Select Page

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rehear Roe v. Wade

Overturn Urged for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban That  Was Declared Unconstitutional in 2004

Modern Day Genocide

UNICEF May Be Freed From Decade of Abortion Promotion

African Pediatrician Says USAID Now Allows Funds to be Used for Food, Health Care, and Abstinence

KS Woman Hospitalized After Botched Abortion Dies

Woman Wins Abortion-Breast Cancer Info Lawsuit Against Abortion Center

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act Introduced in Congress – Women Share the Adverse Effects of Abortion



Supreme Court Refusal to Rehear Roe v. Wade Reinforces the Need for States to Protect Women from the Risks of Abortion, Says Americans United for Life – Today, 22Feb05, the Supreme Court refused to consider a request to reconsider their judgment in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion in all 50 states for any reason at any time of pregnancy.

The petition was made by Norma McCorvey, also known as Jane Roe who is the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade on whose behalf the Court sided in 1973 when making abortion legal. She had petitioned the court to reconsider its decision to make abortion legal based on more than 30 years of evidence that abortion harmed women. She asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the judgment which it issued in her favor 32 years ago. Lower courts had also dismissed McCorvey’s request.

McCorvey used a “Rule 60 Motion,” which Congress provides for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Court Watch 1-25-05 alert) It permits a litigant to request to “relieve” a party from a final act of the courts, when the prior judgment can now be seen as “clearly erroneous.” There is precedent in a 1997 decision, Agostini v. Felton, an establishment of religion case, which was reversed when the court granted a Rule 60 motion.

Ms. McCorvey contends that continuing to apply the 1973 Roe decision is neither just nor equitable, and will bring manifest injustice. Her pleading cites factual changes: abundant credible evidence that abortion is physically and psychologically harmful to women, and that abortion often involves coercion toward the woman, and does not represent a normal doctor-patient relationship. The pleading also cites legal changes such as passage of “Baby Moses” (safe haven) laws in 46 states and a renewed judicial concern for federalism, justifying a return to the states of this decision. [Eagle Forum News & Notes, 28Jan05]

Attorneys with Americans United for Life (AUL) pointed out the problems with the current makeup of the Court. “The justices’ refusal to consider this case shows that they won’t consider the growing evidence that abortion hurts women physically, emotionally, and
psychologically,” said Dorinda Bordlee, Senior Legislative Counsel for
Americans United for Life. “While unfortunate, the decision from this Court was expected. This proves the need for justices who will respect self-government. In a matter as weighty as this, the people should decide, not unelected judges.”  [emphasis added]

“The Supreme Court’s steadfast refusal to revisit this infamous case
dramatically underscores the need for state legislatures to step in as much as they are able to protect women and unborn children from the tragic and preventable consequences of abortion,” said Denise M. Burke, AUL Senior Litigation Counsel.  “It is in the states where women are being protected by common sense legislation and true progress is being made to create a ‘culture of life’,” Burke said.

These AUL attorneys expressed the need to continue to promote state legislation to protect women by regulating clinics and requiring full information about the risks of abortion; 75 life-affirming legislative measures designed to protect women and unborn children were passed over the last two years in the USA at the state level.
[22Feb05 Press Release, AUL attorneys expressed the need to continue to promote state legislation to protect women by regulating clinics and requiring full information about the risks of abortion. Daniel McConchie at 312-492-7234 x213]


PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION UN-CONSTITUTIONAL? 26 Republican Congressmen have filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging that the decision of a Nebraska judge be overturned.  This particular judge has ruled that the partial-birth abortion ban is unconstitutional. The partial-birth abortion ban is strongly supported by the American public, was overwhelming approved by Congress, and signed by President Bush. That one judge could determine that stopping the killing of a partially born child is unconstitutional is inexplicable.  An attorney representing the Congressmen stated: “We are supporting the Department of Justice in arguing that Congress not only acted properly in passing the ban, but that such a ban is needed to ensure that partially born children receive the same constitutional rights afforded to all persons.”  The brief takes the position that: “The frequency of abortions throughout pregnancy, the grotesque and barbaric methods of destruction of children in the womb, and the consequent cheapening of human life in the eyes of society, reflected in the widespread phenomena of ‘dumpster babies’ and violence against pregnant women, all threaten to lead to the acceptance of infanticide, especially in the first moments after birth. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits … one particular method of abortion that Congress, after nine years of hearings, found to be gruesome, inhumane, [and] never necessary to preserve the health of women. [13Jan05,]


MODERN DAY GENOCIDE — recently reported on what some are calling the Black Genocide. Since 1972 it is estimated that more than 14 million unborn African-American babies have lost their lives to the abortion industry. Clenard Childress Jr., director of the Northeast Chapter of the Life Education And Resource Network said: “For every five African-American women who get pregnant, three have an abortion. This is a horrific injustice to women, and it’s decimating our communities.”

