Select Page

OH Judge Orders PP Abortion Business to Turn Over Records in Statutory Rape Case

Pregnant South African Woman, Her Sister & Child Shot After She Refused to Have an Abortion

Only Omaha Abortion Business Closes

Group Buys Building, Then Closes Wichita Abortion Site

British Woman Learns that Erroneous Test Diagnoses Prompted Her 2 Previous Abortions

Abortion Expansion Bill Rejected by Israeli Parliament

Good News from the Front Lines of the Culture War

OHIO JUDGE ORDERS ABORTION BUSINESS TO TURN OVER RECORDS. A county judge ordered a Planned Parenthood abortion business to turn over all records for girls under the age of 18 to the attorneys for a family of a teenager who had an abortion there.

The decision is a blow to the Cincinnati Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, where staff members obtained "parental" permission for a 14 year-old's abortion from a 21 year-old man who sexually abused her.

Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Patrick Dinkelacker ruled on Wednesday that Planned Parenthood must make the records available. He indicated that the records will be redacted to protect the privacy of the girls involved.

Brian Hurley, the attorney for the girl's family, said he needs the records to determine whether Planned Parenthood's violation of the state's parental involvement law is an isolated incident in this case or whether there is a pattern of taking advantage of pregnant teenage girls. However, Becki Brenner, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region indicated the abortion business will appeal the decision. As a result, the abortion facility's documents won't be released until the appeal process concludes, which could take years to complete. [23June06, Cincinnati, OH]


Mkona refused to have an abortion of the couple's second child, a decision that apparently enraged her boyfriend. The shooting happened after an intense argument early 22June morning over abortion. "He demanded she to go to a clinic to have an abortion. But she refused and told him this was impossible for her. She said that if he wanted her baby dead, he should kill her first."  [23June06, South Africa,]


ONLY OMAHA ABORTION SITE CLOSES. Women’s Services PC, has closed. The property was bought by the University of Nebraska Medical Center, which gave Women’s Services PC several months’ notice to procure new offices. However, veteran pro-lifer Larry Donlan discovered that the business was unable to find a property owner who was willing to lease to them, forcing the site’s closure.

The owner, abortionist C. J. LaBenz, made national news in 1979, when it was revealed that he had ordered a nurse to abandon a late-term baby weighing 2 pound 9 ounce that was born alive during a saline abortion. The child was placed in a “dirty utility room” to cry unattended where he died two and a half hours later.

LaBenz again made news in 2002, when he was arrested for striking sidewalk counselor Sharon M. with his vehicle, then stealing her cell phone and $350 as she lay on the ground injured. La Benz’s charges were later reduced to “disturbing the peace” after he returned McKee’s damaged phone and money. Pro-lifers were encouraged by the closure, one in a recent string of closed mills around the nation. “During the 33 year killing spree, it is estimated that over 60,000 pre-born boys and girls lost their lives at the Women’s Services abortion chamber,” said Donlan. “No child will ever die there again.”

This announcement comes on the heals of yesterday’s announcement by Operation Rescue that it had bought and closed an abortion center in Wichita, KS. “The community has spoken, and has let the world know that abortions are not welcome in Omaha, Nebraska,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We are winning the battle to protect innocent children one closed abortion mill at a time.” [OR,]

OPERATION RESCUE BUYS, CLOSES ABORTION SITE. Operation Rescue announces that it has purchased the building that housed Central Women’s Services, an abortion mill located at located at 3013 E. Central in Wichita, Kansas. The sale of the building forced the mill to close.

The facility will be renovated and serve as Operation Rescue’s corporate headquarters, and will feature a memorial to the pre-born victims of abortion. The abortion site, which did business under a variety of names over a span of nearly 3 decades, had operated in the current location for 23 years, opening on August 31, 1983, after relocating from a different office in Wichita. It is estimated that over 50,000 pre-born babies were aborted there. [Press Release, OR, Wichita,]


BRITISH WOMAN UPSET ERRONEOUS TESTS PROMPTED HER TO HAVE TWO ABORTIONS. A British woman is upset that a hospital erroneously diagnosed her as a carrier of a disease that prompted her to have two abortions to avoid passing it on to her children.

