“Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells her she will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure,” according to the group’s news release.

Read the full Washington Post article

Review the BDF resource on the Komen-Planned Parenthood link here: http://www.BDFund.org/breastcancer

Professor Borgmann presented the arguments embraced by the Roe Court based on the autonomy of the woman.  In response, Bordlee engaged law students with an argument based on holistic feminism, a position that integrates the interests of the woman, her child, and the often ignored duties of the father.  Several of the self-professed pro-choice law students expressed interest in these arguments that they “had never heard before.”

In summary, Bordlee addressed the overwhelmingly negative lasting effects of Roe on:

• Relationships and Family:  Roe has facilitated the sexual exploitation of women, the subsequent abortion coercion of those who do not welcome her child, and has enabled men to shirk their legal and moral duties of child support and fatherly guidance. 
• Women’s Health: Roe has wrecked havoc on women’s  physical and psychological health as evidenced in a mountain of peer-reviewed studies.
• Law and Politics:  Roe has distorted the proper role of the judiciary, deprived citizens of their rights to fully engage the issue of life and death in the democratic process, and has roiled American Presidential elections and judicial appointments with the never-ending subtext of abortion.  

Bordlee concluded that the judicial fiat improperly expressed in Roe should be reversed so that the abortion issue can be returned to the democratic process.   Citizens in our federalist society would then once again be able to fully engage the issues of the humanity of the unborn child, and the impact of abortion on women and families — via state legislation, ballot initiatives and constitutional amendment efforts.

To schedule a BDF attorney for a speaking event, or to consult with Bioethics Defense Fund on resources to help you argue the pro-life feminist position, contact us at info@bdfund.org or (504) 231-7234.

Share on Facebook

by Dorinda Bordlee and Nikolas Nikas | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/25/11 4:29 PM

As pundits encourage us to engage in a national examination of conscience on the tone of our civil discourse, hundreds of thousands of students, young adults and pro-life veterans demonstrated civility in action over the past few days.   At Marches for Life at the Capitol, on the West Coast, and at statehouses across the nation, the violence of abortion was met with a message of care and concern for both the woman and her unborn child. 

The tone that we take in the public square is a legitimate topic of discussion. Yet when it comes to abortion and healthcare, some pundits and politicians have long overlooked the prerequisite condition of authentic civil discourse; namely, honesty about the terms of the debate.  

President Obama recently noted that “only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.”

Civil and honest – the two are indeed related. Civility in our public discourse is undermined if citizens have reason to believe that they are being misled. The most recent “Newspeak” rose out of the various health care mega-bills in the last Congress.  While most citizens at town hall meetings were respectful in their tone, the scream-at-your-Congressperson approach taken by a few aptly expressed the hair-pulling frustration experienced by the vast majority of citizens across the political spectrum.

• Read the full article at LifeNews.com.

“In her argument, the Secretary urges an expansive interpreation of the concept of [economic] activity.  She posits that every individual in the United States will require health care at some point in their lifetime, if not today, perhaps next week or even next year.  Her theory further postulates that because near universal participation is critical to the underwriting process, the collective effect of refusal to purchase health insurance affects the national market.  Therefore, she argues, requiring advance purchase of insurance based upon a a future contingency is an activity that will inevitably affect interstate commerce.  Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions.  This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”

This case, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is separate from the high-profile challenge brought by 20 states that is now pending ruling in a Florida federal court.  District court judges in two separate challenges have upheld the individual mandate, making an ultimate Supreme Court resolution more likely especially if there is a split in the upcoming decisions by the federal courts of appeals.

• READ THE COURT DECISION:  Virginia v. Sebelius (E.D. Va. 12/13/2010).

