Sunday, February 12, 2012
 
 
  Home arrow Abortion arrow Abortion - Archive arrow Forced Abortion Case Heads to Supreme Court (5/04)
Main Menu
Home
About Us
Current Headlines
Abortion
Abstinence
Birth Control
End of Life / Euthanasia
Medical Research
Medical Students
Population
Position Statements
Pregnancy/Development
STDs
Stem Cells & Cloning
Contact Us
Web Links
Site Index
Resources
Related Items
Translator
Quotes to Note

Far from reducing the number of abortions, contraception to some extent finds in abortion a natural unfolding.

Given that the contraceptive mentality is in fact close to the abortive mentality, large-scale use of contraception in the developed nations has contributed to the routine use of abortion.

Scientific research today is oriented towards the development of increasingly “effective” contraceptive techniques to prevent conception and [to prevent] the continuation of pregnancy, with increasingly less risk to the woman, resulting in increasingly abortifacient contraception.

This is a further demonstration of the close link, not only cultural but also scientific, between the use of contraception and the demand for abortion.

To avoid uttering the word “abortion”, people talk about the pharmacological “prevention” of implantation, “interception” or “contragestion”.

It is also asserted that the embryo is not an embryo as long as it is not implanted in the lining of the uterus, but simply a “pre-embryo”, a mass of cells which does not call for any particular respect.

However, a play on words cannot change the reality of the facts.

[Those] who, verbally or in writing, endorse the use of contraception, must know that, in so doing, they are endorsing all the abortions thereby caused and to be caused, which will amount to millions of individuals.

[Jacques Suaudeau, http://www.dialoguedynamics.com/content/learning-forum/interviews-and-articles/article/mons-jacques-suaudeau-on-the-link]

 
Forced Abortion Case Heads to Supreme Court (5/04) PDF Print E-mail

Forced Abortion Heads to SC - The United States Supreme Court has docketed the case Jane Roe II vs. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc. as Case No. 03-1447. In this case Jane Roe II, alleges that an abortionist at Aware Woman violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law when he had her restrained during an unsuccessful abortion, even though she loudly and repeatedly demanded that he stop the procedure and let her leave.


 

The woman was apparently pinned down for an abortion at the Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida while she screamed 'Stop!, Stop!, Stop!'. The abortionist did finally stop once the baby was dead and he had perforated her uterus and pulled part of her intestines out.

Jean Sapp, director of the Counselor Corps, an organization which trains reproductive health service providers said, "Forced abortions as well as non-consensual abortions of all kinds, are being done non-stop across America. These atrocities against mothers are our country's blackest unspoken secret."

The United States District Court in Orlando ruled against the victim. She appealed to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta. The judges there held that the abortionist should be exonerated because he claimed to be helping the mother and acting in her best interest. Her appeal to the Supreme Court was filed by prominent attorney, Michael Hirsh of Atlanta, Georgia.

One concession granted by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was the reference to Jane Roe II, an abortion patient, as a "mother" in their written opinion. [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04050602.html, LifeSite Daily News, 6May04]

 
< Prev


Go to top of page  Home | About Us | Current Headlines | Abortion | Abstinence | Birth Control | End of Life / Euthanasia | Medical Research | Medical Students | Population | Position Statements | Pregnancy/Development | STDs | Stem Cells & Cloning | Contact Us | Web Links | Site Index | Resources |
 
PhysiciansForLife.org Copyright (C) 2004-2012 All Rights Reserved