Federal Judge Orders Fort Myers, Florida, to Stop Enforcing Permit Ordinance Targeting Pro-Life Advocates
Wed, Dec 22, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — As a result of a lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, a federal district court judge has ordered the City of Fort Meyers, Florida, to stop enforcing a city permit ordinance that threatened pro-life sidewalk counselors with arrest and fines every time they appeared on the sidewalks in front of the city’s only abortion facility, the Fort Myers Women’s Health Clinic.
Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “We are pleased that our clients and other pro-life advocates will no longer have their First Amendment rights violated in Fort Myers. They are now free to pray and pass out literature without unconstitutional restriction as they try to save the lives of unborn children.”
The City required pro-life advocates to obtain a permit under the City’s parade ordinance before more than two of them could engage in First Amendment activity and prohibited them from approaching people and distributing informational literature under a separate City policy. As a result, if two sidewalk counselors appeared in front of the abortion facility and then were joined by an unexpected third pro-lifer, all three were subject to arrest and fines. Because of this continuous threat of arrest, some pro-life counselors had abandoned their sidewalk counseling in front of the Fort Myers Women’s Health Clinic.
The Law Center filed the lawsuit in early November on behalf Judith Minahan, Edward and Marilyn Melone, and John Vetter, all of whom are Christians motivated by their faith to expose the evils of abortion. They sought to pray on the public sidewalk outside the Fort Myers Women’s Health Center and counsel expectant mothers in a non-confrontational manner to find alternatives to abortion.
The lawsuit claimed that enforcement of the ordinance and policy violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their freedom of speech, and sought $1.00 in nominal damages for each of the plaintiffs and the repayment of the $5.00 permit fees they were required to pay over the years as well as the Law Center’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Federal District Judge Steele ordered the City of Fort Myers to stop enforcing its permit ordinance and its policy prohibiting the distribution of literature, to pay $124 to the Law Center’s clients, and to pay the Law Center $25,889.20 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Woman Wins 5-Year Legal Battle To See Her Court File Involving Her Abortion Request When She Was a Minor
Tue, Nov 30, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI – When 15 years old and suffering from a mental illness that required her to take prescribed medication, FG found she was pregnant. Instead of telling either one of her parents, she went to a Washtenaw County Probate Court Judge for a judicial bypass to get an abortion without informing or getting her parents’ permission.
In February 2000, a few years after her abortion, FG, through the Thomas More Law Center, requested to see her court file. She wanted to learn whether the probate court had been informed about her mental condition, to learn whether she actually agreed to the judicial bypass and to the abortion, and to see whether any of her rights had been violated. Because of her medical condition, FG had only a vague memory of what had taken place during the probate court proceeding. Nevertheless, a Washtenaw County Probate Judge denied her request.
After a series of appeals lasting 5 years, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled last week that FG had a right to see her file. In a November 23, 2004 opinion written by Judge Thomas Fitzgerald, and joined by Judge Joel Hoekstra, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. Judge Jessica Cooper dissented.
Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “Not only were we able to obtain the proper relief for our client, but we have established legal principles that will guide courts when ruling on requests by women who want access to their own court files that deal with the judicial bypass proceedings.”
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “Most parents don’t realize that a court in a secret hearing can authorize an abortion for a minor without the knowledge, input, or consent of her parents. Until the ruling in this case, court bypass proceedings were even kept secret from the girl who went through the proceedings.”
Fort Myers, Florida, Sued For Restricting Pro-Life Speech of Christian Sidewalk Counselors
Wed, Nov 10, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Fort Myers, Florida, and several of its officials for policies and practices curtailing the free speech rights of pro-life sidewalk counselors to pray and handout pro-life informational literature.
The Law Center filed suit on behalf of Judith Minahan, Edward and Marilyn Melone, and John Vetter, all of whom are Christians motivated by their faith to expose the evils of abortion. They seek to pray on the public sidewalk outside a Fort Myers abortion clinic and counsel expectant mothers in a non-confrontational manner to find alternatives to abortion.
The City of Fort Myers and its officials, however, require pro-life advocates to obtain a permit before more than two of them may engage in such activity. They are also prohibited from approaching people and distributing informational literature. As a result, if three pro-life advocates pray on the public sidewalk without a permit and hand out literature, they are subject to arrest.
