Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

The Danger is Clear and Present

Saturday, May 14th, 2016

There are many people who continue to scoff at our warnings about the gravity of the threats to religious liberty, and our fears of outright persecution by our government. They accuse us of scaremongering, and insist that “that will never happen”.

The skeptics need to come to New York. The threat is real, and it is here, right now — a government mandate that private health insurance plans cover elective abortions. And it is happening with all the classic characteristics of New York government — secretive, devious, duplicitous, unaccountable, and arrogant.

To understand this, you have to have a small bit of background. The New York State Department of Financial Services regulates the insurance business. They have to approve every health insurance policy by the beginning of the new year, to make sure that it complies with all the various legal requirements in New York law. To make this easier, DFS issues what it calls “model language” for health plans. Although one would think that “model language” is merely a suggestion, in reality it is required, because no health plan would be approved without it. So every health insurance company just falls in line, and the person obtaining the insurance really has no choice. So the “model language” is actually a legal mandate, dressed up in other clothing to hide the truth.

Here’s where the classic New York underhandedness comes in. Last year, DFS put out draft “model language” for small employer policies that included coverage for so-called “therapeutic abortions” — which really means abortion on demand, for any reason whatsoever. Now, of course, there is no legal authority for this — it isn’t authorized by legislation and it’s never been put through the normal process for issuing regulations. But that has never stopped a New York executive agency before — they typically act as if they were a law unto themselves, and they just make up new “laws” as they wish.

Objections were made to the crypto-mandate, and so DFS went into “rope-a-dope” mode. They promised to study it, to discuss it with superiors, etc., etc. Nothing happened, despite repeated requests for clarification. The effect of this obfuscation and delay was that they ran out the clock until the end of the year, when every insurance plan has to be submitted for approval, including the model language.

As the deadline approached, DFS dropped the real bomb, the one that shows such patent bad faith that even completely cynical watchers of New York government were appalled. In an off-handed comment, a DFS official told a representative of the Catholic Church words to the effect that “Oh, what’s the problem, you’re already paying for therapeutic abortions”. When our representative picked himself off the floor and asked “how?” and “since when?” and “why didn’t you tell us?”, the bureaucrat said that it had been the case for a long time,  and that it was all under the rubric of “medically necessary surgery”, which is automatically covered in all health insurance policies. And, of course, there’s no exemption for religious employers or anyone else who objects to paying for the killing of unborn children.

So a sneaky, duplicitous state agency has been making Catholic institutions — and everyone else — pay for elective abortions for years and lying about it being “necessary surgery”. And this is all done without any public awareness or scrutiny — it’s just a secret fiat from some nameless bureaucrat who is accountable to nobody. So much for the rule of law.

Fortunately, people are pushing back against this gross abuse of power. A lawsuit has been filed by the Dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg, Catholic Charities agencies, religious communities, and a number of non-Catholic institutions, including the Episcopal Diocese of Albany. This lawsuit raises major issues about religious liberty, and how to put limits on an arbitrary, unaccountable government that is insistent on imposing morally offensive mandates on religious groups and people.

Don’t listen to the skeptics. The threat to freedom of religion is real and present. And it will not go away, because the pro-abortion ideology is so deeply ingrained in our state government that they will brook no opposition, and will use any available tactic, until they enshrine abortion in every area of the law and drag everyone into complicity with the destruction of the innocents.

It’s About More Than Abortion

Friday, January 22nd, 2016

Today marks the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s tragic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws in all 50 states, and legalized abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, or for no reason.  The cost is almost unimaginable — almost 60 million unborn lives have been lost, at least as many women and men have been scarred by the experience, and our culture has slid, seemingly inexorably, into a Culture of Death that degrades the value of human life.

We remember this tragedy today in many ways, including the March for Life and by observing a special Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection of Unborn Children at Mass. It is also a time to reflect on the effect that Roe and its progeny have had on the rule of law, and the damage that has been done to our Constitution, our courts, and our democracy.