The woman says her life has been wrecked as a result of the misdiagnosis. Geraldine G. is now 58 years old but when she was pregnant with boys on two previous occasions in the early 1970s, she underwent tests at a hospital in the Midlands.

Doctors wrongly advised her she was a carrier of a chronic muscle wasting condition. Not wa

nting to pass the Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene, which only affects boys, on to her children, Griffiths reluctantly had two abortions. Now she has learned the tests were wrong. "To a large extent it has ruined my life. We have lived with this damned disease all my life," she told the Trinity Mirror newspaper.

"I needlessly aborted two children. I took life when it was unnecessary. I think about how they would have turned out and when their birthdays would have been," Griffiths added. [28June06,, England]


ABORTION EXPANSION BILL REJECTED BY ISRAELI PARLIAMENT. The Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, has voted overwhelmingly to reject a proposal to expand abortion availability.

The vote was 39 to 9 against a proposal to abolish the committees – made up of doctors, rabbis and social workers – that currently judge whether a woman may have an abortion. These committees are criticized by pro-abortion feminists in the Knesset who say they are an obstacle to abortion.

Approximately 40,000 abortions are committed against Israeli children per year. In 2002 University of Haifa's professor Arnon Sofer warned that Israel was facing the same threat of population collapse as most western nations. “I am very concerned. If this is the process, and the problem is not dealt with, our country is finished in 17 years, and there will be a collapse,” he told the Jerusalem Post.

The pro-life movement is gaining ground in Israel and in Judaism in general. In 1997 the Jerusalem Post published a series of advertisements telling the story of a child slated for abortion, from his point of view. “Mommy let me live!” was sponsored by Efrat: The International Organization for Saving Jewish Babies. Efrat states its purpose very simply: "engaged in a struggle to prevent the intentional termination of pregnancies….The story of Efrat is a wonderful success story of saving Jewish babies.”

The organization, made up of doctors, psychologists, social workers, rabbis, and public figures say their policy is simple, “We cannot prevent a woman from having an abortion if she really wants one and is determined to go ahead. But it is our humanitarian and professional duty to explain to her all the repercussions of her actions. Knowledge of all the facts will allow the woman to make the right choice.”

The group also provides material support for expectant mothers and vigorously refutes the assertion, made officially by the largest Jewish segment in the US, Reform Judaism, that “Judaism is pro-abortion,” and consider their work to save Jewish children a “mitzvah:” a holy act of piety. [Hilary White, JERUSALEM, June 29, 2006]


Many Americans have developed a pessimistic outlook about the direction of the nation. With all the publicity given to setbacks in traditional religious and moral values, many are convinced – mistakenly – that we are losing the culture war. On the contrary, we are winning in many major areas. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court established the nation's abortion-on-demand policy. Over subsequent decades, the Court reiterated its protection for abortion, including even partial-birth abortions. Yet recent statistics demonstrate not only that abortions are on the decline but also that Americans now widely reject the Court's abortion positions.
According to a recent poll, only 26 percent of Americans (and only 19 percent of youth) currently support abortion-on-demand; however, twice that many (54 percent) oppose abortions, and nearly three-fourths want abortions significantly restricted. 1  Pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), National Organization for Women (NOW), People for the American Way (PFAW), etc., are still given a national platform by a willing media, but those groups now speak for only one-fourth of the country.
They were especially vocal in urging opposition to Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. They specifically condemned his 1991 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he supported four sweeping restrictions on abortion: a 24-hour waiting period, spousal notification, parental notification, and abortion clinic reporting requirements. The media eagerly publicized the pro-abortion groups bashing Alito for this ruling, but chose not to acknowledge the strong national support for his positions.
For example, 71 percent of the nation supports parental consent, and 78 percent supports parental notification. Counseling on the dangers of abortion (i.e., informed consent) is supported by 81 percent of the nation, spousal notification by 67 percent, and a 24-hour waiting period by 71 percent. 2 Clearly, the overwhelming majority of Americans are now pro-life – a fact further confirmed by the steady decline in both the abortion rate and the total number of abortions in America.
For example, in 1990, there were 1.61 million abortions; by 2002, despite America's growing population, the number had fallen to 1.29 million (which is still a tragedy). Similarly, in 1990, there were 280 abortions for every 1,000 pregnancies; by 2002, it was down to 242. 3
Notwithstanding these strong pro-life advances, polling shows that pro-abortion advocates have done an effective job of confusing Americans. Therefore, because of common misconceptions about abortion, even among pro-life Americans, a brief review of the Supreme Court's three major abortion rulings will be helpful.
The original abortion case was, of course, the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling in which the Court invoked a newly discovered "constitutional right to privacy" to strike down Texas' anti-abortion law. That "right" had first been discovered in the Bill of Rights in the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut.
Significantly, "privacy" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights, although the Bill of Rights does contain some privacy guarantees. For example, the Third Amendment secures private homes against certain military intrusions; and the Fourth Amendment secures persons and property against open-ended exploratory searches by federal officials, requiring instead that detailed search warrants be issued. This is the extent of the so-called "right to privacy" set forth in the Constitution; and despite the Court's current claims, it sheepishly admitted in Roe that its newly discovered "right to privacy" actually was "not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution" 4 (emphasis added).
If the Court admits that the "right to privacy" is not specifically in the Bill of Rights, then where did it find that right? According to the Court, "the Bill of Right