According to Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, “Our clients simply want to peacefully pray and present a pro-life message on a public sidewalk without fear of arrest. We are seeking relief from the federal court to allow them and other pro-life advocates to do so freely without being subject to further violations of their constitutional rights.”
The Law Center has requested the federal court grant immediate relief to its clients so that they may engage in peaceful First Amendment activities on the public sidewalks of Fort Myers without being subjected to unconstitutional restrictions and threats of arrest.
Kentucky Supreme Court Unleashes Power of the State to Kill its Own Citizens
Wed, Sep 1, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI —The Kentucky Supreme Court issued a stunning decision on August 26th granting legal authority to the state of Kentucky to end the life of a totally innocent ward of the state. The case involved a mildly retarded black male, Matthew Woods, who was placed on a ventilator after suffering cardiac arrest at the age of 54. The state requested permission to remove his life support, contrary to the wishes of Woods’ guardian ad litem.
Although Woods died of natural causes during the litigation process, the Court agreed to rule on the legality of the state’s request because of the legal questions involved. Prior to his natural death, Woods had never expressed whether he wanted life-supporting measures removed.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This decision is another step down the slippery slope toward a culture of death where the government decides which lives are worthy to be lived. Kentucky should protect the welfare and rights of all of its citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable. The state Supreme Court has now declared that the lives of some of its citizens are not worthy of protection.”
The Thomas More Law Center and cooperating attorney Robert Cetrulo, submitted an amicus brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court, urging the Court to apply Kentucky’s guardianship for disabled persons statute, which would prohibit the state from authorizing the removal of a ward’s life support without his consent.
A majority of the Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed with the Law Center’s position and determined that the “Kentucky Living Will Directive Act” constitutionally permits the Commonwealth to authorize the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from an incompetent ward of the state without any evidence of the ward’s desires regarding such treatment.
Two justices of the Court however agreed with the position of the Thomas More Law Center. Justice Wintersheimer, joined by Justice Stumbo, strongly dissented from the majority’s decision: “It is deeply disappointing that this Court would decide to allow an agency of this State to end the life of a totally innocent ward of that very same State. It is even more shameful to realize that the State would seek to terminate the innocent human life of a person entrusted to its care and protection.”
Justice Wintersheimer warned, “Today, this case involves a mentally deficient ward of the State. Who knows whom it will involve in the future? Only by making the mistaken assumption that it could never happen, the power of the State has been unleashed to kill its own citizens.”
Woods was a mildly retarded black male with an I.Q. of 71 and with the intellectual capacity of an 8 to 10 year old child. When he was 54, he suffered a cardiac arrest, fell into a permanently unconscious state, and was placed on a mechanical ventilator. About 3 weeks later, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as his limited guardian, requested permission to authorize the removal of his life support. Woods’s guardian ad litem challenged the request. Based on the Kentucky Living Will Directive Act, the Kentucky District Court, Circuit Court, and Court of Appeals approved the request.
Virginia School Backs Down: Allows Student To Wear Clothing Expressing Her Pro-Life Views
Thu, Jun 10, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — Osbourn Park High School, a public school in Manassas, Virginia, backed down from its policy prohibiting students from wearing pro-life clothing after threat of a lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center.
On April 16, 2004, Heather Holbrook, a senior, was told by her assistant principal that she could no longer wear her sweatshirt to school. The sweatshirt displayed the message: “Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.”
The assistant principal’s reason for prohibiting the clothing kept on changing. First, the assistant principal claimed the shirt displayed a message the school did not want to promote. Later, when questioned by Heather’s mother, the assistant principal claimed the shirt expressed a political message, the same as a Confederate flag. Finally in a letter to Heather’s family, the assistant principal claimed Heather’s pro-life message was “offensive.”
The Holbrook family then contacted the Thomas More Law Center, which does not charge for its legal services. In a letter sent last week to school officials, the Law Center explained that Heather has a First Amendment right to express herself on campus, even on such controversial subjects as abortion, and requested immediate written assurance that Heather’s First Amendment rights would be restored. School officials were warned that if they continued to silence Heather, the Holbrook family had the right to file a federal lawsuit to restore Heather’s free speech rights.
Two days later, the school district provided written assurance that Heather would be permitted to wear her pro-life sweatshirt to school.
After hearing the news, Heather commented, “I am happy that I can once again express my pro-life views in school. God’s message will not be silenced, and to God be the glory.”
According to Edward L. White III, Associate Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, “We handle these cases across the country at no charge because we believe in the pro-life messages advanced by these students, and we will not tolerate the silencing of those messages.”