Even when it was handed down, Roe was immediately recognized as a lawless abuse of power, the imposition of a policy preference by a few unelected judges, against the democratically-expressed will of the American people.  Justice Byron White, in his dissent from Roe‘s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, pointedly described the Court’s action as “an exercise of raw judicial power… an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

Since 1973, things have gotten even worse.  There has been a furious drive by advocates (including those on the bench) to preserve abortion rights against all attempts to limit them.  Nothing is acceptable to the pro-abortion movement, and they systematically and regularly distort the law and politics to get their way.  Abortion has tainted everything it touches, corrupting the professions (especially law and medicine).  It has caused radical limitations of free speech rights (see the Court’s decision in Hill v. Colorado), and it’s stain has spread to other areas of the law as well.

This can be seen most clearly in the legacy of the Court’s muddled and misguided decision inPlanned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.  The plurality decision in that case thrashed about wildly to find a legal ground to further entrench abortion as a Constitutional right, finally settling on  what is perhaps the most absurd, and justly derided, passage in any Court decision:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

The opinion also added these astonishingly arrogant remarks:

Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.

This gaseous irrational nonsense has had a toxic effect on the law.  It empowers judges to make up rights as they go along, untethered to any identifiably meaning in the actual Constitution, as it has been understood throughout our nation’s history.  It eliminates the need for legal reasoning, and substitutes the policy whims of judges.  It hands ultimate power into the hands of judges, who were never imagined by the Founders of our nation to have such a role in government.  It eliminates self-rule, and substitutes a judicial oligarchy.

It led most recently to the Court’s lawless decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which our Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers on the Court redefined marriage at the stroke of a pen to mean something that it never has meant, and never could mean.  Who knows where it will lead next — “gender rights”, assisted suicide, polygamy?  Nobody knows, because reason no longer rules in our courts.

All this calls to mind one of the other horrendous decisions made by the Supreme Court, when it arrogated to itself the final authority to make policy under the guise of law — Dred Scott v. Sandford, the only decision prior to Roe that decided that a class of human beings was outside of the protections of the law and could be disposed at will.  In his dissent from that decision, Justice Benjamin Curtis made the following prescient statement:

[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.

That, too, is the legacy of Roe v. Wade.  So as we mourn today the pernicious effects of Roe on human lives, let’s also keep in mind its devastating impact on the rule of law and reason, as witnessed in our out-of-control courts.

Mercy for Everyone Involved in Abortion

Thursday, September 3rd, 2015

[I was asked to contribute to an online forum about what the Church has to say to those involved in abortion. This is an expansion of my contribution]

When Pope Francis announced, as part of the preparation for the Jubilee of Mercy, that he was granting all priests around the world the faculty of forgiving the sin of abortion through the Sacrament of Confession, many people were confused. Some of the questions included, “Don’t priests already have that authority?” “DOes this mean that women who previously confessed, weren’t really absolved?” The news coverage, as usual, was embarassingly amateurish, and awful.

Fortunately, some sane voices offered explanations. Cardinal Dolan made clear that the priests of the Archdiocese of New York (like those in most, if not all dioceses of the United States) have long had this authority, and that people involved in abortion should rest assured that the mercy of God was always available to them.

One thing that I found interesting in all the discussion, was that people were speaking as if the only people involved in abortions were the mothers in crisis who sought them out. But there’s another group of people involved as well — abortionists, and the people who work in abortion clinics.

Over the past few months, we have seen the undercover videos that have exposed Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish trafficking in the body parts of aborted babies. We are naturally appalled, and angry. Our first impulse is to condemn, not just the ideologies that led them to act this way, but also the persons themselves.

This is where the Church — and through her, Jesus himself — enters the conversation.

Pope Francis’ has consistently stressed several basic Gospel messages — the call to encounter and accompany people, and the notion that realities are more important than ideas.

Too often we think of abortion situations through a particular frame — whether it’s the ideology of “reproductive choice” or pro-life principles — that keeps us on the level of ideas and can even de-humanize those we are dealing with. But we are not dealing with abstractions, but with people — not just the woman in crisis who entered that clinic and her vulnerable unborn child, but the clinic workers as well. And we must encounter them all as real human beings , including those who are performing abortions.

From this perspective, the Church can invite clinic workers and abortions to embrace what they really need deep down — a softening of their hearts through the mercy and love of God.  They can be led, perhaps by our compassion and prayer, to a conversion of heart so they can encounter the women and unborn children who come to their clinics as people, and not as clients or as raw biological materials.  If God’s grace can can bring them to that point, we can then accompany them on their path, offering prayer, love and practical help. Former clinic worker Abby Johnson’s ministry, And Then There Were None, is a very good example of this.