Related Resources:

1. Politico reports on the Virginia ruling.
2. K. Parker, “Federally Funded Abortions are in our Future,” Washington Post (Mar. 28, 2010).
3. J. McCormack, “Stupak Deal Brokered by Former Planned Parenthood Lobbyist,” Weekly Standard (Mar. 24, 2010).
4. BDF: Your State Can Enact Obamacare Abortion Opt-Out Legislation

 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments Monday, December 6, 2010, addressing the ruling by the lower court that the Obama administration’s NIH Guidelines violate federal law because they authorize taxpayer funding of stem cell research that necessarily destroys living human embryos, in violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.  

On November 1, 2010, Bioethics Defense Fund filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Maureen L. Condic, a research scientist and embryology professor, presenting the D.C. Circuit with a cogent scientific white paper entitled, When Does Human Life Begin: A Scientific Perspective (Westchester Institute, 2008).  As explained by Dr. Condic:

It is important for the Court to understand the scientific evidence presented in our amicus brief because it solidly addresses the common misperception that the question of when human life begins cannot be resolved.  This question has been entirely resolved by modern scientific investigation.  While the moral and legal status of human beings at early stages of development remain as issues to be addressed by law and public policy, the public and the courts should be made aware that the scientific facts are unambiguous; based on universally accepted scientific criteria, human embryos are clearly human organisms, i.e., human beings, and not merely collections of cells.

BDF attorney Dorinda C. Bordlee says that the brief on behalf of Dr. Condic is foundational because “any credible policy regarding research on human beings at the embryonic stage of life must first address the serious ethical and legal regulations that Congress has already enacted regarding research that harms or destroys human subjects.”  Bordlee explained in the amicus brief that “the Obama administration has never even raised, much less engaged the central moral question posed by embryonic stem cell research, namely, the moral status of the human embryo used and destroyed in this context.”  

Nikolas T. Nikas, BDF president and general counsel, stated, “This litigation is of critical importance because the Obama policy disregards the will of Congress based on the consciences of citizens who do not want their tax dollars used to support research that makes them complicit in the intentional destruction of human lives.”  

Resources:

• The BDF amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Maureen Condic in the case of Sherley v. Sebelius can be reviewed at www.bdfund.org/pdf/condicbrief.pdf
•  A full copy of Dr. Condic’s white paper, When Does Human Life Begin: A Scientific Perspective (2008) can be reviewed at http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

Read more about the district court decision that enjoined the Obama policy here.

Bioethics Defense Fund, www.BDFund.org, is a public-interest legal organization whose mission includes advocating for the protection of human life in science and medicine through litigation, legislation and public education. 

Recognizing that the current Congress could change the provision relied on by the court to strike down the Obama policy, Nikas encouraged states legislatures to consider enacting complete prohibitions on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning similar to the BDF-drafted bill recently enacted in Arizona.

In today’s federal ruling, the court enjoined the Obama embryonic stem cell guidelines on the grounds that they violate an annual budget rider known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.  In his opinion, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote:

“The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is unambiguous. It prohibits research in which a human embryo is destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subject to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed under applicable regulations. The [Obama] Guidelines violate that prohibition by allowing federal funding of ESC [embryonic stem cell] research because ESC research depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.” 

 BDF Senior Counsel Dorinda C. Bordlee said, “Human life should never be treated as raw material for science experiments — and failed experiments at that, since embryonic stem cells have never been used to help even one patient.  The federal court’s ruling demonstrates a clear understanding of the congressional intent, as well as the basic biological fact that human embryonic stem cell research destroys human embryos.” 

Law in the Service of Life: Because of current efforts in Congress to defeat the life-protective Dickey-Wicker Amendment, Nikas and Bordlee encourage state legislators and policy-makers to contact BDF about their model legislation to ban embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, as recently enacted in Arizona.  BDF provides pro bono drafting consultation, legislative education, and testimony. 

BDF Resources:

• Today’s federal court opinion

• BDF-drafted AZ Embryonic Stem Cell/Cloning Ban

• When Does Life Begin?: A Scientific Perspective, a cogent Westchester Institute white paper written by BDF science advisor Dr. Maureen L. Condic

• BDF’s background on the 2009 Obama policy of funding human embryo research despite breakthroughs in iPSC research that creates stem cells without destroying human embryos.