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “This is another example of a school attempting to silence a student’s pro-life message. Students are not required to express only those messages that the school approves. Heather and her family should be applauded for having the courage to stand up to the school.”
The S.D. Abortion Bill Reveals the Future of the Pro-Life Movement
Tue, May 25, 2004
The following editorial was written by Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School. The editorial was published in The Wanderer newspaper on April 29, 2004.
Recent events in South Dakota provide further empirical evidence that the National Right to Life Committee has become, in net effect, a barnacle on the pro-life ship of state.
On February 10, 2004, the South Dakota House of Representatives passed HB 1191 which provided: “The legislature finds that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm…
“The guarantee of due process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings and …there is no justification for the taking of a guiltless human life by the state or by any person…
“Any treatment, or administration of any drug to a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being is a felony.”
HB 1191 was consistent with Catholic teaching on abortion, including the principle of the double effect. It provided: “Any licensed physician who provides health care to a pregnant woman shall, in all cases, make every effort to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child. Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.”
HB 1191 was sponsored by pro-life Rep. Matt McCaulley, assisted by the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. Richard Thompson, president of the Law Center, said: “Immediately after the bill was announced, National Right to Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time…State Sen. Jay Duenwald, an officer in both the state and National Right to Life organizations, led behind-the-scenes opposition when the bill reached the [Senate]. Together with pro-abortion senators, Duenwald’s lobbying efforts succeeded in removing the ban and replacing it with an informed consent measure, something already covered by South Dakota law. “However, the ban was reinserted on the Senate floor through a compromise measure that created an exception for the life of the mother and if there a was a serious risk if substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”
That watered-down and defective substitute was vetoed by Gov. Mike Rounds who insisted on technical changes in style and form. The bill failed to pass over his veto. “There is something horribly wrong,” said Rep. McCaulley, “when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue.” NRLC, as an organization, has rarely met a compromise it didn’t like. In this case the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no-compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives.
The essential holding of Roe v. Wade, is that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.” The court so ruled without deciding whether the unborn child is a living human being: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” In various cases since Roe, the court has declined to decide that question. Instead, the court has rested on the basic holding of Roe that, whether or not the unborn child is a human being, he is a nonperson for purposes of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court, however, has recognized in numerous situations “the authority of the state…to adopt in its own constitution individual liberties more expansive that those conferred by the federal Constitution” – Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980). A state therefore can expand, but not contract, the protection given to a constitutional right by the Supreme Court. HB 1191 affirmed, as a matter of South Dakota law, that unborn human beings are entitled to the protections of the South Dakota Bill of Rights. It provided to them greater protections under South Dakota law than are provided by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment. HB 1191 was not merely a restriction of the abortion right. It extended to the unborn the right to life which the South Dakota Bill of Rights guarantees, as a matter of state law, to human beings.
Contrary to the NRLC, HB 1191 was not a futile exercise. It was an affirmation not only of the rights of the unborn child under South Dakota law but also of the reserved power of the state of South Dakota to define, as a matter of state law, the meaning and scope of the South Dakota Bill of Rights. HB 1191, as passed by the House, would have served an educational and legal purpose. It is important to present repeatedly to the Supreme Court laws which affirm the conviction of the American people that Roe v. Wade is totally wrong and that all human beings, including the unborn, are entitled to the protection of the law.
With respect to Roe v. Wade, it makes sense to adopt the approach taken by Abraham Lincoln on the Dred Scott case. That case similarly denied the personhood of innocent human beings – the slaves. In his Chicago debate with Stephen A. Douglas, on July 10, 1858, Lincoln said:
“If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of that Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should…. [W]e will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we mean to reverse it, and we meant to do it peaceably.”
Richard Thompson summed up the lesson that can be learned from this episode: “It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is a betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro-life cause.”
The NRLC is too frequently an embarrassment to the pro-life cause. The Thomas More Center (734-827-2001; www.thomasmore.org) is a fighting force. Its lawyers, in addition to Dick Thompson, are Pat Gillen, Rob Muise, and Ed White.
The future of the pro-life movement belongs to warriors like these.
Pro-Life Leader’s Blistering Attack on the National Right to Life Committee
Tue, May 25, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — A “barnacle on the pro-life ship of state,” “frequent embarrassment to the pro-life cause,” and an organization that “has rarely met a compromise it didn’t like,” were some of the words used to describe the National Right to Life Committee by Notre Dame Law Professor Emeritus and respected national pro-life leader, Charles E Rice.