The message of the Church to those involved in performing abortion is the simple message of Jesus himself — an offer of mercy and an invitation to conversion: “You don’t have to be that way. There is another path, one that leads to happiness and peace. The message of mercy and a new life is for you too. We’re all on that same path. Come walk with us.”

Knowing and Caring

Tuesday, August 4th, 2015

In the last few weeks, there have been a series of news stories about the horrific practices of the group I like to call the Temple of Moloch because of their devotion to the destruction of children — Planned Parenthood.

The videos were taken by a man who assumed a false identity so that he could meet with staff members of Planned Parenthood, to gain information about their practices of “harvesting” fetal tissue from aborted children. As an aside, I have previously expressed my opinion that these “undercover” tactics involve immoral acts of lying to the Planned Parenthood staff: see here  and here. The immorality of the undercover operation, however, does not affect the truth of what was exposed.

The videos expose yet another ugly face of abortion. The Planned Parenthood staff members coldly and callously discuss how they “harvest” organs and other tissue for use in experiments, and how they carefully maneuver to barely avoid violating federal laws against the sale of human tissue. If ever we wanted proof of the corrosive effect of sin on the human soul and character, these videos would be Exhibit One.

Many pro-lifers are hoping that these new revelations will be a landmark event, providing the public with irrefutable evidence of the evil of abortion and the humanity of unborn children. This, they hope, will turn the tide against the Culture of Death. I wish with all my heart for that to be true, but in order for that to happen, there’s one essential step that has to be taken.

People need to start caring.

It has been evident for many years, and certainly since routine ultrasounds for pregnant women, that people are either well aware of the humanity of the unborn child, or they are culpably blind to that fact.  The truth of what abortion does is clear for any to see, especially since the major debate over partial birth abortion two decades ago.  With the advent of the internet age, all the facts are out there, as easily accessible as a quick trip to Wikipedia.  Our lawmakers certainly know what abortion is and what it does — the various methods were even explicitly described in blood-chilling detail in a famous Supreme Court decision.

The problem really isn’t that people lack sufficient knowledge.  It’s that people just don’t care enough for things to change.

Our modern society is built on a foundation of sexual liberation.  Contraception, with abortion as a back-up method, is an essential component of that.  And the sad fact is that a majority of the American people are so committed to sexual liberty that they are willing to tolerate a massive number of abortions — almost 1 million each year.  They are also willing to provide massive amounts of money — over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money — to support Planned Parenthood, which kills over 300,000 children every year.

This can change.  People can declare that “enough is enough”.  They can show compassion for every human child, and for mothers in difficult situations. They can decide not to support legalized killing of children.  They can elect representatives who will change our laws.  They can reject death as the easy answer to all of our problems.

We already know all that we need to know.  We need to care.

The Radicalism of Roe v. Wade

Wednesday, December 17th, 2014

During his tireless campaign to promote abortion here in New York, Governor Cuomo has repeatedly alleged that his Abortion Expansion Act would do nothing other than codify the law as established in Roe v. Wade in our state law.  Journalists and editorial boards have parroted this argument.

It’s essential that we grapple with this baseless claim, for several reasons.  One of the best ways to do so would be to pick up a copy of Clarke Forsythe’s new book, Abuse of Discretion.  In this very important work, Forsythe examines the shoddy, unprofessional way in which Justice Blackmun and his allies on the Supreme Court invented the holding in Roe without regard to basic principles of justice and fairness, and without any concern about the dangers to women that would come from legalizing abortion.

There are four important points that we should consider, so that we understand just how radical Roe really was, and thus how extreme the Governor’s proposal is.

First, we have to understand that the legal standard established in Roe was extremely liberal, and established a regime of abortion on demand, for all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever.  Also, courts used it to strike down virtually every abortion regulation passed by state legislatures.

This can be seen clearly in the history of abortion decisions after Roe — virtually no regulations affecting abortion survived judicial scrutiny, including many common sense proposals like health and safety regulations and parental involvement laws. In essence, the entire abortion industry was exempted from any accountability or oversight.