Childress runs a website that includes statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to the website:  Since 1973, more than twice as many blacks have died from abortion than from heart disease, cancer, accidents, violent crimes and AIDS combined; Blacks make up about 12 percent of the population in the United States but account for 32 percent of the abortions; About 1,450 black infants are aborted every day in this country. Childress believes the abortion industry targets black women for two reasons. “Unquestionably the love of money. The abortion business is quite lucrative.” The second reason is related to the origins of the abortion movement. Childress concluded: “I’m not convinced that any of the people who have run Planned Parenthood over the years have said, ‘Let’s wipe out all the black people,’ but that’s been the effect of it.” [ To listen to this spot, visit:; Alabama Citizens Watch Weekly Radio Spots, 02/08/05]


UNICEF TO BE FREED FROM ABORTION IDEOLOGUES? Abortion zealot Bellamy replaced by new head who says reproductive health issues are not “relevant to the missions of UNICEF”. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan announced 18Jan05 the appointment of a Bush Administration veteran to replace Carol Bellamy as the head of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Beginning May 1, former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman will replace Bellamy who has been credited with leading the once world-renowned organization into international disrepute. Bellamy, a Clinton Administration pick for the UNICEF post, has been slammed for years by pro-lifers for turning UNICEF into an abortion-promoting organization. U.S. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) has said that Bellamy is so pro-abortion that, while a Senator in New York’s state senate, she voted against a bill would have required doctors to give children who survived botched abortions the same kind of care ordinarily given to other newborns. When Bellamy was appointed director of UNICEF in 1995, Smith commented: “Carol Bellamy is a highly inappropriate choice to run an agency that is supposed to promote the health and welfare of children throughout the world.” The shift of focus initiated by Bellamy ten years ago caused the Vatican to withdraw funding from the organization in 1997 and has even been recognized as inappropriate by secular sources. Only last month, Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet, criticized UNICEF. Horton charged the UN agency has given priority to so-called children’s rights, over its primary mandate – to save the lives of children through improved health initiatives. “It is widely, if regrettably, accepted that UNICEF has lost its way during Carol Bellamy’s long term of office,” wrote Horton, adding, “she has failed to address the essential health needs of children.” Veneman, at least from her comments at the press conference introducing her in her new capacity, seems a breath of fresh air. Her comments indicate a back to basics approach of concentrating on “issues that no child — no human being — should have to confront: malnutrition and hunger, illiteracy and disease, especially the scourge of HIV/AIDS, exploitation and suffering, wars and natural disasters.” When asked specifically about the reproductive health (read abortion) agenda which has become a hallmark of UNICEF under Bellamy, Veneman responded, “I don’t come with any agenda with regard to those or any other social issues. I come with an agenda of helping children, particularly in the areas of education and health and to address the issues of hunger and malnutrition. I don’t believe that these issues are relevant to the missions of UNICEF.”  Jim Hughes, Vice President of International Right to Life Federation responded to Veneman’s appointment saying, “We are filled with cautious optimism.” In comments to, Hughes added, “ We won’t be running out to donate to UNICEF until the it re-establishes trust as an organization that looks out for children, all children regardless of age, size or dependency – that includes unborn children.” That caution is well founded as Carol Bellamy still has a few months to do further damage to the organization. During the press conference Annan said, “Carol still has more than three months in the job,” he said. “And I’m sure she’ll be a director till the last day.”
[UNICEF–; 20Jan05]

AFRICAN DOCTOR SAYS USAID ALLOWING FUNDS TO BE USED FOR FOOD, HEALTH CARE AND ABSTINENCE – Positive impact of Bush Administration on African health structures to be felt for many years – In recent months there has been a “dramatic” change in policy in Africa by many western aid agencies that are for the first time in decades allowing Africans to decide to use aid funds for Nutrition, Basic Health Care and Abstinence Programs instead of the usual population control.  Kenyan pediatrician Dr. Margaret Ogola related this development to in an October 19 interview in Toronto where Ogola had come to speak and meet old friends. Dr. Ogola is the medical director of the Cottolengo Hospice in Nairobi, Kenya for HIV-positive orphans and heads the Commission for Health and Family Life. She has spent the past few decades treating numerous children, most of whom acquired AIDS from their mothers, either in utero, or as a result of drinking their mothers’HIV infected breast milk.  AIDS has become a women’s disease in Africa, says Ogola, with HIV infected women outnumbering men 3 to 1 because of poverty and resulting transactional sex and because of the breakdown of family structures as a result of 2 million AIDS deaths. In her Toronto talks Dr. Ogolo related the joys and many sorrows of her work with these young children, many of whom have died, not directly from the disease, but rather from a lack of basic nutrition and health care which removed their natural resistance and worsened their HIV condition. Ogola told that in the early 80’s and 90’s, when there were huge numbers of young people dying of AIDS, “the aid agencies did not want to have anything to do with treatment”, infant nutrition or prevention strategies, such as abstinence programs, which she says were natural to African culture. She emphasized that aggressive western promotion of the condom by the aid agencies were “very destructive for Africans”, weakened their natural African moral fibre and made them more prone to acquiring AIDS. However, Dr. Ogala related, in the last year and especially in the last few months, there has been a ‘dramatic change’ in the situation. “It’s truly encouraging”, she says, “that finally USAID, American money can be used for abstinence campaigns”.  Regarding the U.S. Bush administration, Dr. Ogola stated, “they have removed the massive amounts of funding that was going to contraception and are actively moving towards health care and this was one of my problems for many years as a health professional that I could not treat ordinary illnesses while we had massive contraceptive technology as part of the aid given to Africans.” “So”, she continued, “this government (Bush), whatever other difficulties it may have, the impact of the Bush Administration on the health structures in Africa is going to be felt for many years down the line positively.” Ogola stated the same, dramatic change is happening in several other African countries. “We are now allowed to use American money to treat tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS with large sums coming in.” “This year alone” she said, “we will have sums coming in to put 45,000 of the 200,000 Kenyans with AIDS who require anti retro viral drugs on treatment.”  Only 5,000 Kenyans are currently receiving such life sustaining treatment which will add about 10 years to their lifespans while the search for better treatment is underway. This also allows many AIDs infected parents to continue to care for and instruct for children who would otherwise be orphaned at an early age and possibly also acquire AIDS without the guidance and support of their parents. With the new influx of funding for abstinence programs, Ogola said that teens are being attracted to abstinence and it has become fashionable. “They are being taught it is fashionable to wait” she said, and “it’s a major 3600 turn.” “Kenyans have suffered massively”, Ogola said, and that, she says, is why they are now demanding their government insist on and implement far more effective uses of foreign aid funds. “It has been a hard lesson”, she says. Ogola says the changed aid conditions and constant public education at all levels “tackles all the issues that the condom debate simply covered.” This is also hugely helping Kenyans, she emphasized, to deal with the massive orphan crisis they will have over
next 10 years as a result of the 2 million deaths of young parents.[29Oct04, LifeSiteNews, Toronto]