s has penumbras" (that is, dim shadows and vague areas where things are not clearly distinguishable); and gazing into the nebulous shadows of those penumbras, the Court supposedly found new "zones of privacy." Although conceding that those zones really had no specific basis in the Bill of Rights, the Court nevertheless asserted that these new "zones of privacy" probably could be justified by the general language of at least the Ninth Amendment, and perhaps even the Fourteenth.
In short, the Court used this so-called "penumbra" to interpret the Constitution according to its "spirit" rather than its actual words – a significant abridgment of original intent. According to Federalist #81:

There is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.
The Federalist Papers further explained that the reason that the courts were not allowed to construe the laws "according to the spirit of the Constitution" was because this would wrongly "enable the court to mold them [the laws] into whatever shape it may think" – which is exactly what has happened.
The federal court thus used the Bill of Rights to strike down state anti-abortion laws; but significantly, the entire Bill of Rights had been enacted to prevent the federal government from doing exactly what it did. As Chief Justice John Marshall had succinctly explained in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Bill of Rights . . .
. . . demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the [federal] government – not against those of the [state] governments. . . . These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This Court cannot so apply them. 5
In Roe, however, the Court not only reversed the purpose of the Bill of Rights but it also federalized the moral authority of the states, subjecting both the state and federal governments to the pro-abortion agenda of the Court.