Second, we also have to recognize that even the Supreme Court eventually backed away from the extremism of Roe, and eventually adopted a standard that permitted more leeway for states to regulate abortion. This led to the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, the Court transformed the applicable legal standard in a way that made it possible for states to regulate abortion in more ways (e.g., by enacting bans of partial birth abortions, clinic health and safety regulations, etc.).

As a result, the governor’s proposal would actually enshrine the high-water mark of liberal abortion law, and ignore the subsequent legal developments that have pared that standard back towards a more reasonable system. It would lock in place an abortion law that is extremely permissive and hostile to any attempt to regulate or restrict the practice in any way.  It would create a system of abortion with impunity.

Third, we have to appreciate what a terrible piece of law Roe actually was — which speaks volumes about why we shouldn’t want anything to do with it here in New York.   I’m pretty cynical about what goes into judicial decisions, but even I was appalled at Forsythe’s account — backed by meticulous research — of the way that the Justices manipulated, schemed, and maneuvered in preparation for the Roe decision. They heedlessly took the case under false pretenses (supposing that it was to be decided on merely a procedural point of law), and disregarded the need for any facts about the nature and impact of abortion. They irresponsibly failed to consider the devastating impact their decision would have on public health as a result of invalidating every abortion law in the nation, and removing abortion from any possibility of further regulation.

Finally, and most importantly, Forsythe exposes, based on an astonishing number of scientific and medical studies, just how bad abortion on demand has been for women’s mental and physical health.   This includes short and long-term physical side effects and complications from the surgery, a correlation with a host of mental health problems, increased risks of breast cancer, plus the horrors that have occurred at unlicensed and unregulated clinics.  The simple fact is that abortion is not good for women.

This is the tragically misguided abortion regime that our Governor wishes to foist upon New York. I heartily recommend that people should read Clarke Forsythe’s excellent and important book, Abuse of Discretion, to understand just how radical, and how dangerous, that would be.

How the Abortion Expansion Act Would Let Non-Doctors Do Abortions

Thursday, December 4th, 2014

The debate continues over Governor Cuomo’s abortion expansion plan (currently packaged as the tenth point, “Part J”, of his Women’s Equality Act). The current trope being used by the WEA’s backers and abortion supporters is that in opposing the bill, we are not being truthful in saying that the bill would allow non-doctors to do abortions. Part of the way that they make this argument is to ask “show me where it says that in the bill”.

Permit me to do so, in four easy steps.

Step One — Current New York law permits only doctors to perform abortions (see Penal Law section 125.03(3)).

Step Two — The WEA states that:

No prosecution or proceeding shall be brought or maintained under the penal law or otherwise for acts that are authorized or permitted pursuant to this section or by this chapter and the education law (Part J, Section 1, emphasis added)

Step Three — Title 8 of the Education Law governs the practice of various health professions (e.g., doctors, nurses, physician assistants, midwives, etc.) health professionals. Under that law, the New York State Education Department has wide authority to define the “scope of practice” for professionals — in other words, what procedures they can perform within the law. As a result, the WEA would give the New York State Education Department Office of the Professions the authority to permit non-doctors to perform surgical and chemical abortions, simply by re-defining their “scope of practice”.

Step Four — Disregard everything I just said, and listen instead to the words of Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, the chairman of the Assembly Health Committee, one of the leading experts in health care law and policy in the Legislature, and a co-sponsor of the WEA. In a letter to constituents, Mr. Gottfried says:

The current New York law only allows a physician to perform an abortion. However, there are forms of abortion that are well within the ordinary scope of practice of physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Since, under Roe, abortion should be regulated on the same terms as other health care, the physician-only provision should be repealed and the ordinary rules of scope of practice should apply. The WEA language would do this. (emphasis added)

There it is, plain and simple.  So, the next time a newspaper editorial accuses us of lying, or a public official asks “where does it say that in the bill”, just hand them a copy of this blog post.  And then ask them, “do you really think it’s a good idea for non-doctors to be doing invasive, risky surgery on women?”

The Culture of Death and Lawlessness

Wednesday, September 17th, 2014

The Culture of Death is a culture of lawlessness.  Once our nation violated the natural law by permitting the killing of innocents by abortion, it inevitably began to ignore or jettison other laws as well.  You can see this in what passes for Supreme Court “jurisprudence” on abortion, which has regularly invented Rube Goldberg-like legal arguments, twisted precedents, and distorted the meaning of language in order to perpetuate an unjust regime under which unborn children have no rights that our lawmakers are bound to respect.

