US abortion-related news

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
US abortion-related news
25
Fri, 06-29-2007 - 10:27pm

For those that are interested:

~~~Kansas AG Morrison Ends Investigation of Planned Parenthood Affiliate Accused of Illegal Late-Term Abortions, Drops Half of Tiller Charges
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison (D) on Tuesday in a letter to Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney representing Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said he has ended the investigation against a clinic operated by the organization in Overland Park, Kan., for allegedly performing illegal late-term abortions. Former state Attorney General Phill Kline (R) in 2004 subpoenaed the records of 90 women and girls who in 2003 underwent late-term abortions at Comprehensive Health, which is operated by PPKM. Kline also subpoenaed the records at Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, Kan., saying there is probable cause that each record contains evidence of a felony. The state Supreme Court in February 2006 ruled that Kline can seek access to the records but that he must return to Shawnee County, Kan., District Court Judge Richard Anderson and present his reasons for seeking the subpoenas. Anderson turned over the records to Kline's office in November 2006 after removing information that would identify individuals. Morrison in the letter to Irigonegaray wrote, "Our investigation is now complete, and we have found no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by your client." He added, "As a result, we will not be filling any charges against your client."
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/166721.html

~~~Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Teacher Challenging Ohio Law on Union Membership Due to Abortion-Rights Stance
U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost on Thursday ruled an Ohio law that allows only members of religions with "historically held conscientious objections" to union membership to opt out is discriminatory. The case involves Carol Katter, a Catholic teacher in the St. Mary's School District in western Ohio who opposes abortion rights. Katter said she refused to pay dues to the National Education Association because she said the union supports abortion rights. Katter sued the State Employment Relations Board after the panel ruled against her claim for a religious exemption. Frost in his ruling wrote that the law discriminates among religions by recognizing the Mennonite and Seventh-day Adventist objections to joining unions while denying the same right to others. "The statute further differentiates between two employees who have the same religious beliefs, are members of churches with formal doctrines against supporting labor unions, but one of the churches has recently embraced a doctrine, while the other has historically embraced it."
http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/06/26/UNION.ART_ART_06-26-07_A4_B274MCT.html

~~~Louisiana: The House on Tuesday voted 104-0 to pass a bill (HB 614) that would ban so-called "partial-birth" abortion in the state and create criminal penalties for physicians who perform the procedure. The Senate passed the bill by a 36-0 vote on Monday, and the measure now goes to Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). Under the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Gary Beard (R), doctors who provide the procedure could receive fines up to $100,000 and jail sentences of up to 10 years. The ban would allow exceptions when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. Gov. Blanco has not indicated whether she would sign the measure.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2007
Sat, 06-30-2007 - 12:05am

Glad to hear about the first one.

Second situation, eh whatever. At this point I can't see it becoming issue enough to challenge abortions rights.

The third story, first they'd have to prove it was happening and second they simply don't recognize they are only making it more difficult for the women who need these procedures.

Thanks for sharing!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Sat, 06-30-2007 - 9:41am

Kansas late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller charge with 19 misdemeanor felony counts due to improper financial relationship with the physician that signed off on abortions. As lawmakers gear up for an election year, state proposals are being submitted to ban all procedures after 24 weeks unless to save the life of the woman.
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/171585.html

I'll just keep posted US abortion news updates in this thread, unless people post that they'd prefer separate threads.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2007
Sat, 06-30-2007 - 10:34am

So basically they are saying 19 out of the 380 late term abortions provided are being investigated, because of improper financial relationship with a second doc who signed off on the procedure.

Using mental health is going to be tricky no matter how hard you look at it. I honestly don't believe this to be an issue as this doesn't prove the 19 late term procedures done were illegal. I'll be interested to hear more about the improper financial relationship.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Sat, 06-30-2007 - 8:19pm
New Hampshire Repeals Parental Notice of Abortion.
