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 five in the case.
The Supreme Court refused to review the case and returned it to the district court to reconsider its award of punitive damages. The district court found the $108.5 punitive damages award to be proper. The Ninth Circuit, however, on September 6, 2005 disagreed and reduced the amount by 96%, from $108.5-million to $4.7-million.
Edward L. White III, Trial Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center handling the case, stated, “The Ninth Circuit did not reduce the damages award enough. There should have been no punitive damages imposed in this case. Our clients were exercising their First Amendment rights, and we intend to pursue this case again to the United States Supreme Court.”
White continued, “We had argued on appeal that the jury’s verdict should have been overturned completely or, at a minimum, a new trial granted, in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that changed the law to the direct benefit of our clients. The Ninth Circuit, however, disregarded those issues and focused just on the question of punitive damages. We trust the Supreme Court will consider all issues involved in this case and ultimately rule in our clients’ favor.”
For example, based on new Supreme Court decisions that were issued while the Nuremberg Files case was pending, a defendant may only be found guilty of making a threat if the defendant made the threat with the specific intent to commit violence. In the Nuremberg Files case, however, the jury was told that it did not have to find specific intent, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.
Also, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that for a pro-life advocate to be found guilty of “extortion” under RICO, as were the pro-life advocates in the Nuremberg Files case, the pro-life advocate must obtain property from an abortion provider. There was no evidence, however, that the pro-life advocates in the Nuremberg Files case had obtained any property from the abortion providers, yet they were found liable under RICO, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.
Law Center President Reaffirms Governor’s Authority Under State Criminal Laws to Prevent Death of Terri Schiavo – Legal Memo Provided to Governor 17 Months Ago
Thu, Mar 24, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI — Former prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian, Richard Thompson, reaffirmed Thursday morning the authority of Florida Governor Jeb Bush to utilize state criminal laws to prevent the death of Terri Schiavo. Pointing to two legal memos prepared by the Thomas More Law Center which were delivered to Governor Bush in October of 2003, Thompson again urged Bush to launch a formal criminal investigation into the facts surrounding the disability of Schiavo.
The two letters dated October 15th and 16th point to the constitutional authority of Governor Bush to order the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate violations of criminal laws. The letters cite a number of facts suggesting Terri Schiavo is a victim of domestic abuse and neglect, and may be a victim of domestic violence. Furthermore, the letters point out that officials from the Florida Department of Children and Family Services have the authority to enter the premises where Schiavo is currently being held and remove her if they believe that medical care is necessary to avert a likely risk of death or serious injury.
The October 15 letter concludes that a growing number of facts establish probable cause to “conduct a full criminal investigation of the circumstances surrounding the disability of Ms. Schiavo. To date, the facts of this case have not yet been viewed through the lens of a criminal investigation. Shamefully, the government’s investigatory resources have not been brought to bear on discovering the truth in this case.”
Speaking Thursday, Thompson once again urged Governor Bush to launch a formal criminal investigation and remove Terri Schiavo from the custody of her current guardian. He further indicated that the consent of Schiavo’s guardian is not necessary to obtain custody of Terri. Thompson also offered the assistance of attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center to assist the Governors staff if needed.
The two legal opinions were prepared and delivered to Governor Bush in October of 2003, after Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. Bush through his aides requested the legal counsel at the time, but instead chose to work with the Florida legislature to pass emergency legislation to prevent the death of Schiavo.
Law Center Backs Michigan Citizens Against ACLU Attack on Partial Birth Abortion Law
Thu, Mar 17, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center has filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others, who seek to overturn the recently enacted Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act. The law is a new approach to ban partial-birth abortions. The Law Center is representing Standing Together To Oppose Partial-birth-abortion (“STTOP”), the ballot question committee, which played a crucial role in enacting this citizen-initiated legislation.
Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, “There is a point at which the law protects a child that is in the process of being born. No civilized society should have to accept and condone the inhumane killing by partial-birth abortion. The Legal Birth Definition Act seeks to put a stop to this grisly form of infanticide.”
In October 2003, 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, with an all-volunteer team of circulators, 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 others filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, 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 is seeking to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of STTOP, arguing that STTOP has a vested 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, which includes protecting and promoting the health, welfare and safety of all persons.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Pro-abortionists lost the battle in the arena of public opinion and the legislative halls, and now in accordance with their usual tactic, seek to short-circuit the democratic process by going to the courts to uphold this most barbaric and gruesome form of abortion.”