WOMAN HOSPITALIZED FROM BOTCHED ABORTION DIES  — A Kansas woman rushed to a local hospital after her abortion at a late-term abortion facility was botched has died. The 32 year-old woman was transported to Wesley Medical Center on January 13 from the abortion business owned and operated by late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller. According to one source, who spoke with the pro-life group Operation Rescue, she arrived at the hospital with “severe hemorrhaging” and died “a few days later” from undetermined causes the source said “are very likely to be the result of a botched abortion.” According to 911 transcripts the group obtained, Tiller employee Marguerite Reed called for an ambulance after the abortion was botched. The record indicates Reed was “very evasive” and “refused to give any information about the patient.” Later, Reed told 911 operators the woman suffered from “pain above the belly button.” Reed said the woman was awake and alert and did not suffer from chest pain. Troy Newman, president of the group, called on Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to ask the Kansas Board of Health Arts, which monitors doctors in the state, to investigate. His group filed a complaint with the state agency. [ Pro-Life News Report, 27Jan05, #2; Wichita, KS]

WOMAN WINS ABORTION-BREAST CANCER INFO LAWSUIT AGAINST FACILITY — For the first time, a woman has won a court case in a lawsuit saying that an abortion business failed to inform her of the link between abortion and breast cancer. The lawsuit is only the second to be successfully prosecuted and the first to obtain a judgment. The 19 year-old woman filed suit against the Portland-based All Women’s Health Services abortion facility. She had an abortion there in May 2001 when she was 15, but was not told of the psychological risks or that the abortion procedure has significantly high breast cancer risks for teenagers. The woman has a family history of breast cancer, which, combined with the abortion, would have almost assuredly caused her to contract the disease later in life. She indicated the family medical history on an abortion facility intake form, but was still not told of the link. Jonathan Clark, the woman’s attorney, told WorldNetDaily that the judgment “makes a pretty powerful statement about the science,” showing that the abortion facility did not want to defend its stance against the research data confirming a link exists. The abortion facility chose to settle the case out of court. The judge signed the agreement on January 24 and the amount of the judgment is confidential. [ Pro-Life News Report, 27Jan05, #2; Portland OR]

UNBORN CHILD’S ABORTION PAIN BILL INTRODUCED — Congressional lawmakers introduced legislation on Wednesday targeting the pain an unborn child feels during an abortion. The bill is a top legislative priority for pro-life groups this session and has been endorsed by President Bush. Under the bill, abortion practitioners would have to tell any woman considering an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy that the abortion procedure will cause significant pain for the unborn child. In addition, the legislation requires that the mother be given the opportunity to have anesthesia administered to the baby prior to the abortion. The legislation is sponsored in the Senate by Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback and on the House side by Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican. The measure already has 32 co-sponsors. Several pro-life groups, including the Family Research Council and the National Right to Life Committee, hailed the introduction of the bill and pledged their full support. “The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act reflects the growing knowledge and concern among Americans for unborn children,” said Wendy Wright, of Concerned Women for America. “This legislation applies the most up-to-date scientific information to this issue by requiring abortionists to provide medically accurate information that, without a law, they simply refuse to give to women.” [ Pro-Life News Report, 27Jan05, #2; D.C.]

Silent No More Campaign: visit their web site to learn about this international campaign that features women sharing how abortion affected their lives. The Campaign Gatherings happen nationwide in public places to raise awareness and help those hurting after an abortion connect with healing programs. Register on the website to participate in sharing your abortion recovery testimony.