August 19, 2010.  Baton Rouge, La.

 Dorinda Bordlee, Senior Counsel of Bioethics Defense Fund, stated:

We congratulate the Louisiana Attorney General’s office for successfully obtaining a judgment that clears the way for informed decisions.  Science tells us when life begins, but the real question is when love begins. Legislative testimony confirmed that for many abortion-minded women, love began when they had the opportunity to see their unborn child on an ultrasound screen.  Various forms of ultrasound legislation are enacted in approximately fifteen states. 

The abortion clinic’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed with prejudice, and the federal court judge ordered that the abortion clinics were not entitled to attorney fees.

The court’s order was based on a Joint Stipulation filed by all parties specifying that Louisiana’s newly enacted ultrasound law requires, among other things, that the person performing the mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound must read a script offering the woman the option to receive an ultrasound print, and that the law does not require the provider to compel the woman to accept the photo.

The law also requires Louisiana abortion clinics to provide the woman with a list of facilities that provide ultrasound services free of charge at least 24-hours before a scheduled abortion.   The Joint Stipulation provided that this provision will be enforced only after the abortion clinics receive the list, which is in the process of being prepared and distributed by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

In his order dated August 18, 2010, U.S. District Judge Ralph Tyson of the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed the Louisiana officials named as defendants, including Attorney General James D. Caldwell, Interim Secretary Tony Keck of the Department of Health and Hospitals, and several officials referred to as the “Medical Board Defendants.” 

Bioethics Defense Fund provided pro bono legal advice to the Attorney General’s office on behalf of the bill’s author, Senator Sharon Weston Broome, who stated in legislative committee that “[t]his is a bill that empowers women.” 

Nikolas T. Nikas, President and General Counsel of Bioethics Defense Fund, said,

Ultrasound Before Abortion legislation in the states provides an excellent opportunity for pro-life progress.  Bioethics Defense Fund is available to provide pro bono legal consultation to legislators and policy-makers who wish to enact the ultrasound legislation just upheld by a Louisiana federal court.

• A summary and link to the text of the BDF-drafted LA ultrasound law can be found here. 

 Bioethics Defense Fund
Law in the Service of Life

Contact:  Dorinda C. Bordlee, Senior Counsel, Bioethics Defense Fund, dbordlee@bdfund.org, (504) 231-7234

www.BDFund.org

Pulitzer Prize winner Kathleen Parker has focused her syndicated Washington Post column on a growing trend that has the potential to both change hearts and save lives – ultrasound before abortion legislation – an approach that recognizes that “abortion truthfully presented would eliminate itself or vastly reduce its numbers.”

The column features a bill drafted by Bioethics Defense Fund, and recently signed into law by La. Governor Jindal.  The column also touches on the newly enacted Oklahoma law that now faces a court challenge from the abortion industry.  Addressing powerful legislative testimony from post-abortive women, and women who had chosen life after viewing a free ultrasound, Parker concludes that “as an advocate for informed choice, I can’t rationalize ignorance or denial as preferable options for women in need of sound counseling. Or for a nation that wants to make abortion rare.”  

•  WASH POST: Read the concise and insightful Washington Post column featuring BDF.
  
   
• READ THE BILL: Read the BDF-drafted “Ultrasound Before Abortion“ bill signed into law by La. Governor Jindal.

BILL SUMMARY:

The BDF/La. law gives every woman seeking abortion two chances to choose life: 

1.  At least 24 hours before an abortion, the woman must receive from the abortion provider a list of places that offer FREE ULTRASOUND SERVICES.  This list will be compiled by the State’s Department of Health, and will include mainly pro-life pregnancy care centers. 