Rice’s unflattering descriptions of NRLC were part of a recent commentary published by The Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly focusing on the behind the scenes efforts by NRLC to defeat South Dakota legislation intended to ban abortion and challenge the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. The legislation, HB 1191, was introduced earlier this year, falling one vote shy of passing after representatives of the National Right to Life Committee and its state affiliate advocated its defeat by arguing that the time is not right.
“Contrary to NRLC, HB 1191 was not futile exercise,” said Rice. The legislation “would have presented to the Supreme Court a two part question it has not yet resolved: Is the unborn child in fact a living human being? May a state so find as a matter of state law and extend to that human being the protections of its state constitution so as to protect that unborn person’s life to a greater extent than the protections afforded to it by the 14th Amendment?”
In his April 29th commentary, Rice explained, “HB 1191 was consistent with Catholic teaching on abortion, including the principle of double effect.” Rice noted however that immediately after the bill was announced, NRLC spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time.
The legislation, making abortion a crime with no exceptions, was passed by the South Dakota House of Representatives 54-14, only to be upended in a series of political maneuvers in the Senate by NRLC Board Member and South Dakota State Senator Jay Duenwald, who urged legislators to abandon the ban on abortion arguing that the time was not right to challenge Roe v. Wade.
Rice explains, “NRLC, as an organization has rarely met a compromise it did not like. In this case, the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives.”
In closing, Rice noted, “The NRLC is too frequently an embarrassment to the pro-life cause.” “The Thomas More Law Center is a fighting force,” continued Rice. “The future of the pro-life movement belongs to warriors like these.”
Students Take Pro-Life Message Into Public Schools With Legal Backing
Mon, Apr 26, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — Marking the second annual “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day,” thousands of students across the country are preparing to bring the pro-life message to America’s public schools on Tuesday. In addition to the pro-life messages on their clothing, students will also bring the legal backing of the Thomas More Law Center. The Law Center has pledged to defend the free speech rights of these pro-life students from any attempt by school officials to force them to remove their t-shirts.
According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “Abortion advocates are losing their grip on the American public, and are turning increasingly to public schools to indoctrinate our children into accepting abortion. Pro-life students from across the country are standing up for the rights of the unborn, and are bringing this message to their schools. We are proud to defend these courageous pro-life students.”
Each year the Thomas More Law Center receives numerous calls from students across the country whose rights have been violated by public school officials. This past February a student at Denbigh High School in Newport News, Virginia was censored for his sweatshirt that read, “Abortion is Homicide” and on the back stated, “You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.” The student was prevented from wearing the shirt because, according to the Assistant Principal, it violated school policy prohibiting profane or obscene language.
The Law Center immediately sent a letter to the school demanding that the student be permitted to wear his pro-life sweatshirt, threatening a federal lawsuit if necessary. Within two days, attorneys for the school agreed that the student had a constitutional right to wear his pro-life sweatshirt.
The Law Center has defended students in similar cases in Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, New Hampshire, New York, and Maine.
“We anticipate that during this year’s National Pro-Life T-shirt Day that some school officials will again attempt to silence the pro-life messages of students. And again, we will assist these students and their families without charge,” continued Thompson.
The “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day” is a national event organized by the American Life League and its affiliate Rock for Life. Information and materials can be found at www.rockforlife.org.
Report Regarding NRLC Role in Defeat of South Dakota Legislative Effort to Ban Abortion and Challenge Roe v. Wade
Wed, Mar 31, 2004
TO: CONCERNED PRO-LIFERS
DATE: March 31, 2004
FROM: Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel, Thomas More Law Center
RE: REPORT REGARDING THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE’S ROLE IN THE DEFEAT OF SOUTH DAKOTA’S LEGISLATIVE EFFORT TO BAN ABORTION AND CHALLENGE ROE V. WADE
INTRODUCTION
Over the past week, the Thomas More Law Center has received numerous inquires questioning National Right to Life Committee’s (NRLC) role in the defeat of South Dakota’s House Bill 1191 (HB1191), designed to ban abortions, and described by major pro-abortion groups as “… the most sweeping anti-abortion state law enacted in our nation since before Roe v. Wade.” These calls of inquiry have related to a public statement from the Thomas More Law Center designed to inform the public about NRLC’s actions with respect to HB 1191.