News in the past few days has brought new evidence of the inherent lawlessness of the Culture of Death.  A report by the Congressional Accountability Office has revealed that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has resulted in massive taxpayer subsidizing of elective abortion.

Remember, the Act was passed largely because of last-minute promises by the Administration.  They gave assurances that people would be able to buy plans that don’t cover elective abortions, and that no taxpayer funds would be used directly or indirectly to pay for elective abortions.  Health plans offered through the state exchanges would be permitted to cover abortion, but no taxpayer-funded subsidies were supposed to be used to buy coverage for elective abortion.  Insurers that covered elective abortions would be required to collect a separate payment from policy holders, in order to ensure that taxpayer subsidies did not pay for abortions.

Many of us doubted the sincerity of those promises at the time and were dubious of the Administration’s commitment to put them into practice.  Our pessimism has proven to have been right. The GAO’s report found the following:

  • Twenty-eight states allow insurance plans sold on their exchanges to cover abortion. In those 28 states, 1,036 plans include elective abortion coverage, while 1,062 only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or to preserve the mother’s life.
  • Every single taxpayer-supported plan sold in New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii covers elective abortion.
  • Other states, including our own, are nearly as bad — in New York, 405 out of the 426 plans offered cover elective abortions. In Massachusetts, 109 out of 111 cover abortions. In California, 86 out of the 90 plans cover it.  In these large states, between 95% and 98% of plans cover elective abortion.
  • The GAO specifically interviewed 18 insurers, who offered three-quarters of the coverage in the twenty-eight states that allow abortion coverage.  Fifteen confirmed that they covered all abortions, none of them charged separately for abortion coverage, and none of them even itemized the coverage on their bills.
  • To put it plainly, the law is being ignored on a massive scale.  Every American taxpayer is now paying for elective abortion, and millions of pro-life Americans have no choice but to pay out of their own pockets for the death of innocents.

    So much for promises and assurances from this lawless Administration, whose commitment to the Cult of Moloch is absolute.

    The Culture of Death corrupts everything it touches.  It has corrupted our legal and medical professions, and the rule of law itself.

    A Welcome, Disappointing Decision

    Monday, June 30th, 2014

    Pro-Lifers rarely win court cases, so it is very gratifying to win one in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, even in victory, there is disappointment, and a sense that the constitutional rights of pro-life people have been relegated to second-class status.

    The case was McCullen v. Coakley, and it arose out of a terrible Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. Pro-lifers were prohibited from entering that zone, which effectively banned any attempt to speak to women seeking abortions (“sidewalk counseling”) completely. However — and this is crucial — abortion clinic staff were permitted to be in the zone and speak to the women who were approaching the clinic.

    The Supreme Court, by a unanimous decision, found that the law was unconstitutional. However, the Court’s unanimity is actually deceiving — although all nine justices agreed that the law was invalid, the Court was actually split 5 to 4 on the reasoning. And the reasoning of the majority is very troubling.

    One of the fundamental principles of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is that the government cannot pass a law that is based on the content of a person’s speech, and that discriminates against one particular point of view. The principle is called “viewpoint neutrality”.  The majority found that the Massachusetts law did not violate the requirement of neutrality, but still found the law unconstitutional because it burdened speech more than was necessary to fulfill the government’s legitimate objectives.

    But that reasoning is gravely flawed.  Take it out of the abortion context for a second. Consider the hypothetical case of a law that places a buffer zone around a mine entrance where there is a highly contentious strike taking place. Imagine that the law prohibits striking miners from being in that zone, but allows management employees to be in the zone and speak openly to strike-breaking workers seeking to enter the plant. Can anyone imagine a court upholding such an obviously biased law? Of course not — it would be a clear case of the government taking sides in a strike, and showing favoritism towards one point of view.

    The Massachusetts statute is exactly the same, and is clearly not “viewpoint neutral”. It was specifically designed and intended to prosecute and deter only pro-life speakers, while giving pro-abortion speakers free reign to speak and act.

