was equally elated, “I am very grateful for the judge’s decision, and particularly grateful for Mr. White’s zealous defense of my constitutional right to express my opposition to abortion.”