Thomas Jefferson had long before warned that such a decision would be wrong:
[T]aking from the states the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the [federal government] . . . . would . . . break up the foundations of the Union. . . . I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the [federal] government our foreign ones. 6
The Court struck down state anti-abortion laws, but it purportedly permitted the states to retain a slight power to regulate abortions. In the first trimester of a pregnancy, the Court allowed states to impose virtually no restrictions; in the second trimester, some regulation was permitted; and in the third trimester, states could not restrict abortion unless they made exceptions for the life and health of the mother. However, the great unanswered question in Roe was: "What does 'health of the mother' mean?"
The Court answered that question in Doe v. Bolton (issued the same day as Roe). In that case, the Court struck down Georgia's law prohibiting abortions except in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or severe or fatal injury to the mother. The Court negated that law because it lacked an exception for the health of the mother, which, according to the Court, must include such factors as the woman's age as well as her "physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial" well-being. 7 Abortion-on-demand for any reason therefore became the national policy, because under the Court's definition of "health of the mother," every pregnancy was abortable since it might have a potential "emotional" or "psychological" effect on the mother.
The Court's third landmark abortion ruling (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992) addressed a Pennsylvania law that severely restricted abortions. New appointees had been placed on the Court, and the case presented a welcome opportunity for this new Court to overturn or modify Roe. Regrettably, however, the Court not only refused to overturn Roe but actually strengthened it.
(Significantly, the Supreme Court originally voted 5-4 in that case to overturn Roe, but Justice Anthony Kennedy switched his vote and thus reversed the outcome. I was told of Kennedy's switch by those inside the Court, and the recently released papers of now deceased Justice Harry Blackmun confirm Kennedy's switch. It was because of Kennedy's repeated tendency to change his mind that he was dubbed "Flipper" by staff at the Court.)
In the Casey decision, the Court strengthened its protection for abortion by declaring that any restriction which presented an "undue burden" on a woman's "right" to an abortion would be prohibited. It was the Casey "undue burden" standard, combined with the Doe "health of the mother" standard, that was used by the Court in 2000 to strike down the ban on partial-birth abortions.
Even though the Court supports abortion at every stage of pregnancy, much of the nation still holds two misconceptions about the legal status of abortion. This is why a large majority of Americans – including the two thirds of this nation that want abortions greatly restricted – still oppose an absolute ban on abortion. What are the two misconceptions that help keep abortion-on-demand legal?
First, the public wrongly believes that the Court permits abortions only in the earliest weeks of a pregnancy and not throughout the full pregnancy.
Second, the public has often been told, and now wrongly believes, that a repeal of Roe would outlaw all abortions and thus allegedly endanger the lives of millions of American women. (During the recent Samuel Alito hearings, liberal Democrat US Senators and a sympathetic media frequently repeated this false charge.) To the contrary, a repeal of Roe would only return the abortion issue to the state level to be decided there. So overturning Roe will not end abortion, but it will once again place decisions about abortion in the hands of the people. 8
The bottom line – and the good news – is that America is becoming more strongly pro-life.
[1], "Gallup Poll: Americans Oppose Abortions, Want Limit but No Ban" (at
[2] National Right to Life, "Do the Math" (at
[3] Medical News Today, "Fewer U.S. Abortions Performed in 2002 Than in Any Year Since 1976, AGI Report Says" (at
[4] FindLaw, "U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment" (at
[5] Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 249-250 (1833).
[6] Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p.374. In a letter to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823.
[7] Wikipedia, "Doe v. Bolton" (at
[8] National Right to Life, "Associated Press and other media distort Roe V. Wade and public opinion on abortion policy" (at:
[9] Editor and Publisher, "Gallup Poll Finds Belief in God High" (at
[10] The Barna Group, "Beliefs: General Religious" (at
[11] Melanie Hunter, "Most Americans Feel Religion is 'Under Attack', Poll Shows,"; November 21, 2005.
[12] The Pew Research Center, "Religion A Strength And Weakness For Both Parties Public Divided on Origins of Life" (at
[13], "False judge makes mockery of case for 'intelligent design'" (at:
[14] , "Courts Driving Religion Out of Public Life; Christianity Under Attack" (at:,2933,177355,00.html).
[15] Family Research Council, "The People Have Spoken," citing an April 11, 2004, LA Times poll.
[16] Focus on the Family, "Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska Marriage Amendment" (at:
[17] Focus on the Family, "California Marriage Law Ruled Unconstitutional" (at:
[18] National Public Radio, "Maryland Judge Rejects Gay-Marriage Ban" (at:
[19] Editor and Publisher, "Gallup Poll Finds Belief in God High" (at:
[20], "State of the Media: Public Attitudes" (at:
[21] James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree and O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol.II, p.1166, Luther Martin during the debates of Saturday, July 21, 1787.
[22], "Courts Driving Religion Out of Public Life; Christianity Under Attack" (at:,2933,177355,00.html).
[23] John M. Taylor, Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1970), p.180, quoted from "A Century of Congress," by James A. Garfield, Atlantic, July 1877.
[24] Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), Vol. I, p. 403.
[25] George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalf; and Hilliard, Gray, and Co., 1835), Vol. IX, pp. 391- 392, to Benjamin Lincoln on June 29, 1788.
[26] John R. Musick, Great Americans of History—John Hancock (Chicago: Union School Furnishing Company 1898), pp. 116-117.