All should know that HB 1191 caused a national alarm among pro-abortion groups. According to the March 2nd issue of the Argus Leader, Sondra Goldschein of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, speaking from her New York office, said that many states have attempted to limit abortion but none in the fashion of South Dakota: “I think we are just shocked by what the State Legislature is doing,” she says. “It’s the most extreme example I can think of, and it’s a real example.”
HB 1191 had the support of the Catholic Bishop whose Diocese covers the state capitol. It had the endorsement of nationally renowned pro-life constitutional scholars, Notre Dame law professors Charles Rice and Gerard Bradley. And it had the support of rank and file pro-lifers, many of whom braved a South Dakota snowstorm to demonstrate for the bill during the legislative sessions.
On March 22, 2004, we issued a public statement regarding HB 1191 because we believe that pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLC’s lobbying efforts aligned with those of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation. In our view, such conduct raises important questions about NRLC’s claim to represent the interests of the unborn.
In response to our public statement, NRLC issued a two-page form letter, which confirmed NRLC’s opposition to HB 1191 and defended its decision to oppose this legislative effort to outlaw abortions and directly challenge Roe v. Wade. It is necessary to provide this additional and more detailed statement because NRLC’s letter misstates the facts of this important matter.
ANSWER TO NRLC’S LETTER
The Time is Not Right
In its response, NRLC admits to speaking with one state senator whom they do not name. The unnamed state senator is Jay Duenwald, a board member of the NRLC Educational Trust Fund, and the leading opponent of the abortion ban legislation (HB 1191). Senator Duenwald actively lobbied pro-life legislators on behalf of NLRC and South Dakota Right to Life (SDRTL) to oppose the bill.
From the very beginning of this process, Senator Duenwald argued that HB1191 should be rejected because it was untimely. Senator Duenwald was quoted by Bob Mercer, reporter for the State Capitol Bureau as saying “It would be a good bill if the timing was right. The timing is just flat wrong.” Likewise, The Los Angeles Times, February 29, 2004 article, describing HB 1191 as the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortions reported “….[The] National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group says it’s too soon to attempt an all-out abortion ban.”
It has been 31 years and over 40,000,000 unborn babies killed, and NRLC says it is not the right time to directly challenge Roe v. Wade.
The Thomas More Law Center believes that this assertion concerning “untimeliness” is speculative and shortsighted. Nobody, including NRLC, can predict how the Court may rule, or who may be on the Court in the future. Indeed, a legal challenge in South Dakota would probably have taken several years to reach the highest court. Given the fact that changes in the make-up of the Supreme Court are widely anticipated, South Dakota’s timing might have been perfect. In contrast, the “wait and see” approach with regard to the make-up of the Supreme Court is simply unreasonable. What if changes in the Court are for the worse? What if a certain pro-life majority on the Supreme Court does not come about for another 31 years? Can we afford to wait?
NRLC’s claim that HB 1191 was untimely is fatuous for another reason: South Dakota’s effort was unique both in form and substance. The proposed legislation would have presented the Court with several very significant findings. These findings included the considerable advances in medical science which definitively establish that life begins at conception. In addition, the case would have presented the Court with unprecedented evidence concerning the harm to women caused by abortion, a stated basis for banning abortion that was supported by studies and world-class experts who had agreed to testify in support of the legislation. The extensive basis for the legislative findings may well have convinced some of the Justices that the ban on abortion was justified given the record of harm to women and children that has followed from its decision in Roe v. Wade. Thus, it is highly presumptuous for NRLC to conclude that the case was destined to lose.
More fundamentally, TMLC disagrees with NRLC’s defeatism with regard to the Supreme Court. We believe that efforts to challenge the Roe v. Wade decision should not be dismissed simply because some pro-life strategists believe the Court is not ready. The challenge to Roe posed by South Dakota HB 1191 would have forced the Court to again confront its lawless decision. The case would have thrust the abortion issue into the national spotlight, and would have created the public pressure and political momentum that any successful repeal of Roe will require.
Here it is instructive to consider the tactics of the homosexual interest groups. Recently, many homosexual activists argued that it was a mistake to bring a constitutional challenge to Texas laws barring homosexual sodomy because it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would reverse its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 decision which held that there was no constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. But we all know what happened in that case. Just last year, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law, overruling a decision it rendered just 17 years ago. Now homosex