~~~CONCORD, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch signed legislation Friday that made New Hampshire the first state to repeal a law requiring a parent be notified before a minor received an abortion. The 2003 law never took effect because of a court challenge, and the repeal took effect immediately.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062901781.html
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Sat, 06-30-2007 - 8:25pm
Georgia Law Requiring Ultrasound Availability Goes Into Effect Tomorrow
(voted in months ago)
~~~The "Women's Right to Know Act" requires that medical providers offer a woman who wishes to terminate her pregnancy a look at an ultrasound image of her fetus as well as an opportunity to listen to the fetal heartbeat if one is present. The woman could refuse but she would have to sign a form confirming that the offer had been made.
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6732377
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Sun, 07-01-2007 - 7:45pm
This law bothers me. Are they going to require a woman who must have an abortion to save her life to either look or sign-off on it? This is just disgusting.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Sun, 07-01-2007 - 8:02pm

<>
http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release032207.html

I think they mean that those states require that the woman either look or sign paperwork stating that she was provided the opportunity. This is corroborated by a recent story from the abortion support board. (Is it wrong to refer to their experiences here? Theirs is the most recent experience I would be able to find. No names, tons of respect).

This does seem like harassment to me. I mean, as far as I understand, there will be an ultrasound no matter what in order to make sure the pregnancy isn't ectopic. This is why women cannot get abortions prior to about 6 weeks' gestation - if they can't visualize the sac they won't go ahead with anything just in case she really needs abdominal surgery because it's actually outside the uterus entirely. Any woman who wants to see will have several minutes with the person providing the ultrasound, that's plenty of chance to see it if she wants. My opinion.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Mon, 07-02-2007 - 10:26am

Mississippi Supreme Court Rejects Case Challenging Constitutionality of State's Parental Consent Law To Be Used as Defense in Criminal Case

The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday declined to hear an appeal of a case that challenges whether the state's parental consent law for abortion can be used as a defense in a criminal case, the AP/Jackson Clarion-Ledger reports. Mississippi law allows minors to obtain an abortion with either parental consent or a judicial waiver.

The case involves a Columbus, Miss., woman named Charlotte Sherron who in 2004 was sentenced to three years in prison with two years of post release supervision for attempting to hide her husband's crime of statutory rape by assisting the survivor, her 13-year-old daughter, in obtaining an abortion. The Mississippi Court of Appeals in 2006 unanimously upheld the conviction. The court ruled that by consenting to an abortion for her daughter, Sherron helped hide her husband's crime by removing its most obvious evidence.

In the 8-0 decision, former Judge Leslie Southwick wrote that while Sherron's case raised a constitutional question of criminalizing a "parent's decision to consent to a minor child's abortion," Sherron waived it at the trial court level, and there was no reason for the appellate court to address the issue. Southwick also wrote, "Sherron argues that even though the constitutional right is with the minor, a parent's fundamental right is to assist in a minor child's pursuit of an abortion," adding that "prosecuting the parent would under this argument constitute an undue burden on the child's right."

However, Appeals Court Judge Larry Roberts wrote that there was no constitutional conflict and the court should confirm that position. "In this case, Sherron's conviction did not restrict her daughter's right to an abortion, it established a restriction on Sherron's right to conceal the fact that her husband committed statutory rape of her own daughter," Roberts said (Elliott, AP/Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 6/28). He also said that he could not see how "prohibiting a parent from concealing the fact that their spouse committed statutory rape against their minor child amounts to a substantial obstacle to that minor child's right to an abortion." Roberts added, "I find no constitutional protection that effectively immunizes Sherron's behavior" (Elliott, Associated Press, 6/28).
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/NEWS/706290351/1001/news

***
This one's pretty convoluted... I am miserable at reading legal material but I think the mother of the girl was trying to say that she couldn't be guilty of hiding her husband's rape of her daughter because it was unconstitutional for her to have consented to the girl's abortion. If I'm getting it right, that is really really sad and twisted. I hope that girl is okay.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 07-02-2007 - 11:19am

Is this supposed to be a case for allowing girls to obtain an abortion *without* parental or judicial consent?

Sue

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Mon, 07-02-2007 - 11:24am

<>

...yes. I think. From the sickest, most twisted motive I have seen in the courts in a long long time.
But the Courts threw it out, so it's merely a display of human misery.

Pages