    Nevertheless, the majority of the Court, led by the Chief Justice, implausibly concluded that the law was “viewpoint neutral”, because on its face it did not single out pro-life speech. This is absurd — everybody understands very clearly what the goal and effect of this law is.  As Justice Scalia stated in his concurring opinion,

    The obvious purpose of the challenged portion of the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act is to “protect” prospective clients of abortion clinics from having to hear abortion-opposing speech on public streets and sidewalks.

    In short, although the Court unanimously struck down the law, there is only a minority of Justices who believe that pro-lifers deserve the full protection of the Constitution. This follows a disturbing trend in the Supreme Court, in which abortion distorts the Constitution — indeed, abortion corrupts everything it touches.

    Again, to quote Justice Scalia:

    Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.

    So, while it’s good that we’ve won a big case, it’s clear that pro-lifers continue to be treated as second-class citizens in our courts.

     

    Unsafe and Uncaring

    Thursday, April 10th, 2014

    It has long been suspected that the abortion industry in New York is essentially an unregulated operation.  There are some rules and regulations on the books that require certain minimal health and safety conditions at clinics, and requirements that clinics be licensed.  But up until now, it wasn’t known whether the government ever enforced these rules.

    Now we know.  They don’t enforce them.  They obviously don’t care about health and safety inside abortion clinics.  It’s clearly an untouchable industry.

    Last year, the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a staunch pro-life organization, filed Freedom of Information requests with the New York City and New York State Health Departments, asking them for information about inspections of abortion clinics in New York City.  The City Health Department immediately ducked, claiming that they have never done an inspection because, they claim, only the State has jurisdiction.

    The State Health Department dragged their feet, and eventually the Chiaroscuro Foundation had to sue them to get access to the public records.  After much wrangling in court, the State produced some records, and what they contained was truly appalling.  Here’s how Chiaroscuro described it:

    The New York State Health Department has failed to inspect the majority of the state’s estimated 225 abortion clinics and several of the clinics that have been inspected were cited for cringeworthy violations, according to Freedom of Information Law documents obtained by the Chiaroscuro Foundation.

    Over the course of more than a decade, there were zero inspections of unlicensed clinics offering abortion services and of the state’s 25 licensed clinics, eight of those clinics were not inspected at all. A mere 45 inspections were conducted over that time period and no clinics were inspected on an annual basis.

    The 17 clinics that did receive inspections revealed disturbing violations, including an Anesthesiologist cited for relying on a broken monitor to assess the patient’s vital signs, failure to ensure a registered professional nurse is present in the recovery room to monitor post-operative patients and unsanitary practices of reusing suction tubing for aspiration of human contents. The State Health Department has refused to disclose the names of the clinics who committed violations, making it impossible for women to know which clinics are sanitary and safe…

    There were 1,145,261 abortions performed in New York City from 2000-2012 a total of 1,515,108 in New York State from 2000-2012.

    Click on this link to the description of the actual inspection violations that were found, if you have a strong stomach.

    Now think about this for a minute:

    No inspections of unlicensed clinics in the last decade.  None.  

    No routine annual inspections of any clinics.  None.

    And only now, after a decade of neglect of their duties, a year after receiving the FOIL request, but within days of being publicly embarrassed in the New York Post, the State Health Department is finally scrambling to do inspections — but of only the licensed clinics.  The unlicensed places will continue to operate in the shadows with impunity.

    And this is the state where the Governor wants to expand access to abortion?  Despite being right next door to the state where late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell butchered women and children for years in an un-inspected clinic?  Seriously?

    The old “pro-choice” mantra was “safe, legal and rare”.  They clearly don’t care about rare, and they clearly don’t care about safe.  But they sure care a lot about doing whatever it takes to make sure it’s “legal” — regardless of the risks to women and children.

    Truth and the Governor’s Abortion Expansion Plan

    Friday, March 21st, 2014

    Catholics from around New York State made the trek to Albany on March 19, to join in the “Catholics at the Capital Day”.   One of the major that we went there to discuss was Governor Cuomo’s abortion expansion plan, which is part of a bill with the name, “Women’s Equality Act”.

    Many of the participants in the day, when speaking with their “pro-choice” legislators, were accused of lying about the contents of the WEA.  Unsurprisingly, these ill-informed solons were just repeating the propaganda talking points put forward by the pro-abortion lobbying groups.