2.  If the woman returns, the abortion provider must perform an ultrasound at least 2 hours before the abortion to determine fetal viability and issues related to the woman’s health.  At that ultrasound, the woman must be read a script that gives her three options:

  - The option to view the ultrasound screen

  - The option to hear an explanation of the images

  – The option to get a print out of the image of her unborn child

 These options are offered by a script that the ultrasound tech must read to the woman in the examination room prior to the beginning of the ultrasound examination.  (BDF drafted the script so that the abortionist could not negatively influence the woman by saying things such as, ”You don’t want to see this, do you?”)

Because the ultrasound provisions are amended into the currently existing “Woman’s Right to Know” law, the abortionist will be subject to civil and criminal penalties if the woman is denied these options. 

The script is included in the bill, which can be read here: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=723252

  Legislators and policy makers who want to pursue ultrasound legislation in their state may contact BDF Senior Counsel Dorinda Bordlee at 504-231-7234 or  dbordlee@bdfund.org.

  - an Obamacare Opt-Out bill that recognizes abortion shouldn’t be subsidized with our tax-dollars (along with our report on a lawsuit that could find Obamacare unconstitutional); and

  - an Ultrasound Before Abortion bill  that empowers women to choose life.

Obamacare Abortion Coverage Opt-Out Act  (La. H.B. 1247)

Thanks to your support, BDF drafted and provided legal testimony on a new law that makes Louisiana the fourth state to opt-out of the tax-subsidized abortion coverage provided in the future Louisiana Obamacare Exchanges (IF Obamacare survives the court challenge discussed below).

Bioethics Defense Fund was the only legal organization providing on-the-ground drafting and legal expertise to the Governor’s staff and the bill author, Rep. Frank Hoffmann (R-West Monroe), who carried the bill through both committees and the House floor.  BDF also helped prepare Senator Gerald Long (R-Winnfield) to carry the bill on the Senate floor.  Both of these legislators are outstanding and articulate heroes for life.  Read more about the La. H.B. 1247 here.

 OBAMACARE COURT CHALLENGE:  The Obamacare health insurance exchanges are set to begin in 2014 IF they survive pending court challenges.  Bioethics Defense Fund will be keeping you posted on a case that we believe has a very strong foundation, Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al.  The judge has set a July 21, 2010 hearing in the Eastern District of Michigan to hear oral arguments on whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

 BDF will be representing the Catholic Medical Association in an amicus brief on appeal regarding the law’s improper mandate that citizens in states who have not opted-out must use their personal dollars to buy abortion coverage, whether they want that coverage or not.  Stay tuned.

Ultrasound Before Abortion Act  (La. S.B. 528)

Thanks again to your support, BDF drafted and provided legal testimony on a bill signed this week by Governor Jindal that empowers every woman seeking abortion with the same information the abortionist often denies to her — an obstetric ultrasound.  Angie Thomas of the Woman’s New Life Center testified in the Senate committee that abortion-minded women who have the opportunity to see the ultrasound of their unborn child choose life over 65 percent of the time.

At the request of the heroic bill sponsor, La. Senator Sharon Weston Broome (D-BR), BDF’s Dorinda Bordlee drafted an ultrasound bill that gives every woman two chances to choose life: 

1.  At least 24 hours before an abortion, the woman must receive from the abortion provider a list of places that offer FREE ULTRASOUND SERVICES.  This list will be compiled by the State’s Department of Health, and will include mainly pro-life pregnancy care centers.

2.  If the woman returns, the abortion provider must perform an ultrasound at least 2 hours before the abortion to determine fetal viability and issues related to the woman’s health. At that ultrasound, the woman must be read a script that gives her three options:

  - The option to view the ultrasound screen

 - The option to hear an explanation of the images

 - The option to get a print out of the image of her unborn child

 These options are offered by a script that the ultrasound tech must read to the woman in the examination room prior to the beginning of the ultrasound examination.  The abortionist will be subject to civil and criminal penalties if the woman is denied these options.
 
Read more about the BDF-drafted Ultrasound law .  Policymakers who are interested in passing this “window on the womb” law in their state can contact Dorinda Bordlee at dbordlee@bdfund.org.