    So it’s worth taking a few minutes to review the truthfulness of the two essential arguments that we are making about this bill:

    The WEA would expand abortion

    It is true that the expressed purpose of the abortion provisions in the “Women’s Equality Act” is to “protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion…  as established in Roe v. Wade”.  But this bald statement is used by pro-abortion advocates to claim that the bill does nothing more than to “codify existing law”.

    In fact, the Governor’s proposal is much more radical, and would expand abortion rights far beyond current federal and state law.

    The fundamental reason for this is that Roe v. Wade is no longer the controlling federal constitutional standard on abortion.  The legal standard established in Roe was very liberal, and courts used it to strike down virtually every abortion regulation passed by state legislatures.  But as time went along, the Supreme Court backed away from the extremism of Roe, and eventually adopted a standard that permitted more leeway for states to regulate abortion.  This led to the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which purported to retain the “central holding” of Roe, but which actually transformed the applicable legal standard in a way that made it somewhat more possible for states to regulate abortion successfully.

    So if the goal is really to “codify” current federal constitutional law on abortion, a reference to Roe is completely misplaced.  This proposal would actually codify the high-water mark of liberal abortion law, and ignore the subsequent legal developments that have pared that standard back.  It would lock in place an abortion law that is extremely permissive and hostile to any attempt to regulate or restrict the practice in any way.

    In addition, the proposal not only ignores the current constitutional standard, it also ignores other important developments that have already been codified in federal  law — like the Hyde Amendment (restrictions on public funding), the partial birth abortion ban, the criminalization of violence against unborn children (Lacy and Conner’s Law), and more robust conscience protections (like the Church Amendment and the Hyde-Weldon Amendment).

    In fact, by appealing to the very liberal legal standard of Roe, the legislation sends a signal to the courts that they should strike down any reasonable regulation of abortion — like restrictions on public funding, a partial birth abortion ban, the criminalization of violence against unborn children, and robust conscience protections for medical practitioners who don’t want to participate in abortion.  It would make it difficult, if not impossible, to enact bills that enjoy wide public support in our state and across the nation — like restrictions on late-term abortions, health and safety regulations on abortion clinic , parental notification requirements and full informed consent provisions.

    So this proposal cherry-picks existing federal law, selecting only the liberalized pro-abortion elements that the advocates want, and rejecting the reasonable pro-life elements that they consistently oppose whenever they appear.

    By any standard, that’s an expansion of abortion.

    The WEA permits non-doctors to do late-term abortions

    A second major argument that we offer is that the bill would allow non-doctors to do surgical abortions, even up until the moment of birth.

    The bill accomplishes this by repealing the current requirement that only doctors can perform abortions (a provision found in the Penal Law).  Instead, it would grant the Health Department broad authority permit anyone — even non-health professionals — to do abortions.  It would immunize any non-doctor abortionist from any criminal prosecution, for practicing medicine without a license, or any kind of professional misconduct action.

    In other words, the Governor’s law would permit abortion with impunity for anyone who has the approval of the Health Department — whose highest officials are, naturally, appointed by this ardently “pro-choice” Governor.

    It actually gets worse.  The bill would permit abortion of any child who is not “viable” for any reason, at any time in the pregnancy.  But this key term is completely undefined in the bill — it would be left entirely in the discretion of the abortionist to determine if a child is “viable” or not, with no legal standard to go by and no requirement that any other person (much less a trained doctor) concur with that determination.

    Think about that for a second.  This bill would allow non-doctors, people with far less training and experience than physicians, to make their own decisions about whether a baby could survive outside the womb, and then to perform surgery to kill that child — even up to the moment of birth.

    By the way, this is not just us making this claim.  Pro-abortion supporters  conceded on the floor of the Legislature last June that the bill would allow non-doctors to do abortions, and at least one influential legislator is writing to constituents that it is a major goal of the bill.

    So what’s the truth about the WEA?

    We already have over 100,000 abortions in New York State.  The great majority of them are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.  More African-American babies in New York are aborted than are allowed to be born.   37% of pregnancies in New York City end in abortion.

    That’s the truth.  That’s the tragedy of abortion in New York.  And we need more truth, less tragedy.